God's injustice towards Adam and Eve

[John V]

As I see it, he was urging her to do so by trying to convince her that the action would be beneficial and not harmful.

Yes, and that's not an order.

That strikes me as hair-splitting. Eve gave him the fruit and he ate it. I think it's reasonable to assume that he saw this as, at the very least, a suggestion. Since the account says she gave it to him, as opposed to offering it, I think it's more than just suggestion.

But if we take it at face value there are no distinct commands to eat.

Yep.

So we can consider an alternative interpretation: the serpent doesn't command Eve to eat; all he does is remove an obstacle. When he tells Eve that she won't be harmed by the action of eating, but will instead gain something, she doesn't appear to hesitate in taking action. When she offers the fruit to Adam, he takes it and eats from it. Like Eve, there appears to be no hesitation in his decision-making.

It appears as if the only reason they refused to take the fruit before was the fear of consequence. This allows us to rule out the notion that they were simply following commands by rote.

Yep.

But there is a curious lack of introspection by the pair before they eat-- Eve doesn't seem at all concerned over the accusation that god lied to her, nor do she or Adam appear to be worried that they might disappoint or upset god. They do not appear to feel any guilt over this action-- they hide because they suddenly realize that they're naked, not because they felt remorse over what they did.

Could it be that god's only interaction with them to that point was to program them via commands and not make any sort of emotional connection with them? Why would they feel a need to hide their nudity from god? They weren't hiding anything he hadn't seen before! Why didn't they express any guilt or remorse? Why didn't Eve immediately challenge the serpent's version of the story, and instead take it at face value? Why didn't Adam express any of these concerns? I wonder how much of this is due to it being a story that was assembled from many divergent tellings, and how much is from a writer whose text editor consistent of a chisel.

So if the account recorded some internal debate by A&E you'd find it reasonable?