Eaten

3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

In context, it is clear that the speaker ("he") is God.

Again, he seems not to know what happened, although he does guess that Adam knew it was wrong to be naked because Adam knew right from wrong because Adam had eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Even better, he clearly isn't surprised about what happened when Adam ate from the tree.  He doesn't expect Adam to be dead.  In other words, God knowingly lied to Adam.  God knew that eating from the tree would cause Adam to realize he was naked; but God told Adam that he would die if he ate from the tree.  God didn't want Adam to know he was naked, and essentially threatened him to try to keep him from finding out.

The first question (Who told you that you were naked?) is an interesting one.  First, it probably doesn't literally mean that.  When it said earlier that "they knew that they were naked", that also wasn't literally true.  They presumably knew they were naked all along; that's a basic factual issue.  It's not like they were hallucinating clothes.  It just means that they realized it was wrong to be naked.  So the question is really "Who told you it's wrong to be naked?"  And that is what God didn't want Adam to know: that it's wrong to be naked.  And presumably God didn't want this for fear that Adam would get dressed.  That is, God wanted Adam to be naked, which is wrong; and to stay naked, which is wrong.  And God knew good from evil, so God knew that he wanted something which was wrong.  But he did it anyway.  In short, God is clearly acting evil here.

It's also interesting that the first question doesn't really have an answer.  It's just God's first guess.  Adam knows he's naked (or rather, that it's wrong to be naked) because ... someone told him.  But that's not true.  Second guess: because he ate of the tree.  Ok, right the second time.  But this certainly isn't describing a God that's infallible or all-knowing, or perhaps even the most subtil of creatures.

The clause in the second question is also telling: "that I commanded you not to eat", not "that I said you'd die if you ate".  This phrasing is because God knows that the lie is no longer convincing.  (I mean "God knows" rather literally here, of course, not as emphasis.)

So this tells us (1) that God needs to guess about what happened, and (2) that God knowingly and deliberately lied to Adam, and (3) that God specifically lied to prevent Adam from finding out it was wrong to be naked.

Also, this tells us that the serpent was correct when he said, "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." in 3:5.  So not only did God lie, and the serpent tell the truth about the fruit, the serpent also nailed God's motivation for lying.  Although it's not clear here that "knowing good and evil" is quite the same as "as gods".

This leaves us again wondering about the usual interpretation of this story.  Why is it so backwards?  Alternately, why is the story so weird?