Bible Study Did Eve Command Adam To Sin?

[Deborah13]

The infraction still took. Adam was not given ignorance as an excuse. If you read God's Law, you'll find ignorance is never an excuse for guilt.

But I can't think of anywhere where God punished someone for ignorance. Can you?

 

[About the Son of God]

`

I have been down this road theologically and in the depths of Christian think tanks. What I am about to post is no indication of superiority or inferiority. Both the man and the woman had the opportunity and the potential to do the one thing God forbade them to do. The ONE thing. Before the Decalogue was the Monologue. Do not this one thing... [[[ sigh ]]]

Yes. But as a monolog, it was not stated in the form of the Greatest commandment upon which all others come; rather it was stated in an obscure form about some fruit.

If Adam was observant of the snake's sales pitch to Eve ("who was with her") then Adam was also deceived in that he ate the forbidden fruit along with Eve. Adam may have been with her, but he was unaware what was going on. Otherwise the account in 1 Timothy 2:14 is just plain wrong. Adam had to be deceived if he ate the fruit believing it would not produce the results God said it would and that it would produce the results Satan lied about.

I agree, at least in a general way.

Some teach Adam knowingly ate the fruit willing to accept the consequences because he loved her so much. This cannot be true either. The Bible says Adam listened to the voice of his wife. There was no falling on his own sword... no lover's leap... Something Eve said to Adam got him to eat the forbidden fruit, yet somehow he was not deceived in doing so.

This is where I become unsure. There is something subtle going on.
Adam, if not deceived, by eating the fruit is essentially doing the metaphorical equivalent of falling on his own sword, eating poison, risking death. It's not a sword, to be sure -- but God did say eating it would bring death, Adam was not decieved, Adam ate -- therefore, Adam knew he was risking suicide / execution.

So; Adam's action doesn't seem less dramatic to me than what Moses did in Exodus 32:32-33 "if you write them out of your book, write me out also!"

eg: When Moses very shrewdly stood in the breech.

For God said to Moses, that [God] was willing to wipe everyone else out -- and could start a new nation through Moses alone, eg: as a separate seed from Israel. Exodus 34:10, Exodus 32:9-10

But, what Moses was counting on is that God already made an oath, and promise, through Abraham; and so God could not wipe everyone out without exception ; he had to save, resurrect, do *something* in order to fulfill his promise and oath . Therefore, when Moses places everyone (including himself) on the chopping block, he is playing an extremely high stakes gamble that relies on God's goodness.
Moses was not deceived, either -- and there was something very subtle about the test Moses underwent; the outcome of which was clearly pleasing to God.

I don't know that such a view applies to Adam, but I do see the potential for that kind of interpretation. It's something I'm praying about, and thinking over slowly.

The third and last alternative was that in a panic (sheer horror, I'd imagine) and in her new fallen nature she fed the fruit to Adam who did not question where it came from and he ate. Her voice may simply have been "here try this..."

Ah, some say, then Adam WAS deceived...

No. Adam was not deceived.

Then Adam was quite depressed. She's dead, what's the point of going on living... ?
Or, since her eyes were not opened -- her nature had not yet changed?

So -- why can't someone just view it as a tragedy, like Romeo and Juliet, or any number of other tales... drama, drama, she's dead, I might as well die too... and two wrongs might as well be right, because I'm really depressed right now !! :biggrin
Stab stab...

Adam, if this is the way it happened which all the scriptures apparently line up with, was defrauded. His trust was betrayed. But he did not change his understanding of what the forbidden fruit was and that it was still on God's extremely short DON'T DO list.

The infraction still took. Adam was not given ignorance as an excuse. If you read God's Law, you'll find ignorance is never an excuse for guilt.

You mean, God's law as man understands it, or do you mean God's enforcement of that law?
I'm not sure what you mean. My entire conception of what happened in Genesis is based on Eve being deceived, and therefore at least partially ignorant.

I've always understood that ignorance can excuse guilt for transgression, but ignorance does not change the fact that there was a sin. (Guilt and sin are different kinds of things although sometimes the word for Guilt is translated a "having" Sin.) eg: I think Jesus says as much, when he points out that 'knowing' removes an excuse for guilt: John 15:22. "They would not be guilty" vs "no excuse/cloak for their guilt" (NIV) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 15:22&version=NIV

Or again, and far more poetically in the KJV: John 9:41

There is a moment, after Eve ate, but before Adam did when he had to reason out what the situation was that he was in. What would he have thought about Eve's Guilt and ignorance , and why ?

And man and woman have had the same basic relationship ever since (which is why people must be so very careful to choose their mate and lovers). The longer I live the more I see how dangerous it is to give one's self to anyone other than one who loves them as much as they love themselves and more... by fallen human nature (even among the brethren) there is trouble and danger and... well I've gone on and on...

Trust no one implicitly. Not even your own self. Trust only God.

Amen to that, John. Marriage can be a great blessing, but it can be an incredible pit of despair and sin, also.

 

[About the Son of God]

There is one element, that I think is being slightly overlooked; and perhaps would be worth noting:

Heav'n has no Rage, like Love to Hatred turn'd,
Nor Hell a Fury, like a Woman scorn'd. ( William Congreve ).

In Genesis, we are told that God brought to Adam, all the ''hayat" (eg: beasts/creatures) he had made. (Genesis 2:19-20)
Adam named them all, but notably scorned them all as a companion. ( But for Adam no suitable helper was found. )

In the original languages, the 'Eloym/gods/theoi' are spoken of as being involved in bringing to Adam from the ground, all the beasts of the field, and birds of the air; but I notice from the Hebrew/KJV that the wild beasts are a group not said in the previous verse to be among those made from the ground (Genesis 2:20), and since Satan or rather the Serpent ( οφις, הנחש) is wiser than any beast of the field (domesticated animals), or birds of the air, I am wondering if the name 'serpent' is perhaps numbered among the wild creatures that are not said to have been formed out of the Earth ( in the Hebrew/KJV). ( This is not a proof, just a note about two verses. )

None the less, even the Serpent has a name, and that name in Hebrew (serpent) apparently also means 'fire', and as a Hebrew pun then -- it's not surprising that an enlightened being would be thought of as wisdom/wise, lucifere, eg: bearing lsight;

So -- The name Adam gave Satan calling him a 'serpent' appears to be a very appropriate in many ways.

And what I am noticing is that the serpent, who was in the Garden, is a creature of fire/light/wisdom that I think Adam must have spurned as a companion just like every other creature in the garden. ( Genesis 2:20 -- but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. )

I suppose it best to clarify that I don't think of the serpent as a woman, for the serpent does not come from Adam, but rather like an imposter or transvestite, the Devil has often been spoken of in Christian writings from the time of Christ onward, as if it imitated a women, eg: as a seductress would. A sexual symbol, and often rather pornographic, in it's meaning. As if the devil were a lewd woman. That appears to line up nicely with the way Genesis is written.

Even in rock music today, I think one of the more popular songs from quite a few years back was "wild thing", referring to the seductive woman who (in the rock song) "moves me."; so we still have traces of the idea of 'wild' and 'seductive' belonging to the same thing.

So, in a theatrical sense; In Genesis I see something of a transvestite serpent, a truly "wild thing" who is envious of Adam's woman, that moves in for the kill. The body language would be quite interesting to interpret; for perhaps Eve was worried about loosing her man to someone else's wiles.... ?

eg: as a ficticious example, interpolating between the lines in scripture, the Devil would be perhaps suggesting something like:

Hey girl! Check out this glorious shine I have, you could eat the fruit and become like me (of the idols/gods).... no need to dye your hair, or anything; it's all in a convenient pill of a package ;) Adam always loved it, I should KNOW -- we go waaaay back, long before you came on the scene, honey.

 

[JohnD]

But I can't think of anywhere where God punished someone for ignorance. Can you?

Death itself. How many billions who died throughout human history were ignorant of the Law?

 

[handy]

It is Adam's innocence in his sin against God that ultimately allowed God to become a sinless man as Jesus Christ and die for all of mankind's sin (hint: which is why Jesus Christ is known as the second Adam).

And herein lies the problem with the theory... It directly contradicts Scripture. Adam was not deceived in his temptation. He fully knew what he was doing. There was no "innocence" in his sin.

Keep in mind that God did not give the commandment to Eve, but to Adam. And, when Adam gave the commandment to Eve, he added to God's commandment - he told her that even touching the fruit would kill her. This aided in Eve's deception. But, we are specifically told that Adam was not deceived.

I've never understood why some go to such great lengths to pull all the blame on Eve... now even making Eve almost equal to God (that should be a clue that this theory is misguided) and make Adam out to be an innocent, even heroic (I've heard theories that Adam sacrificed himself by sinning)...

Nope. Sin entered into this world through Adam, not Eve. Romans 5:12 Period. He was the head of this little household and he muffed it.

 

[LovethroughDove]

Genesis 3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

What happened here? Adam just ate what his wife gave him and didn't ask questions. If he had really cared what God had told him, he would've said, "Where did you get that?"

Just like in today's society, instead of people caring what God really says.........they eat whatever is given to them.

 

[About the Son of God]

Death itself. How many billions who died throughout human history were ignorant of the Law?

That thinking would be approached closest by the verse Romans 5:14. However, Even in Romans, I don't see where it's given as a punishment for their own transgression (having of sin). and I'd be interested in whether or not you could come up with a stronger example.

For: People can suffer death who have done no wrong, and so merely dying can't be seen as clearly being a punishment for a persons own sin done in ignorance. The clearest counter example is Jesus himself who died on a cross, not in punishment for his own sins -- but for the sins of everyone except himself, sins he took upon himself out of love for their salvation; even the sin of Adam. But even though Jesus was innocent and did not wrong, he still died.

I think what Deborah is asking for is an example where God decrees that the punishment is for a sin committed in ignorance by the person suffering death. I was tempted (before thinking about it carefully) to cite Adam's wife as an example, but her own words testify that she knew 'enough' about the law to be guilty, even if she was partially ignorant. So, ignorance comes in degrees... and partial ignorance only excuses guilt partially.

So, I'm thinking we need stronger biblical examples.... more extreme....

But, I find examples which obscure the relationship even more as soon as I start looking; for children of parents who receive the promise, even in the womb, are said to not have done 'right or wrong' ( In the same book, even, eg: Romans 9:11 ); and that means they have not sinned against the law even in ignorance.

Yet even children in the womb die when their mother is put to death for being a Christian, or Jew, and (?might? fulfil) Romans 5:14. ( Depending on what 'reign' means. )

Death of innocents has happened throughout history during persecutions ( at least thousands of pregnant women died in aushwitz) So it's clear that death comes even to the innocent of any sin. That's another reason I believe that death is not always about punishment for one's own sin.

On the other hand, there are children, clearly, who somehow mysteriously 'sin from the womb' ( Psalm 58:3 ), and so must be sinning in ignorance; but I've not checked the Hebrew and Greek to see what words were originally used -- so I'm not sure it's a good example ; but I offer it here for consideration / further study.

What I find, in general, is that throughout the bible God punishes in proportion to knowledge, and that ignorance can excuse sins partially:
Luke 12:47-48

 

[JohnD]

I strive to keep it as simple as possible. Point was made.

 

[About the Son of God]

OK. What point was made? I must be misreading what you said or something.

You said that 'ignorance is never an excuse for guilt' and then Deborah asked for a biblical example of where someone was punished for breaking the law, eg: in spite of ignorance.

Somehow, I missed where you showed an example of God punishing someone *because* they broke the law, and especially in ignorance of the law... ? what was the example ?

 

[childeye]

This is what bothers me about some of the posts on this thread. There are semantics which go unaddressed. Was Christ tempted? Yes he was tempted by Satan because Satan directly tempted him. But was he tempted as if he considered with any validity the propositions of the tempter? No, he was not tempted in that way for he was full of Truth. So here are two connotations of the word 'tempted' that are not the same since they end up with opposite answers.

Likewise Adam was not deceived by Satan, but Eve was. 1 Timothy 2:14 is not saying Adam knew exactly what he was doing as some of you suggest. This scripture is being taken out of context when being used to say Adam was not deceived and therefore knew exactly what he was doing. For why would Paul be saying, let the person, who knowingly and willingly distrusted God, be in charge of the one who was gullible but had to be fooled into distrusting God? That's like saying let the fox guard the hen house. So context matters.

Scripture specifically says that Adam's mistake was that he listened to the woman who was deceived. Adam was probably with mixed feelings, not knowing what to make of the slander about God presented by the serpent. Remember they have no knowledge of good and evil yet so it cannot even be ascertained that they knew what a lie is, or what guile is. Being unsure, Adam probably would have leaned toward dismissing it, but the conviction of the woman was against his better judgment and he therefore doubted himself, so he ate. Happens all the time between women and men. Men think higher of women than they ought.

Finally we have scriptural proof that Adam was indeed deceived in following the woman who followed the serpent, for Adam was already like God without the knowledge of good and evil. There is a false premise presented in the serpents temptation, which is where it gets its power to tempt. That is, that if you eat you will become like God, knowing good and evil. Genesis3:5. More semantics. Adam already was good in countenance and in righteousness, but since he did not know what evil is, he did not know what that goodness was that he already possessed. Therefore he was malleable.

 

[About the Son of God]

This is what bothers me about some of the posts on this thread. There are semantics which go unaddressed.

Psalm 119:105 Scripture is an lamp for the feet, a light for the path
I suppose it's not surprising that we can't see the whole path with just a flickering little lamp, we would need a floodlight or sonshine to see it all at once.

Was Christ tempted? Yes he was tempted by Satan because Satan directly tempted him. But was he tempted as if he considered with any validity the propositions of the tempter? No, he was not tempted in that way for he was full of Truth. So here are two connotations of the word 'tempted' that are not the same since they end up with opposite answers.

OK.

Likewise Adam was not deceived by Satan, but Eve was. 1 Timothy 2:14 is not saying Adam knew exactly what he was doing as some of you suggest.

I'm still trying to figure it out how much he knew and about what, exactly.

This scripture is being taken out of context when being used to say Adam was not deceived and therefore knew exactly what he was doing. For why would Paul be saying, let the person, who knowingly and willingly distrusted God, be in charge of the one who was gullible but had to be fooled into distrusting God? That's like saying let the fox guard the hen house. So context matters.

:neutral

There are two people who sinned; Eve is said to have been 'in the transgression' which means guilt. She was deceived about something, but in order to be guilty she could not have been deceived about everything.

Therefore; She's not an innocent hen... it's far more like a weasel guarding a badger's nest.

So, what's God's options:

Kill someone, make another someone to replace them ? ( DO OVER! )

Give dominion to the one who sinned AND shows incompetence, but still repented, or to the one who sinned, but is not and never was incompetent and who has now repented ?

I mean, does the scene about the fig leaves mean anything to you at all?

Or how about God doing the no-I-don't cow tow to animal rights activists, and God kills an animal to prove the point and make leather clothes for the man and woman so that they look like a biker gang and by his example teaches them that killing is a good way to make clothes, and let Adam know that God can wipe you out in an instant and make clothes out of you if you ever cross him again. A permanent reminder that you're gonna DIE someday! So, it's not like Adam is in charge... really...

Scripture specifically says that Adam's mistake was that he listened to the woman who was deceived.

I think it was a mistake ... but which verse is that, which specifically says it was a 'mistake' ?

I recall God saying something like, because you-listen [ aorist tense ] to the sound of your wife, and eat the fruit, she will re-turn-home to you [apostrophe] and groan but you will Lord it over her. ( That groaning part can be fun for some women, just not the grief part that I didn't mention. )

Adam was probably with mixed feelings, not knowing what to make of the slander about God presented by the serpent. Remember they have no knowledge of good and evil yet so it cannot even be ascertained that they knew what a lie is, or what guile is. Being unsure, Adam probably would have leaned toward dismissing it, but the conviction of the woman was against his better judgment and he therefore doubted himself, so he ate. Happens all the time between women and men. Men think higher of women than they ought.

Yeah. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Regarding those mixed feelings: There is a saying, "He who hesitates, is lost." and another saying about the voice of wisdom generally saying "watch them do it and see how it's done", whereas the voice of experience always says "OW!"

I made lots of excuses for why my girlfirend's actions were innocent years ago when I seriously doubt they were innocent, now. So I really hear what you're saying.... and back then, I really was an idiot who was controlled by my "feelings" ; however, those strong feelings which intoxicated me, I'm noticing, are exactly the same ones caused by seeing a woman's nakedness, that sort of sneak up and numb the intellect part of the brain in favor of the body -- and from what I read in Genesis, Adam didn't show signs of sexual passion difficulties until after eating the fruit... so, I think you're very close, but slightly off somehow.

Finally we have scriptural proof that Adam was indeed deceived in following the woman who followed the serpent, for Adam was already like God without the knowledge of good and evil.[ There is a false premise presented in the serpents temptation, which is where it gets its power to tempt. That is, that if you eat you will become like God, knowing good and evil. Genesis3:5. More semantics. Adam already was good in countenance and in righteousness, but since he did not know what evil is, he did not know what that goodness was that he already possessed. Therefore he was malleable.

God in his essence is all Good. In fact, really, only God is Good. God does not change. Therefore God is not 'malleable'.
God therefore, as God -- cannot 'know' (experientially) evil within himself. More of that semantics stuff...
But, assuredly, God who is all Good can still know *about* evil that is outside of himself.
Therefore it is not necessary to "know" evil, in order to "know" what Good is ; otherwise God would have to do evil, in order to know he is Good -- and that's as contradictory as Calvinistic double predestination stuff.... I'll never believe it.

That's why I agree with Malachi, I'm pretty sure the serpent said you will be like gods (ambiguous) -- and I don't think the serpent said you will be like God because I seriously doubt the Devil could even speak God's *personal* name for he hated him so much.

And in the end, God did say, the man has become like "ONE" of us, not like "all" of us, or united with US, or "one, like us", or even "us" as a whole; rather -- the speech singled out only "one of us", therefore I'm pretty sure it's not the trinity, because In the bible regarding the trinity, drawing from two places, the logic works out that:

When you have seen the Son, you have seen the Father -- for the Son is doing everything the Father doing.

So, I don't think there is an 'image' of God, or a likeness, where it doesn't apply equally well to more than one of the persons in the trinity.

Hence Adam must have become like the gods who knew evil because they were divisible (image wise) in a way that I don't think the trinity can properly be divided.

 

[childeye]

Psalm 119:105 Scripture is an lamp for the feet, a light for the path
I suppose it's not surprising that we can't see the whole path with just a flickering little lamp, we would need a floodlight or sonshine to see it all at once.

I try to ascertain the source and cause of the fall of man so as to understand why it happened and be confident as to how the solution solves it. I know the solution is in Christ, so that gives a clue as to what the problem is. Still it requires more than a little reverse engineering through revelation of the Christ via the Holy Spirit. For one lie is built upon another lie to hide the lie beneath it. The root cause is vanity in the creation because all created beings were ignorant of God's Person until Christ. Romans 1:21. 2 Corinthians 10:4-5. 1 Corinthians 2:7-8.

I'm still trying to figure it out how much he knew and about what, exactly.

I will first frame the question as: Did Adam know God was good as in trustworthy? Ultimately faith is going to be required since one cannot prove a negative... I will therefore re-frame the question, Did Adam know faith is necessary because accusation can always be manufactured through a wicked imagination?

There are two people who sinned; Eve is said to have been 'in the transgression' which means guilt. She was deceived about something, but in order to be guilty she could not have been deceived about everything.

Transgressor only means she crossed a line that shouldn't be crossed. We know she was deceived because God is not a liar as Satan implied. God does not rebuke her when she said she was beguiled, therefore it can be ascertained she is giving an honest account to Whom she is accountable. It's not that I think she even thought about God being a liar, anymore than she thought about the serpent being a liar in portraying God as a liar. After all the serpent was cunning in his presentation and did not say outright that God is a liar. She was beguiled through the sparkly imagining that things could be better than they were in paradise. For she saw that the fruit was good to eat for food and desirable for wisdom. Genesis 3:6. Guilt has two connotations, one is a verdict, and one is a matter of a convicted conscience. More semantics. She is guilty of being deceived/beguiled. I believe that the presence of a conscience that discerns good and evil does not appear in mankind until after eating, whereby they saw they were naked for the first time and were ashamed. But this is a deeper and complex issue concerning a defiled conscience. I'll just say it is possible to condemn one's self when you don't deserve it.

Therefore; She's not an innocent hen... it's far more like a weasel guarding a badger's nest.

The word innocence has two connotations. More semantics. There is innocence as in not guilty pertaining to condemnation and justification, then there is innocence as in not knowing good and evil, lies and honesty, etc... Some would call it naiveté. They were both innocent of the knowledge of good and evil before they ate. Therefore I think Eve was innocent and ignorant of such things and therefore was not able to see through the subtlety presented in Satan's insinuations. Therefore mercy and understanding are in order not condemnation. Let's cut to the chase here. The issue is freewill and personal responsibility. Unless we're prepared to say we would have done better than Adam or Eve if put in their shoes, then the accusations of their guilt should cease. Otherwise we are more than likely projecting our own wickedness upon Adam and Eve in self condemnation.

So, what's God's options:

Kill someone, make another someone to replace them ? ( DO OVER! )

Seeing as vanity is the problem, this is not an option. The same problem would just repeat itself. Vanity here is defined as taking God and what He gives us for granted, and it began with Satan not Adam. Another way of describing vanity is trying to add to or take away from what is Holy. God needs it to play out so that the creation can learn by seeing what is the end of it.

Give dominion to the one who sinned AND shows incompetence, but still repented, or to the one who sinned, but is not and never was incompetent and who has now repented ?

Respectfully, you are engaging more semantics. To be competent in an act of sin is not true competence but rather incompetence. Therefore I view this as an unqualified assessment. Please note that neither Adam nor Eve can truly repent without knowing first what they did wrong. And if they were to actually learn what they did wrong and more importantly how they were deceived into doing it, then they also must know they were both incompetent at the time. If they simply say they made the wrong decision however, that is only stating the obvious, particularly after being thrown out of the Garden to experience a harsher life. Being sorry for being thrown out is not true repentance. Therefore to frame the problem as they willingly and knowingly made a bad decision, does not display any new found competence through enlightenment.

I mean, does the scene about the fig leaves mean anything to you at all?

Sure. It's revealing some important information. That they found something wrong in their station where they had not found something wrong before. They hid from God.in a new found but un-established fear of scrutiny. And that their attempt to cover up was paltry and inadequate.

Or how about God doing the no-I-don't cow tow to animal rights activists, and God kills an animal to prove the point and make leather clothes for the man and woman so that they look like a biker gang and by his example teaches them that killing is a good way to make clothes, and let Adam know that God can wipe you out in an instant and make clothes out of you if you ever cross him again. A permanent reminder that you're gonna DIE someday! So, it's not like Adam is in charge... really...

Good point except for the animal rights activists part. I like animals. We are animals in a sense even as you have pointed out. Let's just say there are negative consequences for others beneath our station because of our sin. Romans 8:21-22. Realizing that and caring about it, brings about Godly sorrow and this is the beginning of True repentance. What remains is to understand why Adam and Eve did the wrong in the first place so as to not repeat it. To say they were not deceived is to not learn anything. 2 Corinthians 11:3.

That's why I agree with Malachi, I'm pretty sure the serpent said you will be like gods (ambiguous)

I've read Malachi's post. The fact remains and it is a fact, that Adam was deceived or else otherwise, God is a liar and a tyrant just as Satan claimed. Let's cut to the chase here. The issue is freewill and personal responsibility. Unless we're prepared to say and prove that we would have done better than Adam and Eve if put in their shoes, then the accusation should cease and mercy and understanding commence. Otherwise we are more than likely projecting our own wickedness upon Adam and Eve and will have to repeat the lesson all over again. The term wickedness in scripture is the innate disability to find something wrong with anything, including God. Matthew 11:18-19. The term responsible has two connotations. One is like saying a storm was responsible for the damage, which is a matter of circumstance that can't be helped. The other means the person was capable of acting responsibly but didn't, and so deserves condemnation. Freewill implies that people are always responsible in the latter form, in that they can not lie if they simply decided to. No thought is given that they who lie are deceived. But what does scripture say?
Let all men be liars that God be true. Romans 3:4.

And in the end, God did say, the man has become like "ONE" of us, not like "all" of us, or united with US, or "one, like us", or even "us" as a whole; rather -- the speech singled out only "one of us", therefore I'm pretty sure it's not the trinity, because In the bible regarding the trinity, drawing from two places, the logic works out that:

When you have seen the Son, you have seen the Father -- for the Son is doing everything the Father doing.

So, I don't think there is an 'image' of God, or a likeness, where it doesn't apply equally well to more than one of the persons in the trinity.

You make a good point. However there is a false image of god which is the source of vanity. The word 'us' is therefore most likely the angelic beings who have yet to know or rather understand the Person of God, the Creator, which is why they say let us make man in our image not knowing who they are. Hence Christ is the culmination of knowing and understanding the Person of the Creator through a flesh and temporal existence wherein the consequences of sin are a darkness prepared for the proper presentation of Light. After all one doesn't see the value of a flashlight in the noon day sun. Therefore the Holy Spirit testifies to both the Father and the Son so as to reveal Who God is. But that would mean the creation was deceived and made subject to vanity unwillingly. Romans 8:20

Hence Adam must have become like the gods who knew evil because they were divisible (image wise) in a way that I don't think the trinity can properly be divided.

More semantic confusion above. Sure Adam and Eve, after eating, possessed the knowledge of good and evil just like the God/gods did. That doesn't mean they were not like God in countenance to begin with and yet without the knowledge of good and evil. The lie needs the Truth so as to exist. The Truth does not need nor usurp from the lie. Good and evil are not equal components.