The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

[mutzrein]

I think the question was more about accountability. How can Adam be accountable to something he is not capable of discerning. Sure all of us can sit here today and say that "rebellion is sin ..disobedience is evil ..evil is sin", hence Adam sinned. Sure Adam sinned. But why is he accountable?

Kids go to heaven because of the "accountability" doctrine. They sinned but you say God doesnt hold them accountable. Now Adam NOT having any knowledge of "good and evil" was as innocent as a kid, even when he disobeyed. Not until after he ate the fruit did he understand good and evil and his sin. So why was he held accountable?

You act like you have NO knowledge of what happens when you do drugs or kill or jump off of a building. You not doing the above mentioned is BECAUSE you have knowledge of it even though you havent tried it. But Adam was IGNORANT of good and evil until he ate the fruit. So your argument is moot and your comparison doesnt do any justice against Adam's sin. If you had absolutely no knowledge of what happens when you jump off of a building, none whatsoever, would you not have ever tried it?

Each of us is accountable to our own master. Whether it be God or some earthly master and none of us can escape it. And if we do what we know is wrong then we are held accountable. And the consequence in this case was death.

 

[TanNinety]

Each of us is accountable to our own master. Whether it be God or some earthly master and none of us can escape it. And if we do what we know is wrong then we are held accountable. And the consequence in this case was death.

Did Adam know it was wrong to eat the fruit and to disobey which we have described as evil? If yes, then he had this knowledge BEFORE eating the fruit of "knowledge of good and evil". But the bible disagrees at that point that AFTER he ate the fruit was when his eyes were opened to good and evil. And if he didnt know that it was wrong to eat the fruit, then why make him accountable, according to your logic?

You brought up "consequence of death". Surely we will argue that there was no death before the sin of Adam because through his sin did death enter the world. So, Adam never experienced what death was first hand. If God told you, "Dont touch that cookie. If you do, you will be mortonpetrified". Now you know touch, you know cookie, but you have never experienced being "mortonpetrified". So would that be a fair warning to you about the consequence of something you cant relate to? And was Adam able to comprehend this consequence that he was not aware of? But hopefully this question will not deviate this thread too far off, because there is a very legitimate question in the OP.

The closest I can come to answering the question of the thread is that, knowledge of making the right and wrong decisions does not always come from the knowledge of good and evil. I haven't completely thought this through yet. Not sure how one can draw the line between right and wrong without the knowledge of good and evil, if there is a line that exists.

 

[John the Baptist]

Tan said:
The closest I can come to answering the question of the thread is that, knowledge of making the right and wrong decisions does not always come from the knowledge of good and evil. I haven't completely thought this through yet. Not sure how one can draw the line between right and wrong without the knowledge of good and evil, if there is a line that exists.
_________________
It is better to seek after truth than tradition


John thinks this is A-OK! :wink:
There are worlds that have not sinned! Never have & never will! Nahum 1:9 refers to earth's final tally as well! :fadein:

Surely they (other worlds) can now 'see' what satan's rebellion has done! : But the only thing that they might have [questioned] when satan (Lucifer) did rebel, & God removed him from their presence, did God need to do this?

So the Godhead has put theirself on trial so to speak, by even making mankind 'a little lower than the angels'. to prove by this creation that sin was not their doing, and that man (perfect Adam) did not need to sin in the first place! (compare Philipians 4:13, Romans 8:1 & 2 Corinthians 12:9)

This would have been a lingering question for some. The Godhead could have executed satan on the spot with their preexistence of 'their' foreknowledge. But because of others, the Godhead let satan live to prove for all eternity what 'sin' does. It had not been a tree that was the issue, but the Eternal Covenant with the first four Commandments of God's rulership being challenged! (like Rome Daniel 7:25)

So Adams sin was breaking the Eternal Covenant of the Godhead, with the fruit tree just the means of so doing. Compare Cain in Genesis 4:7 or any other sin.

The thing that you'ins need to know, is, is that sin has a starting point & an finished MATURE END! (Both directions)
Such as satans first sin, to his final rejection in heaven. (and Cains full mature rejection) See James 1:15 & 1 John 5:16-17 & Matthew 12:32 Notice that the tree in the garden is not mentioned! But there will be a FINAL TESTING again before it is FINISHED, that of 666. (and again the Eccl. verses!) And the FINAL END of Obadiah 1:16 for ALL Eternal Blantant Covenant breakers.

And notice that this too will be a history repeat test of Exodus 16:4 & taken right from the Eternal Covenant first table on the Godheads rulership! Exodus 16:27-28. Notice again that you will be tested on ALL MY LAW (v. 4's last part) on just the Sabbath Commandment. This my friend is not the Forbidden Tree in the [MIDST] of the Garden of Eden, huh? But most of today's ones know not what the fruit of Obedience is, in the first place! See Hebrews 6:1-5 & Acts 5:32

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

Can Adam and Eve be held accountable for their actions if they did not have knowledge of good and evil? Good question. In order to answer this question I’m going to try a different direction, of course in the end it may not answer the question.

At any rate let me start with these two questions first:

Is everyone, who has been posting in this topic, familiar with covenants? What is the first covenant found in the Bible (think about this before you answer, your first inclination may not be correct)?

(I realize you all may not see how this has anything to do with the topic but I assure you it does.)

 

[John the Baptist]

Can Adam and Eve be held accountable for their actions if they did not have knowledge of good and evil? Good question. In order to answer this question I’m going to try a different direction, of course in the end it may not answer the question.

At any rate let me start with these two questions first:

Is everyone, who has been posting in this topic, familiar with covenants? What is the first covenant found in the Bible (think about this before you answer, your first inclination may not be correct)?

(I realize you all may not see how this has anything to do with the topic but I assure you it does.)

****
Hi, I think that maybe we are on the same page of the BOOK (Hebrews 13:20) ?! :wink:

Anyway, Adam was created the day before the Lord's Sabbath day. I would surely think that the first sermon that Adam ever heard was one of warning!

If so, Adam was preached to about the 'sin' question, and the serpent that was cast out of heaven for the sin of Rebellion against the Godheads Eternal Covenant, huh?

If so, then did Adam not hear the 'actual' results of disobedience?
From a covering cherub to a cast out eternally ceased to exist doomed serpent! Obadiah 1:16

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

****
Hi, I think that maybe we are on the same page of the BOOK (Hebrews 13:20) ?! :wink:

Anyway, Adam was created the day before the Lord's Sabbath day. I would surely think that the first sermon that Adam ever heard was one of warning!

If so, Adam was preached to about the 'sin' question, and the serpent that was cast out of heaven for the sin of Rebellion against the Godheads Eternal Covenant, huh?

If so, then did Adam not hear the 'actual' results of disobedience?
From a covering cherub to a cast out eternally ceased to exist doomed serpent! Obadiah 1:16

Actually the first covenant found in the Bible is found in the book of Genesis. The first actual usage of the word covenant is found in Genesis 6:18, however; is it possible that the first covenant (even though the word was not used) took place before that? Again, think before you answer this questionâ€â€your first inclination may in fact be wrong.

Perhaps before the above question is answered it would be good to define what a covenant is, and what two types of covenants are found in the Bible.

 

[John the Baptist]

Hi, the Word of inspiration states it this way in Hebrews 13:

[20] Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

I 'myself' find it that there cannot be anything before the Eternal Covenant?? I gave the K.J. verse here, (Hebrews 13:20) but I think that your translation (or the site here) give Everlasting as ETERNAL.

Kind of deep perhaps? but what law Covenant did Lucifer original break? 1 John 3:4

--John

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

Hi, the Word of inspiration states it this way in Hebrews 13:

[20] Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

I 'myself' find it that there cannot be anything before the Eternal Covenant?? I gave the K.J. verse here, (Hebrews 13:20) but I think that your translation (or the site here) give Everlasting as ETERNAL.

Kind of deep perhaps? but what law Covenant did Lucifer original break? 1 John 3:4

--John

I see what your saying, however; I am speaking in terms of Adam and Eve.

The covenant I am speaking of involves three individualsâ€â€God, Adam and Eve.

Before I explain what I mean I will provide the definitions of the two types of covenants I was speaking ofâ€â€Political Covenant and Social Covenants.

Political Covenant:
• Unite a stronger party (i.e., a Sovereign) with a weaker party (i.e., a vassal) for the purpose of provision.
• Always initiated by the stronger party with the good of the weaker party in view.
• Centered up the responsibility of the stronger party to provide for the weaker party, while the weaker party is expected to remain loyal to the stronger party.
• Blessings and curses related to covenant obligations are conditional; however, political covenants themselves are both indissoluble and life-long.
• Examples include: Noahide Covenant, Abrahamic Covenant, Davidic Covenant, and New Covenant.

Social Covenants
• United two parties of equal status (socially, financially, spiritually, etc.) under the authority of a sovereign, for the purpose of prevention.
• Voluntarily and mutually initiated by two equal parties who call upon a sovereign to witness, to validate, and to enforce the covenant.
• Covenanting parties are not ultimately obligated to one authority, but to the sovereign who witnesses and oversees the covenant. (1 Samuel, Genesis 30:3)
• Examples include: covenant between Jacob and Laban, covenant between David and Jonathan.

Alright, now that we have those defined lets go a step further. Keep in mind I am describing covenants in the way the Bible describes them. I am also using information I gained from a class I am taking at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

4 Essential Elements of a Covenant:
1) An Intimate Relationship
- When a relationship is established with the head of a family in a biblical covenant, the covenant de facto involves all others parties in the household, as well.
- Marital and familial terminology is embodied in biblical covenants in order to stress the intimacy of relationships formed by covenants.
- While biblical covenants can be made between family members, new relationships established by covenants transcend blood-tie relationships.
- Relationships established by biblical covenants do not occur naturally, accidentally, or forcefully; rather, they are providentially established by mutual consent.
2) A Public Oath (Psalm 89)
- In biblical covenants, an oath was taken in order to inaugurate or to ratify the covenant.
- In biblical covenants, an oath was taken in order to make a formal declaration of accountability in regard to covenant obligations.
- Biblical covenants, oaths were frequently accompanied by a declaration of blessings and curses that would result from fidelity or negligence of covenant obligations.
3) A Coordinating Sign
- In biblical covenants, signs and symbols served as continual reminders to covenanting parties, as well as to the witnesses of covenants, of the presence and requirements of covenants.
- Examples include rainbow, circumcision, the Sabbath, a name change, baptism, etc.
4) Perpetual Obligations
- Biblical covenants include perpetual obligations that result in either blessings or curses for covenanting parties, dependent upon the fulfillment or negligence of the obligations.
- Obligations do not create or dissolve biblical covenants; rather, they are a means of maintaining (or regulating) biblical covenants by favorably or adversely affecting the lives of covenanting parties.
- In biblical covenants, the obligations are perpetual because biblical convents themselves are life-long; therefore, it can be said that biblical covenants can be violated but not broken, or broken but not dissolved.
- Despite the prevalence of covenants in Scripture, there are no examples of covenants being dissolved in the Bible.
- Biblical covenants were occasionally referred to as “salt covenants†because of their permanent nature (cf. Lev. 2:13, Num. 18:19; 2 Chron. 15:5).
- The permanent nature of biblical covenants made them sacred events that people did not enter into without great thought and care.
Alright, now what I’m trying to say is that perhaps the first covenant in the Bible was in fact a marriage covenantâ€â€which in effect was a combination of a political and social covenant. Please consider the following (keeping in mind the information given above):

Marriage as a Covenant: The First Marriage Involved an Intimate Relationship
• Marriage de facto involves an intimate relationship between a man and a women (Gen. 2:24).
• God was an active participant in the first marriage.
- The institution of marriage began in the mind of God (cf. Gen. 1:26-27; 2:18; 2:24; Matt. 19:5-6)
- The Lord is the one who declared the deficiency in the man’s solitary existence, created the woman, and brought her to the man (c. Gen. 2:18; 21-22).
- God was the witness of the first marriage and exerted His authority as the stronger party when the couple neglected their marital obligations (cf. Gen. 2:18, 23; 3; 8-21; Mal. 2:14).
• While it is not detailed in the first marriage, a husband’s duty to lead, to provide for, and to protect his wife also extends to his children; likewise, a wife’s duty to help and to sustain her husband extends to her children (cf. Deut. 6:7; Prov. 22:6; Eph. 6:4; Heb. 12:7-11).
• Martial and familial terminology is obviously present in the first marriage (cf. Gen. 2:24-25; 3:6, 8, 16-17, 20-21; 4:1).
• The first marriage transcended blood-tie relationship (cf. Gen. 2:24).
• The first marriage was providentially established by mutual consent (cf. Gen. 2:23-24).
- Note that marriage entails God’s self-revelation (cf. Gen. 1:26-27; Eph. 5:22-33).
- Note that marriage entails the advancement of God’s kingdom (cf. Gen. 1:28; 2:24; 9:1, 7; Mal. 2:5; 1 Cor. 7:14).

Marriage as a Covenant: The First Marriage Involved a Public Oath
• Adam’s poetic, pronouncement, “This is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh†(Gen. 2:23 NKJV) was used elsewhere in Scripture in the context of covenant making (cf. Gen. 29:14; 37:27; Judges 9:2; 2 Sam. 5:1-3; 19:12-13; 1 Chron. 11:1-3).
• Since God certainly did not need to be informed of woman’s origin, Adam’s pronouncement was likely an oath in which he was accepting responsibility for Eve.
• The third person pronouns (i.e. “sheâ€Â) in Adam’s pronouncement indicate that he spoke these words to God, as the witness (cf. Gen. 2:23; Mal. 2:14).
• While there are no blessings and cures stated in Adam’s oath, it is interesting to note that it was not until Adam and Eve abandoned their martial obligationsâ€â€that is, their gender rolesâ€â€that the Lord cursed them.

Marriage as a Covenant: The First Marriage Involved Coordination Signs
• A sign of the first marriage was sexual intercourse (cf. Gen. 2:24; 4:1-2, 25).
- Sexual intercourse is not a random sign, but is a physical reflection of the metaphysical one-flesh union of marriage.
- Sexual intercourse is consistently viewed in Scripture as the consummative act of the marriage. Process (cf. Gen. 24:67; 29:21,23,30; Deut. 21:13;21:13, 22:13, 28-29).
- While sexual intercourse always results in one-flesh union, it does not make a marriage (e.g. rape, adultery, prostitution, cf. Deut. 22:25-27; 1 Cor. 6:15-16).
• A sign of the first marriage was a name change (cf. Gen. 2:23; 3:20).
• Sexual intercourse and a name change, both of which are initiated at the time of the ratification of the marriage covenant, would have, been continual reminders to Adam and Eve of their marital obligations.

Marriage as a Covenant: The First Marriage Involved Perpetual Obligations
• There were at least three perpetual obligations incumbent upon the first couple;
- Adam and Eve were to populate the earth (cf. Gen. 1:28; 2:24).
- Adam and Eve, were to rule over and to subdue the creation (cf. Gen. 1:26, 28; 2:15, 18-19).
- Adam and Eve were to embrace their constitutional gender roles (cf. Gen. 2:18; 2:24; 3:16-19).
• Like Adam and Eve, married couples are blessed when they keep these obligations and experience curses when the obligations are neglected.
- Children are described in Scripture as a blessing from the Lord (cf. Ps. 127:3-5).
- Gender roles are still assigned and expected to be fulfilled after the fall (cf. 1 Cor. 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Tim. 2:8-15; 1 Peter 3:1-7).

The point of me saying all that is that perhaps from the beginning Adam made a public oath, ratifying a covenant, promising to be faithful to it and when both Eve and him violated that covenant they were punished for it. Now based on the information I have given a covenant involves one party (Adam and Eve) agreeing to that covenant with another party (God) with full knowledge that to violate that covenant has certainurses (or punishments) that come about if the weaker (Adam and Eve) violate that covenant. So perhaps Adam and Eve’s understanding of “good and evil†was limited but perhaps they did have some degree of understanding of itâ€â€to the extent that if they violate the covenant they made before God they would be punished (or cursed).

 

[John the Baptist]

Nocturnal_Principal_X says:
...

The point of me saying all that is that perhaps from the beginning Adam made a public oath, ratifying a covenant, promising to be faithful to it and when both Eve and him violated that covenant they were punished for it. Now based on the information I have given a covenant involves one party (Adam and Eve) agreeing to that covenant with another party (God) with full knowledge that to violate that covenant has certain curses (or punishments) that come about if the weaker (Adam and Eve) violate that covenant. So perhaps Adam and Eve’s understanding of “good and evil†was limited but perhaps they did have some degree of understanding of itâ€â€to the extent that if they violate the covenant they made before God they would be punished (or cursed).

***
John here: It does seem that for God to create a perfect sinless man & woman almost alone on the then depopulated earth, with the exception of Their/self, & with the serpent having only one place to tempt then at, at the forbidden tree that was even in the midst of the Garden of Eden, that They (Godhead) surely would not leave them unwarned.
To do that would violate everything that we see Their leadership were instructed in future scripture to do.

And, why were they to be tested to begin with, huh? :wink:

I mean, look at Their Words of Isaiah 5:1-3 about what They did for Israel! (even to having a tower for warnings!) And Ezekiel 33:6-9's warning to both the watchman & to the person (s) not heeding the warning!

 

[Quath]

Here is my take on the story. Well, maybe a few takes. The first is to retell the story with different names:

So say there are two children and a bowl of candy in front of them. Their father tells them not to eat the candy or they will get in trouble. Their uncle comes in and says it is ok to eat the candy. So they eat the candy. Their father comes bace and see what they did. So he kicks them out of the house to live on the streets. If this situation happened in real life, we would decide the father was overbearing and cruel. But change the name and he is good.

Another take is a little more on the story. It had to be a set up. God knew as he made Adam, that Adam would eat the fruit. So God created man with the knowledge of what would happen. So God planned this. You can see it because God could have put a fence around the tree. Humans can have free will but are also limited. For example, I can not exercise my free will and fly like a bird. There are limits on what I can do. Likewise, God could have placed limits to keep Adam from sinning.

Another take iis wondering if God lied. God said that Adam would die when he ate the fruit. Adam did not die, therefore the serpent was right. But God can't be wrong by most theology, so people re-interpret this as spiritual death. However, that means that Adam does not have ever lasting life. So some interpret it as the death of the connection between Adam and God. However, that seems to be a huge reach and did not seem to be what God said.

The final take is more of a secular view of this story. The Tree is probably better interpreted as "The Tree of All Knowledge from Good to Evil." Or in other words, the knowledge of everything. When Adam eats of the fruit, he realizes he is naked. Back then, people envisioned that animals were born with clothes. Gods were naked. So Adam realized he was not a god and wanted clothes.

 

[John the Baptist]

Here is my take on the story. Well, maybe a few takes. The first is to retell the story with different names:

So say there are two children and a bowl of candy in front of them. Their father tells them not to eat the candy or they will get in trouble. Their uncle comes in and says it is ok to eat the candy. So they eat the candy. Their father comes bace and see what they did. So he kicks them out of the house to live on the streets. If this situation happened in real life, we would decide the father was overbearing and cruel. But change the name and he is good.

Another take is a little more on the story. It had to be a set up. God knew as he made Adam, that Adam would eat the fruit. So God created man with the knowledge of what would happen. So God planned this. You can see it because God could have put a fence around the tree. Humans can have free will but are also limited. For example, I can not exercise my free will and fly like a bird. There are limits on what I can do. Likewise, God could have placed limits to keep Adam from sinning.

Another take iis wondering if God lied. God said that Adam would die when he ate the fruit. Adam did not die, therefore the serpent was right. But God can't be wrong by most theology, so people re-interpret this as spiritual death. However, that means that Adam does not have ever lasting life. So some interpret it as the death of the connection between Adam and God. However, that seems to be a huge reach and did not seem to be what God said.

The final take is more of a secular view of this story. The Tree is probably better interpreted as "The Tree of All Knowledge from Good to Evil." Or in other words, the knowledge of everything. When Adam eats of the fruit, he realizes he is naked. Back then, people envisioned that animals were born with clothes. Gods were naked. So Adam realized he was not a god and wanted clothes.

John here: Why not add another 'take'? Your views can be your traditional faith, huh? and all you need is 'converting to Christianity', like one seen in Revelation 17:5 with all kinds of 'takes' for professed truth.

You know, as was reported in the Los Angeles Times a while back where the Pope had stated to 'more' voodoo believers 'suggesting they would not betray their traditional faith by converting to Christianity.'

Your postings say that you are not Christian, are you Catholic? If not, why would any person hang out on a site of professed Christians?? And the forbidden Fruit subject????

 

[Spirit Driven]

Was Adam eating of the tree an evil act? Is disobedience of God, in any degree, considered evil?

I have not had a chance to read all the posts people.....

I would like you to consider the following.

God placed the Tree in the centre of the Garden, where Adam and Eve had to conciously avoid it......he then gave the serpent the power to decieve the Woman, and placed the serpent in the garden with the man and the woman.
Then the creator of our human nature.... God.... drew the attention of the man and the woman to the tree and said to them, DO NOT EAT OF IT... DO NOT EVEN TOUCH IT.....

Then to make sure his plan for man was going to unfold, God shut up Adam and Eve in disobedience so that he could show mercy to them also.

God has shut up all men in disobedience that He may show mercy to all (Romans 11:32).

His ways are not our ways.......

I remember once musing online with some others about why God planned the fall of man..... apart from the obviouse... like it is Gods plan not ours, and his ways are not our ways, a female freind in Christ gave us a view point that left us feeling..... astonished yet some how enlightened, and I want to share it with you here.

If Man had stayed in the garden, there are a million things he never would have experienced..... including one day being like God.


The Lord of hosts has sworn saying, "Surely, just as I have intended so it has happened, and just as I have planned so it will stand (Isaiah 14:24).



Peace to you all

 

[Quath]

John here: Why not add another 'take'? Your views can be your traditional faith, huh? and all you need is 'converting to Christianity', like one seen in Revelation 17:5 with all kinds of 'takes' for professed truth.

Well, I was trying to show some non-standard views on the Garden.

Your postings say that you are not Christian, are you Catholic? If not, why would any person hang out on a site of professed Christians?? And the forbidden Fruit subject????

I am an atheist. I like being here so I can interact with people that think differently from me. I like to try to understand why and how it shapes their views. I like to understand the spectrum of Christian beliefs.

I like this story because it is highly symbolic and I like origin type stories. It is also a fundamental part of Christian theology. So I am curious as to how people see it and if they are open to looking at it from other perspectives.

 

[John the Baptist]

I am an atheist. I like being here so I can interact with people that think differently from me. I like to try to understand why and how it shapes their views. I like to understand the spectrum of Christian beliefs.

I like this story because it is highly symbolic and I like origin type stories. It is also a fundamental part of Christian theology. So I am curious as to how people see it and if they are open to looking at it from other perspectives.

****
Perhaps you are more honest than most?

Yet, unknowingly maybe you are having the Holy Spirit (Genesis 6:3) working on you?
Compare Acts 9:1-6. And in case you do not see it? Acts 8:1-3 finds Saul most likely at Stevens trial and heard his testimony in Acts 7 when he was stoned to death. See Acts 7:58-60. These verses show just how quick a murderer can be turned around & recreated, by God!
---John

PS: And yes, I know, most 'folds' today are like Saul was! Revelation 17:5

 

[Drew]

I think you are under the impression that Adam did not "know" that believing God's instruction about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would be right.

It is important for us all to be precise in our use of words.

In the above, you presumably cannot mean "right" in any kind of moral sense. The reason: Adam and Eve had not yet (apparently) been given the knowledge to discern good from evil. So Adam and Eve simply could not have had such moral knowledge before the fall. I do not see how this can be denied.

If by "right" you mean that Adam should have known that it was in his "best interest" to obey God, then your statement works. But then we are still left with the tricky problem of explaining how there could be "judgement" carried out for these 2 people who, by the very words of the Scriptures, did not (if I understand things correctly) have even the knowledge of good and evil.

 

[Drew]

At the risk of seeming overly chummy with Tan, I would wholeheartedly agree with his take on this issue - he understands the key challenge here - that of figuring out how it is sensible for us to be held accountable if we do not have the faculty to discern good from evil.

This is an interesting hypothesis:

The closest I can come to answering the question of the thread is that, knowledge of making the right and wrong decisions does not always come from the knowledge of good and evil.

Perhaps something will come of this.....

 

[Drew]

So perhaps Adam and Eve’s understanding of “good and evil†was limited but perhaps they did have some degree of understanding of itâ€â€to the extent that if they violate the covenant they made before God they would be punished (or cursed)

This is a valid argument if we can make the case that Adam and Eve did indeed have at least some knowledge of good and evil before the fruit.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The tree of life is so close to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. At least in this verse.

:smt009 Oh, If only~

 

[John the Baptist]

It is important for us all to be precise in our use of words.

In the above, you presumably cannot mean "right" in any kind of moral sense. The reason: Adam and Eve had not yet (apparently) been given the knowledge to discern good from evil. So Adam and Eve simply could not have had such moral knowledge before the fall. I do not see how this can be denied.

If by "right" you mean that Adam should have known that it was in his "best interest" to obey God, then your statement works. But then we are still left with the tricky problem of explaining how there could be "judgement" carried out for these 2 people who, by the very words of the Scriptures, did not (if I understand things correctly) have even the knowledge of good and evil.

***
You seem to be ignorant (at least thinking that Adam was) of the rebellion in heaven! ---John

 

[Free]

I think one of the keys in this is: "the knowledge of good and evil". Those who propose that Adam and Eve couldn't have sinned because they supposedly didn't know right from wrong, good from evil, must first prove that that is precisely what that statement means. Does "the knowledge of good and evil" simply mean that they didn't know right from wrong?

I find it rather odd that God would tell Adam to not eat of the tree and give him the consequence if he did, if Adam couldn't tell the difference between right and wrong. The command would have been utterly pointless. God may as well have told Adam not to use the Apple to look at porn on the Internet.

Another point that would need to be proven is that ignorance is an excuse for disobeying God. Does ignorance negate the fact that it was sin or negate its consequences? If that were the case, what does that mean for your theology or Christian theology in general?

As Francis Schaeffer states, the crux of the matter is that Eve wanted to be like God, she wanted to be the center of the universe. It wasn't necessarily the act of eating the apple that was sinful, it was the intent behind it.

Kind of interesting how that is the reason Satan was kicked out of heaven, what Satan used to tempt Adam and Eve, and how it is the thought behind much of pagan spirituality and other religions these days.