The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

[Quath]

The above text suggests to me 1. that sin entered into mankind and
2. that death followed.

It is not spin to to say 'through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin'. In Gen 5: 5 you will find the words about Adam .... and he died . . .a considerable time afterwards. That was Adam returning to dust.

If this were true, then God should have said "On the day you eat of the fruit, you will start to die." Or "You will start to die spiritually." I think the snake was right and it was a bluff from God to try to keep people from becoming gods.

The above account is consistent with thought and reason.

That is the claim of every theological belief.

He knew to abide by the commandments of God since he showed compliance in all else God told him.
Adam was without excuse for eating the apple. He was told not to do it by any account. Simple as that.

Following orders is different from morality. We condemn Nazi soldiers for the orders they followed. We expected them to deny orders if they were told to do something immoral.

Now that is not the same case in the Garden, but you have two intelligent beings telling people who do not know of good or evil. They have to decide whom they should obey. We see what they did was "Evil" in God's eye. But could they have known what they were doing was going to be "evil"?

What it comes down to is that the simple view of the story makes God out to be a jerk. So Christians spin the story to try to make God out to be good somehow. I think this gives rise to convoluted theologies.

For example, the Jews who had this story for much longer than the Christians do not see this as "Original Sin." But Christians have the hubris to take another person's religion and say they understand their god better. And then they get insulted when Muslims do the exact same thing to them.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

If this were true, then God should have said....

Quath
Each time you profess yourself to be smarter or more righteous than God, you go deeper into darkness. Why is it that it never occurs to you that perhaps God is smarter than you and has done something that you do not understand?
Turn around!!

I think the snake was right and it was a bluff from God to try to keep people from becoming gods.

OUTRIGHT SATAN WORSHIP.

 

[Rick W]

Regardless how one may see it, a commandment, an order, a charge, a demand, an ordinance, a decree, a law or a rule in Adam's case it was wrong for him to transgress against God and he knew that. Claiming ignorance after being warned not to do something is no justification and Adam himself claimed no such thing. But he did use excuse thereafter. But, we, as the rebellious creatures we are, make the justification for him through excuse, that it was ok for him to do as he did citing any number of alibis our sinful natures care to choose. And we are very good at making excuse honing those skills since childhood.

We all went through a childhood being restricted in our actions, abiding (hopefully) by the will of our parents not to do something. I knew when my parents told me not to do something that it was wrong for me to do so. There is no way anyone can tell me I didn't know after being told. So if I did it again, knowing it was wrong to do so (and I did) that would more often than not prompt my parents into saying things like, "Didn't I already tell you once?", or "Why will you not listen to me?" or "If I told you once I told you a hundred times...".

AHIMSA's question has been answered. There is no dilema. No catch 22.

 

[Rick W]

We see what they did was "Evil" in God's eye. But could they have known what they were doing was going to be "evil"?

Again, another excuse. For any transgression against God is sin. Even Eve knew it was against God's commandment to eat of the apple while knowing the consequences. And surely she KNEW the consequences. Death. Even without knowing the differences of right and wrong I can assure you she knew the penalty was not "good".

Trying to make Adam innocent of sin is to make the same mistake he did by not heeding the warnings from God in the first place. We really don't need a psychoanalysis of Adam to get the point. It's just doesn't have to be a difficult concept. If you don't think God dealt fairly with Adam and Eve then there's really no sense in blaming God anyway since excuse didn't help the couple either.

We are not blameless. Nobody had to teach us how to lie, to steal, bear false witness, not to share or how to blame others for our actions. Those traits are in us from the start. This simply highlights the reason we need Christ in our life, to accept Him as our Lord and Savior for we all begin on a level playing field... condemned to death for by our very nature we are convicted.

 

[Quath]

Each time you profess yourself to be smarter or more righteous than God, you go deeper into darkness. Why is it that it never occurs to you that perhaps God is smarter than you and has done something that you do not understand?
Turn around!!

I know it is your belief that God is real and perfect and all that. However, I do not see him demonstrating these attrributes in the stories about him.

OUTRIGHT SATAN WORSHIP.

Agreeing with a character in a story is not the same as worshiping tyat character. Besides, the snake was not Satan. If the snake were Satan then Satan would have been cursed by God to always crawl. Yet we see Satan later in the Bible walking around. So if the snake were Satan, then Satan was powerful enough to remove God's curse (which also goes against the Bible).

Regardless how one may see it, a commandment, an order, a charge, a demand, an ordinance, a decree, a law or a rule in Adam's case it was wrong for him to transgress against God and he knew that.

Here is an analogous story:

Two children are sitting at their table. Their parents put some candy in front of the children and tell them not to eat it. The parent leaves. Another afult comes in and finds out about the candy. This adult tells the children it is ok for them to eat the candy. The children believe this adult because they don't know that some adults are evil and may lie. The parent returns and kicks the children out of the house forever.

From this story we can see how lack of knowledge of good and evil makes it hard to know that it is evil to disobey their parents (or is it?) and makes it hard to know that another adult may be evil (or is he?).

The problem is that we allos children to make mistakes because they are innocent and ignorant. We try to limit the harm when they make bad mistakes. The whole story is a huge set up.

 

[Rick W]

The whole story is a huge set up.

It's this belief that will not allow acceptance of any answer given to the question posed. No answer will or can be acceptable.

So why ask in the first place other than for the sake of pure argument and/or confrontation? This whole thing began with the intent to make a dilema from scripture that convicts us of our sinful nature. If a dilema can be created then it follows scripture is wrong and the things I do are not something I can be held accountable for.


The bait:

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

The hook:

Now that we have established that Adam's decision was an evil decision...I don't understand how God can actually condemn him for his error.

When God tells Adam to not eat of the tree....Adam did not yet have the knowledge of good and evil, he did not know right from wrong. Hence he could not have known was he was doing was wrong. He couldn't possibly have comprehended what God was saying or the implications and consequences of eating of the tree.

His decision to eat of the fruit was not a consciously evil act, he was in a state of moral neutrality, obeying God, due to his ignorance, was not good nor was eating the fruit bad. He was like an animal, an amoral creature that acts according to instinct.

How can a just God condemn him when Adam wasn't aware of the difference between right and wrong? Like an infant child?

"He was like an animal, an amoral creature that acts according to instinct."

That's quite a view of Adam created in the image of God.

No answer will suffice. No answer will be accepted since that was not the intent in the first place.

 

[AHIMSA]

I had no choice to bait because blind belief always builds bridges over clear theological discrepancies. Knowing that most Christians on this board assume that the bible is innerant, clear contradictions to their mode of thought have to be presented almost sublimely. Thus I wanted to make sure we all shared the same premise before I presented what I feel is an obvious paradox.

The Tree of Knowledge gives knowledge of good and evil. I would think this is self evident:
evidenced by the quote "their eyes were opened" after they ate, and the fact that they knew they were naked. Its an obvious movement from childlike ignorance into knowledge.

It takes knowledge of good and evil to act morally, to be a moral being and be morally accountable, otherwise one is not consciously choosing to do what is good.

Adam and Eve, before they ate of the tree, can not possibly have been moral beings, they lacked the ability to differentiate between evil and good and therefore, were not capable of making morally accountable decisions until this knowledge has been attained.

So they are, in this sense, not even quite like children! Children have the basic ability to differentiate between right and wrong...they have the knowledge of good and evil, however limited.

Potluck, you have yet to confront these points. You can not avoid the fact the the original act of disobediance was attaining the knowledge that disobedience against God is evil.

 

[stranger]

It takes knowledge of good and evil to act morally, to be a moral being and be morally accountable, otherwise one is not consciously choosing to do what is good.

*** You have not understood that Adam had a framework of morality - the prohibition not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - BEFORE his act of disobedience. When you say 'it takes knowledge of good and evil to act morally' - this is the mistake in your reasoning. Adam was a moral being 'before the fall'. *** my comment


Adam and Eve, before they ate of the tree, can not possibly have been moral beings, they lacked the ability to differentiate between evil and good and therefore, were not capable of making morally accountable decisions until this knowledge has been attained.

*** No, they could differentiate because they had God's command even before they disobeyed it. *** my comment

So they are, in this sense, not even quite like children! Children have the basic ability to differentiate between right and wrong...they have the knowledge of good and evil, however limited.

*** Again, you seem to think it was a virtue to have eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This ofcourse is consistent in your mystical belief that God and Satan are one being. Correct me if I understood this wrongly.*** my comment

You can not avoid the fact the the original act of disobediance was attaining the knowledge that disobedience against God is evil. [/quote]

*** Christians say disobedience against God's command is sin. Evil in Biblical revelation is best explained in this expression 'And he did what was evil in the eyes of the Lord' . Kings and Chronicles OT. So it is an action that is committed against a command. The consequences follow. . .

The original act of disobedience - Adam's sin - was a violation of God's direct command. That command was given to Adam BEFORE he disobeyed it. *** my comment


SUMMARY

Here is your argument :

The original act of disobediance was attaining the knowledge that disobedience against God is evil.

Here is the Christian view:

The original act of disobedience was violating God's direct command: And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 'From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.'

In Christ: Stranger

PS Quath: I insist that Adam died as Rom 5 says 'sin entered in and death through sin. . .that was immediate - no spin.

 

[Quath]

PS Quath: I insist that Adam died as Rom 5 says 'sin entered in and death through sin. . .that was immediate - no spin.

But God says "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die". Maybe the KJV had a bad translation, but it sounds like Adam would die ver soon. The Bible portrays Adam as having a long life.

Maybe you would think that Adam was suppose to live forever, however that would seem to contradict when God says "and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever."

So Adam was not suppose to live forever - he was suppose to die anyway. So I do not see how God's words can be true.

 

[Rick W]

Adam and Eve, before they ate of the tree, can not possibly have been moral beings, they lacked the ability to differentiate between evil and good and therefore, were not capable of making morally accountable decisions until this knowledge has been attained.

They had a choice to eat or not. Even without knowledge of good and evil they had the freewill to choose. So they didn't eat of the tree for God told them not to do it. Did they have knowledge of good and evil? Of course not.

Satan was cast out from heaven for his rebellion against God. Did Satan know good and evil. Of course he did. He knew other things as well.

He knew the pride of man.

Eve knew the commandment from God.
Genesis 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

She knew and she refused Satan. No problem there. All is well in the garden until Satan played on their pride. "and ye shall be as gods" sounded like a pretty darn good idea to Eve. Still no knowledge of good and evil. She turned down Satan once through the sheer knowledge of knowing what God had said. But pride, taking the opportunity prompted by Satan, grew within Eve's heart. She ate disregarding the commandment she knew was from God for she had said so earlier when asked if God really said not to do it. But to become "as God" appealed to her inner pride and death came into the world through temptation and sin.
They acquired knowledge of good and evil knowing then their error for they found themselves naked in what they had done. It was this knowledge which led Adam to make excuse, to blame both Eve and God for his wrongdoing.

Satan tried the same thing with Christ.



Animals don't have pride AHIMSA.

Maybe a study on pride would be in order. Pride is a trait largely overlooked yet it plays a very important part regarding temptation which may lead to sin when left unchecked.

 

[Jon-Marc]

Whether or not Adam and Eve knew the difference between right and wrong, They knew that God had told them NOT to eat of the fruit. A parent doesn't always explain why when he/she says "Don't do that", but that doesn't take away the fact that the child is expected to obey and WILL pay the consequences when he/she disobeys. God was the Parent, and they were His children. He gave them one chance to choose to obey or not, and they chose to disobey.

 

[stranger]

But God says "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die". Maybe the KJV had a bad translation, but it sounds like Adam would die ver soon. The Bible portrays Adam as having a long life.

Maybe you would think that Adam was suppose to live forever, however that would seem to contradict when God says "and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever."

So Adam was not suppose to live forever - he was suppose to die anyway. So I do not see how God's words can be true.

Many roads lead to making God the author of evil and with attributes of evil. That and the idea of attaining godhood is (I think) at the background of my debate with AHIMSA.

But your comment - have a look a Romans chapter 5 - death entered in!

In Christ: Stranger

 

[AHIMSA]

Lets make this short. Everyone here is saying that Adam willingly disobeyed God.

Did Adam know that disobeying God was wrong?

They had a choice to eat or not

No one is denying they had a choice or free will. I'm saying it takes the knowledge of good and evil to be a morally accountable being. I guess God doesn't think so. He denies people the ability to morally differentiate....then punishes them when they make the wrong choice!?

 

[Rick W]

Pride AHIMSA, pride. Not knowledge of good and evil.
All was ok until pride got in Eve's way to "be as God".

 

[AHIMSA]

Would you not agree that the ability to differentiate between right and wrong is a precussor to being moral being?

 

[Drew]

No one is denying they had a choice or free will. I'm saying it takes the knowledge of good and evil to be a morally accountable being. I guess God doesn't think so. He denies people the ability to morally differentiate....then punishes them when they make the wrong choice!?

This is a strong argument. All of the counter-arguments I have seen seem to be based on a belief that it is "morally justifiable" to issue punishment even in the absence of a facility (on the part of the one punished) to judge "right" from "wrong".

Take the case of the child who "pays the consequences" for his disobedience. This is not really a fair analogy to Adam and Eve since any act of correction delivered to the child is just that - an act of correction. However, in the case of Adam and Eve, the act of eating the fruit clearly seems to incur "punishment" as importantly distinguished from "correction".

Since Adam and Eve did not have the facility to distinguish good from evil, the worst one could say is that they made a faulty judgement - an error of competence in not correctly judging that obeying God's rule was the wise thing to do.

The "pride" argument doesn't really work either. I think that efforts to say that Adam and Eve were being punished for pride are illicitly leveraging the fact that we all (today- post-fall) indeed have the knowledge that pride is morally wrong. But Adam and Eve did not have that knowledge. All one can say is that they made a "competence" error.

Having said all this, I don't necessarily think that this creates a situation which unavoidably forces one to conclude that there is an "error" in the Scriptures, although I am not prepared at this time to furnish an explanation that avoids such a conclusion. As with many other passages, I think we Christians need to stop making obviously incorrect arguments (e.g the universe is 10,000 years old) and face up to the fact that we probably need to seek to re-interpret what "the knowledge of good and evil" means to avoid this contradiction.

To those unbelievers who think this is a cop-out, I would say that it would only be so for a person who claims that Biblical texts need always be interpreted "as they read". I, for one, would never claim this.

 

[Rick W]

It was by pride that Satan was cast out of heaven for he wanted to be as God. Satan knew his mistake and convinced Adam and Eve of the same. Satan tempted christ with pride in the desert. How many times throughout biblcal text has pride been the root of discord for man?

It was the knowledge of good and evil that Adam and Eve knew their error and were found naked after they had eaten the apple.
Eve rejected satan the first time, citing God's command. She was correct. But pride, by Satan's prompting, is what turned them toward the desire to be "as God" and chose to disobey Him.

 

[Rick W]

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Isaiah 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

Isaiah 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Be "as God". "Be as the most high"
That's pride. And pride was within adam and Eve as it is in all of us. No difference.

Pride nurtured the desire and the desire led to a choice against what Eve had already admitted, that God told them not to do it. Therefore the disobedience.

How much does pride fit into your life, the things you do or not do? It's our nature. And you too have a choice.

 

[AHIMSA]

Sorry Potluck, your arguments are redundant and just not working...

Thanks Drew for being honest about this. I know you and I come from very different religious backgrounds at this point and would likely disagree on alot, but your consistent and honest attitude demands respect, unlike many on these boards. You are one of the few Christians here that has ever said " I don't know" and is willing to admit there is an apparent problem in scripture that demands re-interpretation.

Few on this board strive for the level of impartiality that you do.

 

[Rick W]

...there is an apparent problem in scripture that demands re-interpretation.

That's the whole gist of all this isn't it? To reinterpret the Word of God to fit social demand. Kind of like the tail wagging the dog I would think. Trying to change the mind of God to fit the wisdom of men is not a very good idea. :wink: