The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

[stranger]

If you guys are willing to say that Adam and Eve are "guilty" on the one hand and yet also claim that they had no knowledge of the difference between right and wrong when they ate the fruit on the other, well, I guess I will just have to reiterate my claim that you are creating an obvious contradiction - since the very meaning of the word "guilty" embodies a belief in the existence of a moral faculty. To be "guilty" means, perhaps among other things, to violate some moral code.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Hi Drew,

I do not claim 'that they had no knowledge of the difference between right and wrong when they ate the fruit'.

Again God's command gave Adam the specific knowledge of the difference between the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and all the other tree in the garden - see the text below:

And 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' . . .Gen2:16,17 NASB

Sorry about being so pedantic.


In Christ: Stranger

 

[Jon-Marc]

What about Eve, Stranger? Didn't she have a "perfect moral faculty" before eating the fruit, or was she always imperfect? :

 

[mutzrein]

1 Timothy 2 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

 

[Drew]

Hi Drew,

I do not claim 'that they had no knowledge of the difference between right and wrong when they ate the fruit'.

With you so far.

Again God's command gave Adam the specific knowledge of the difference between the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and all the other tree in the garden - see the text below:

And 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' . . .Gen2:16,17 NASB

Sorry about being so pedantic.

Fair enough, but are you claiming that the decision to disobey the command in Gen 2:16,17 was a "moral transgression" or "sin"? Please be careful - disobeying a command cannot be judged to be a moral transgression or sin if the person committing the act does not have the knowledge to make moral judgments. It can certainly be judged to be unwise or foolish - since A+E received the command and arguably should have known better.

 

[stranger]

Fair enough, but are you claiming that the decision to disobey the command in Gen 2:16,17 was a "moral transgression" or "sin"? Please be careful - disobeying a command cannot be judged to be a moral transgression or sin if the person committing the act does not have the knowledge to make moral judgments. It can certainly be judged to be unwise or foolish - since A+E received the command and arguably should have known better.

YES - as in Romans 5:15 'For if by the transgression of the one' Adam sinned and did so knowingly. The reason he knew that his action was wrong was because God had issued a command 'you shall not' . . . This is knowledge given to Adam PRIOR to the transgression - so Adam knew.
I know of no sin that is not also foolishness.

Now you state: 'Please be careful - disobeying a command cannot be judged to be a moral transgression or sin if the person committing the act does not have the knowledge to make moral judgments.'

The next time you are in court 'plead ignorance of the law' as an excuse for breaking the law!

In the scenario we are discussing :
1. Adam was a man with all his faculties intact.
2. Adam knew that it was wrong because God told him PRIOR to the transgression.
3. Adam cannot claim ignorance of the law as an excuse nor can he claim that he was not morally capable of making the judgement.

So Drew - show me the scripture where it says that Adam was not capable of making a moral judgement. If the argument centered around Eve - we could at least agree that she was deceived.

In Christ: Stranger

 

[Drew]

2. Adam knew that it was wrong because God told him PRIOR to the transgression.

I think you are not correct here - God told him not to do it, not that doing it would be wrong. There is a huge conceptual difference and this is what this whole discussion turns on. A person without the faculty to make moral judgements cannot be held accountable as if he were.

So Drew - show me the scripture where it says that Adam was not capable of making a moral judgement.

Genesis 2:15-17

The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

The very strong implication here is that eating from the tree is precisely what gives one the knowledge of what is good and what is evil, with such knowledge being absent before. If this is what this text means, my objections (and those of AHIMSA) are unanswered. If it means something else, then that's a whole 'nuther ball game.

What you think it means?

 

[Jon-Marc]

Drew, I call that 'splitting hairs". "God, You only said not to eat of the fruit. You didn't tell me it was wrong." What about the Ten Commandments? God simply said, "Thou shalt not---" in many cases and didn't actually say any of them were wrong. Therefore, we can't be held responsible for ANYTHING we do.

Stand before a judge and say, "No one ever told it was wrong to do that. All I was told was that I shouldn't do it." See how far that gets you. To me it's no different with God. He said, "thou shalt not eat of it." He also told him the consequence of doing so. I did notice, however, that only Adam was there when that commandment was made. Eve was not created yet, so does that exempt her from obeying that commandment? : Of course, I wasn't there either.

 

[stranger]

What about Eve, Stranger? Didn't she have a "perfect moral faculty" before eating the fruit, or was she always imperfect? :

Hi Jon-Marc

Yes, Eve was a partaker of the Divine nature - which is perfect. So her 'image and likeness' reflected God's perfectly. . . before eating the fruit. She was a perfect helper for Adam.

'Was she always imperfect?' - no - only after Adam's trangression.

In Christ: Stranger

 

[stranger]

Drew you wrote:

'I think you are not correct here - God told him not to do it, not that doing it would be wrong. There is a huge conceptual difference and this is what this whole discussion turns on. A person without the faculty to make moral judgements cannot be held accountable as if he were. '



The reason I call it 'wrong' is because it is refered to as a transgression in Romans chapter 5. Transgression is violating a command and that is doing wrong.

IN Christ: Stranger

 

[Rick W]

Fair enough, but are you claiming that the decision to disobey the command in Gen 2:16,17 was a "moral transgression" or sin"? Please be careful - disobeying a command cannot be judged to be a moral transgression or sin if the person committing the act does not have the knowledge to make moral judgments. It can certainly be judged to be unwise or foolish - since A+E received the command and arguably should have known better.

"disobeying a command cannot be judged to be a moral transgression or sin

Paul seems to think so.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Romans 5:15 But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Romans 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses unto justification.

 

[stranger]

Genesis 2:15-17

The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

The very strong implication here is that eating from the tree is precisely what gives one the knowledge of what is good and what is evil, with such knowledge being absent before. If this is what this text means, my objections (and those of AHIMSA) are unanswered. If it means something else, then that's a whole 'nuther ball game.

What you think it means?

. . . the end of the quote from Genesis ... you shall surely die.

The implications are indeed strong - I am not only in another ball game but another 'field' compared to Ahimsa.

I think the heart of the matter is the two contrary voices in the garden that both comment on the tree in question.

In Christ: Stranger

 

[stranger]

"disobeying a command cannot be judged to be a moral transgression or sin

Paul seems to think so.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Romans 5:15 But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Romans 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses unto justification.

Yes, Romans 5 is clear PotLuck.

In Christ: Stranger

 

[Rick W]

The reason I call it 'wrong' is because it is refered to as a transgression in Romans chapter 5. Transgression is violating a command and that it wrong.

IN Christ: Stranger

:

I didn't see that.

 

[Solo]

Drew, I call that 'splitting hairs". "God, You only said not to eat of the fruit. You didn't tell me it was wrong." What about the Ten Commandments? God simply said, "Thou shalt not---" in many cases and didn't actually say any of them were wrong. Therefore, we can't be held responsible for ANYTHING we do.

Stand before a judge and say, "No one ever told it was wrong to do that. All I was told was that I shouldn't do it." See how far that gets you. To me it's no different with God. He said, "thou shalt not eat of it." He also told him the consequence of doing so. I did notice, however, that only Adam was there when that commandment was made. Eve was not created yet, so does that exempt her from obeying that commandment? : Of course, I wasn't there either.

Very good point, Jon-Marc! How simple the truth is, and how difficult it is made by the wisdom of man.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

I am still trying to figure out if drew is trying to make a point. :smt048

 

[Drew]

Hello Solo and Gabby:

I have made my point as clearly as I know how. I am again mystified and puzzled by a lot of the answers. Ah well, live and learn.

 

[stranger]

Drew, I call that 'splitting hairs". "God, You only said not to eat of the fruit. You didn't tell me it was wrong." What about the Ten Commandments? God simply said, "Thou shalt not---" in many cases and didn't actually say any of them were wrong. Therefore, we can't be held responsible for ANYTHING we do.

Stand before a judge and say, "No one ever told it was wrong to do that. All I was told was that I shouldn't do it." See how far that gets you. To me it's no different with God. He said, "thou shalt not eat of it." He also told him the consequence of doing so. I did notice, however, that only Adam was there when that commandment was made. Eve was not created yet, so does that exempt her from obeying that commandment? : Of course, I wasn't there either.

Hi Jon-Marc,

Interesting post - 'Eve was not created yet' when the command was given to Adam - quite right. This makes sense with reference to Adam's sin even though Eve took the fruit first. I don't know about Eve being exempt from the commandment - never thought about that.

In Christ: Stranger

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Well, Like I said before, the only point that I have seen looks very much like a fish hook.

 

[stranger]

:

I didn't see that.

I tried to split up my replies to clarify 'one issue/question' per post - haven't quite mastered all the editing facilities on the forum.

In Christ: Stranger

 

[Rick W]

Hi Jon-Marc,

Interesting post - 'Eve was not created yet' when the command was given to Adam - quite right. This makes sense with reference to Adam's sin even though Eve took the fruit first. I don't know about Eve being exempt from the commandment - never thought about that.

In Christ: Stranger

She knew the commandment though... that's obvious.
Just because I never spoke personally with anyone throughout scripture doesn't make me exempt from what they said to someone else.

Anyway,

James 1:14 14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
James 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Sin to death. Sounds familiar.