Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

[Douglas King]

What would happen if Adam and Eve had NOT eaten the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

 

[WIP]

I believe mankind would have remained innocent.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Man would have learned about good and evil by doing good instead of evil. Success is a much better teacher.

 

[WIP]

Consider other creatures. They know nothing of good vs evil.

 

[Who Me]

What would happen if Adam and Eve had NOT eaten the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

Ephesian 1:- 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he[b] predestined us for adoption to sonship[c] through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8 that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, 9 he[d] made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.

Chosen before creation, God knew that Adam would not resist the temptation.

 

[Gnostic]

What would happen if Adam and Eve had NOT eaten the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

They would never reproduce, and the story would end in Eden.

They were to stupid to even know they were naked before eating of knowledge of those issues.

Regards
DL

 

[Dorothy Mae]

They would never reproduce, and the story would end in Eden.

They were to stupid to even know they were naked before eating of knowledge of those issues.

Regards
DL

Since God told them to be fruitful and multiply before the Rebellion, we can assume they would have done so….without sin.

 

[Gnostic]

Since God told them to be fruitful and multiply before the Rebellion, we can assume they would have done so….without sin.

Yet God saisys they were too stupid before eating of knowledge.

He gave them that reproduction command way back in Gen 1.

Strange how you can see instant punishment in Gen 3 while ignoring waht hapene34d in Gen 1.

Why do you see seeking knowledge as rebellion?

What would you know without a working knowledge of good and evil?

Regards
DL

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Yet God saisys they were too stupid before eating of knowledge.

Where does He say that?

He gave them that reproduction command way back in Gen 1.

Before the rebellion. Ergo, it would have occurred in any case.

Strange how you can see instant punishment in Gen 3 while ignoring waht hapene34d in Gen 1.

Who is ignoring it? You’re inventing stuff not there.

Why do you see seeking knowledge as rebellion?

It wasn’t knowledge per se and God saw it as rebellion. Good enough for me.

What would you know without a working knowledge of good and evil?

Lots and lots. Good and evil 101 is not a course taught at college so students can go on and learn about chemistry, anatomy, geography, etc.

 

[Gnostic]

Where does He say that?



It wasn’t knowledge per se and God saw it as rebellion. Good enough for me.

Gen 3 has God saying A & E were too stupid to know they were naked. That is why they had yet to do as God commanded way back in Gen 1.

If not knowledge from the tree of knowledge, what was it?

BTW, if you are only going to make poorly thought-out statements, go away.

Regards
DL

 

[WIP]

If not knowledge from the tree of knowledge, what was it?

It wasn't the tree of knowledge. It was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That is totally different.

 

[Gnostic]

It wasn't the tree of knowledge. It was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That is totally different.

Same thing to me, given that all knowledge is subject to being good or evil.

The point was A & E's total stupidity without any form of knowledge.

Too stupid to even know they were naked and able to reproduce.

Regards
DL

 

[WIP]

Same thing to me, given that all knowledge is subject to being good or evil.

The point was A & E's total stupidity without any form of knowledge.

Too stupid to even know they were naked and able to reproduce.

Regards
DL

Not stupid but ignorant. Stupid and ignorant are two different things.

 

[BroRoyVa79]

What would happen if Adam and Eve had NOT eaten the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

Most of this is not really directed to you, Douglas, nor the overall question, but some general points made in the thread.

Adam and Eve already knew "good" from "evil." The evidence is in the text of Genesis 3 as well as the rest of the Bible which cites the event. But Genesis 2:15-17, shows that Adam was given a clear decree and understanding of what it meant to do good and what it meant to do evil by the simple command of not eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but eating from every tree in the garden instead. (Most also miss, that God did not restrict man from eating of the tree of life that was also planted in the garden in Genesis 2:9, but everyone gets caught up on the tree of knowledge of good and evil, because that's what helped cause the rebellion, and was the one that God told Adam would kill him, but I digress.)

We also have to remember that Genesis 2-3 does not give us any actual sense of how much time passes since Adam's creation to Eve's creation. We can infer from Genesis 2:18-20, that, at the very least, a day or so passes since Adam spends time with God naming animals. We don't know how many animals it was, but we can safely assume that these were the progenitors of all of the kinds of animals we see today to include some that have gone extinct, etc. I'm not going to put a number on it other than to say I think it's safe to say that at least a day or so passed for that before Eve was created. So I think it's safe to say that at the very least, two days since Adam's creation if we're basing it specifically on what we see in scripture.

In Genesis 3, we get introduced to the serpent. Eve shows in their interaction that Adam did tell her what God told him. The interaction shows Adam was standing right there the entire time (Genesis 3:6). So, they knew that obeying God was a good thing as it would result in good things (good food to eat, no death). They knew that disobeying God would result in bad things (death). They chose to disobey. They chose evil. They were not stupid. We see that Adam is capable of naming an untold number of new creatures. He was capable of understanding God's decree. He was capable of passing this on to Eve. She was capable of understanding that.

A lot of people will get hung up on Genesis 3:7 in relation to this because they suddenly realize they were naked. A Hebrew scholar, Douglas Hamp, whom I don't agree with on regarding everything he believes should you go investigate him, has an interesting take on this in regard to the Hebrew and by extension the Greek when Adam and Eve's fall is brought up. I don't have his book in front of me at the moment while I type this at work and because of my work's network, I can't access his website to pull from any of his old articles on the subject, but the short way of putting it is that he argues that if Adam and Eve were created in the image of God, there's an implication there in the language, that it means a bit more than what we think. Essentially they weren't really naked, they were covered by sort of a glow, a bioluminescence, for lack of a better way of putting it. A sort of a glory if you will. If I recall correctly, he connects this with Moses' glow coming down from Mount Sinai in Exodus 34:29-30 after being in the presence of the Lord and that this sort of bioluminescence is part of us in our natural uncorrupted nature. So, when Adam and Eve rebelled they lost their covering and then had to cover themselves with the leaves. So it wasn't about them being "stupid" or "ignorant" and not knowing they were naked cause they weren't, they became "naked" after their fall.

If that's a bit too much for you, the other way of looking at Genesis 3:7 is in relation to all of the times throughout the bible in which "nakedness" is an indication of shame and exposing one's evil in plain sight. This is evident in Genesis 2:25: "And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." Which set the stage for all of the other passages which uses "nakedness" as an indication of one's shame and wickedness. Which shows why they covered themselves because they were ashamed of their failure to obey and stay in league with God rather than listen to the serpent and their own rebellious desires.

Now to the question. As I said, the Tree of Life was in the garden. God did not restrict them from it until they rebelled and were corrupted. It was only then God removed them from the Garden to restrict access to the Tree of Life. I hold that if Adam and Eve had reached out and eaten from the Tree of Life instead of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil we'd all likely be in a different place.

Would that mean everyone would be good? No. All of God's creation has the capacity to do evil. Look at the heavenly host, many of which we refer to as angels (which is a position title). Anyways, they were always in the presence of God just like us, and still rebelled, just like us. I think even if Adam and Eve managed to not mess up, and many of us managed to not mess up despite being in an uncorrupted state since the beginning, there would have always been someone down the line who would mess up, just like the devil and the rebellious ones, as well as Adam and Eve did. It just wouldn't have been Adam and Even and there would be more humans now in an uncorrupted state, likely somewhere in the eternal presence of God already who didn't have to go through all of this mess to get there.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Gen 3 has God saying A & E were too stupid to know they were naked.

Please quote that, particularly the word ”stupid.” I gather you decided that all small children are stupid. (Ignorance is not stupid.)

That is why they had yet to do as God commanded way back in Gen 1.

No one thinks that the reason. Not God and not the author. That’s not the reason given.

If not knowledge from the tree of knowledge, what was it?

Wasn’t the tree of general knowledge.

BTW, if you are only going to make poorly thought-out statements, go away.

Regards
DL

You are missing too much information presented clearly in the texts.

 

[Gnostic]

Most of this is not really directed to you, Douglas, nor the overall question, but some general points made in the thread.

Adam and Eve already knew "good" from "evil." The evidence is in the text of Genesis 3 as well as the rest of the Bible which cites the event. But Genesis 2:15-17, shows that Adam was given a clear decree and understanding of what it meant to do good and what it meant to do evil by the simple command of not eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but eating from every tree in the garden instead. (Most also miss, that God did not restrict man from eating of the tree of life that was also planted in the garden in Genesis 2:9, but everyone gets caught up on the tree of knowledge of good and evil, because that's what helped cause the rebellion, and was the one that God told Adam would kill him, but I digress.)

We also have to remember that Genesis 2-3 does not give us any actual sense of how much time passes since Adam's creation to Eve's creation. We can infer from Genesis 2:18-20, that, at the very least, a day or so passes since Adam spends time with God naming animals. We don't know how many animals it was, but we can safely assume that these were the progenitors of all of the kinds of animals we see today to include some that have gone extinct, etc. I'm not going to put a number on it other than to say I think it's safe to say that at least a day or so passed for that before Eve was created. So I think it's safe to say that at the very least, two days since Adam's creation if we're basing it specifically on what we see in scripture.

In Genesis 3, we get introduced to the serpent. Eve shows in their interaction that Adam did tell her what God told him. The interaction shows Adam was standing right there the entire time (Genesis 3:6). So, they knew that obeying God was a good thing as it would result in good things (good food to eat, no death). They knew that disobeying God would result in bad things (death). They chose to disobey. They chose evil. They were not stupid. We see that Adam is capable of naming an untold number of new creatures. He was capable of understanding God's decree. He was capable of passing this on to Eve. She was capable of understanding that.

A lot of people will get hung up on Genesis 3:7 in relation to this because they suddenly realize they were naked. A Hebrew scholar, Douglas Hamp, whom I don't agree with on regarding everything he believes should you go investigate him, has an interesting take on this in regard to the Hebrew and by extension the Greek when Adam and Eve's fall is brought up. I don't have his book in front of me at the moment while I type this at work and because of my work's network, I can't access his website to pull from any of his old articles on the subject, but the short way of putting it is that he argues that if Adam and Eve were created in the image of God, there's an implication there in the language, that it means a bit more than what we think. Essentially they weren't really naked, they were covered by sort of a glow, a bioluminescence, for lack of a better way of putting it. A sort of a glory if you will. If I recall correctly, he connects this with Moses' glow coming down from Mount Sinai in Exodus 34:29-30 after being in the presence of the Lord and that this sort of bioluminescence is part of us in our natural uncorrupted nature. So, when Adam and Eve rebelled they lost their covering and then had to cover themselves with the leaves. So it wasn't about them being "stupid" or "ignorant" and not knowing they were naked cause they weren't, they became "naked" after their fall.

If that's a bit too much for you, the other way of looking at Genesis 3:7 is in relation to all of the times throughout the bible in which "nakedness" is an indication of shame and exposing one's evil in plain sight. This is evident in Genesis 2:25: "And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." Which set the stage for all of the other passages which uses "nakedness" as an indication of one's shame and wickedness. Which shows why they covered themselves because they were ashamed of their failure to obey and stay in league with God rather than listen to the serpent and their own rebellious desires.

Now to the question. As I said, the Tree of Life was in the garden. God did not restrict them from it until they rebelled and were corrupted. It was only then God removed them from the Garden to restrict access to the Tree of Life. I hold that if Adam and Eve had reached out and eaten from the Tree of Life instead of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil we'd all likely be in a different place.

Would that mean everyone would be good? No. All of God's creation has the capacity to do evil. Look at the heavenly host, many of which we refer to as angels (which is a position title). Anyways, they were always in the presence of God just like us, and still rebelled, just like us. I think even if Adam and Eve managed to not mess up, and many of us managed to not mess up despite being in an uncorrupted state since the beginning, there would have always been someone down the line who would mess up, just like the devil and the rebellious ones, as well as Adam and Eve did. It just wouldn't have been Adam and Even and there would be more humans now in an uncorrupted state, likely somewhere in the eternal presence of God already who didn't have to go through all of this mess to get there.

Where did the iniquity found in Satan come from if not from Yahweh himself?

You also seem to think it was a mistake for Adam to sin.

If so, why do Christians sing of Adam's sin being a happy fault and necessary to God's plan?

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic]

Wasn’t the tree of general knowledge.

You do not like my wording, so you tell me.

What was the tree named?

Regards
DL

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You do not like my wording, so you tell me.

What was the tree named?

Regards
DL

You wording is wrong. It’s not that I don’t like it, it is you are uninformed. It’s the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not nuclear physics, chemistry, astronomy or trigonometry.

 

[Gnostic]

You wording is wrong. It’s not that I don’t like it, it is you are uninformed. It’s the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not nuclear physics, chemistry, astronomy or trigonometry.

The garbage science is evil. The useful science is good.

Everything you can likely put is subject to good and evil. That is why the term was invented.

Would you follow Adam and Eve's lead or would you derail God's plan?

Regards
DL

 

[BroRoyVa79]

Where did the iniquity found in Satan come from if not from Yahweh himself?

I've noticed that you make a lot of proclamations here without giving anything to back it up other than your word, well other than that one time where you cited other theologies of other religions.

You seem to confuse being given the capacity to do evil with being given evil itself with this loaded question. Just like Adam and Eve, who chose to sin, Satan/Lucifer/the Devil chose to sin. Ezekiel 28:13-17 reveals this, specifically verse 17:

Ezekiel 28: 17 Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings. (This is God speaking to Satan/Lucifer/the Devil)

You also seem to think it was a mistake for Adam to sin.

It was. Every mentioning of it throughout scripture indicates that it was.

If so, why do Christians sing of Adam's sin being a happy fault and necessary to God's plan?

This is the second time you mentioned this to me and the first time I told you I was unfamiliar with whatever it is you're trying to use here to make whatever point you're trying to make with it. Since you haven't responded with what it is, I went out in looked it up. I suspect it was some type of hymnal or something from a denomination I was never a part of and seems I was right. So this is Catholic tradition. As I am not Catholic I was unfamiliar with it. After looking into it, seems you are misrepresenting what it is and taking it out context to try to prove a point about it's meaning that's not what it is.

After reading a bit on it. It is simply seeing the positive overall outcome despite the Fall's negative aspects and choosing to see the fortunate consequences in an unfortunate event. Without examining every facet of the concept it seems to me to essentially be an argument of this sort in relation to present and future suffering and the corruption of all of creation:

Romans 8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.