Literalism and Original Sin

[Law of Loud]

I don't mean to be disrespectful or argumentative in posing this question, though I expect that somewhere in the answering an argument will probably develop. Nonetheless, though not a literalist myself, I strive to maintain an understanding of others, and had a question stemming from some word usage in Genesis. I posed this dilemna a while back, but didn't really recieve an explanation.

-----
(Genesis 3:22)
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever
-----

The general idea is that Adam is being taken from Eden because he has come to "know" sin. I can use the word "know" in a more modern sense, and say that Adam hadn't understood sin before, which leads to a difficult suggestion for me, being that God was punishing Adam for committing transgressions he didn't understand. Why would a loving and just God condemn us for committing transgressions we weren't even aware we were committing? If this is the manner in which He conducts himself, then I'm personal a touch frightened.

But somebody reminded me that the term "know" had a different connotation, such as "Adam knew Eve". This makes a lot more sense... Adam already understood sin, but only now had been guilty of it. But that places a real poser for me when you read Genesis 3:22, as it literally seems to state that God said that Adam had become as them... that he knew good and evil. Does this mean that God has "known" evil as well?

-----

My problem is that both of these explanations result in problems for me, the first one being that God punishes men for things we do in naivety, and the latter being that God has done evil.

So, I ask literalists around here, if you could, please provide for me a coherent explanation of this chapter. Hopefully one that doesn't hinge upon either of those two premises, which honestly would unsettle my faith.

 

[FijianBeliever]

I believe that originally, all Adam knew, with regards to sin was, Don't eat from the tree....

Theoretically, he could have killed, ( although that one is a bit hairy as only Eve was around but hey!!! Its a theoretical situation) and would not have been guilty of sin. So in that regard, Adam certainly knew what sin was, although his understanding of sin would have been dramatically different from ours today.

I hold that the knew in the verse you quoted is "knew" in the sense that Adam knew Eve. It's an intimate knowledge gained from a physical encounter with the previous state being only theoretical.

Think Experience vs knowledge.

 

[Law of Loud]

I believe that originally, all Adam knew, with regards to sin was, Don't eat from the tree....

Theoretically, he could have killed, ( although that one is a bit hairy as only Eve was around but hey!!! Its a theoretical situation) and would not have been guilty of sin. So in that regard, Adam certainly knew what sin was, although his understanding of sin would have been dramatically different from ours today.

I hold that the knew in the verse you quoted is "knew" in the sense that Adam knew Eve. It's an intimate knowledge gained from a physical encounter with the previous state being only theoretical.

Think Experience vs knowledge.

Thank you for the response, but that leaves me with the second dilemna there. I'm shooting for an answer that gets around both of the dilemnas I mentioned, and hopefully doesn't create anymore.

Does that mean God "knows" evil?

But still, thanks for replying.

 

[FijianBeliever]

Thank you for the response, but that leaves me with the second dilemna there. I'm shooting for an answer that gets around both of the dilemnas I mentioned, and hopefully doesn't create anymore.

Does that mean God "knows" evil?

But still, thanks for replying.

I believe God does know evil. How else would He judge it, and those who practise it?

 

[Law of Loud]

I believe God does know evil. How else would He judge it, and those who practise it?

Aye... but the second manner there explicates that God "knows" evil in an "Adam knows Eve" sense. That would imply that God practices evil.

I have no problem with the premise that the word "know" is used to mean God understands evil... but if know is used in that manner, then it means Adam was being punished for things he didn't understand.

Please read the entire OP, because I find a problem with both definitions of "know", and I'm trying to see a resolution to that.

 

[FijianBeliever]

Aye... but the second manner there explicates that God "knows" evil in an "Adam knows Eve" sense. That would imply that God practices evil.

I have no problem with the premise that the word "know" is used to mean God understands evil... but if know is used in that manner, then it means Adam was being punished for things he didn't understand.

Please read the entire OP, because I find a problem with both definitions of "know", and I'm trying to see a resolution to that.

Oops..sorry. I wasn't clear enough.

Adam knew good and evil in the Adam knew Eve sense.

God knows good also in the sense of "know/knew" that Adam knew good and evil with.

God does not know evil in this sense. However, God knows it in the other sense ( ie He knows what evil is but He has never done it.)

 

[Logos1560]

The almighty, all-wise, all-knowing, good, and perfect God knows what evil is without being evil or doing evil.
God as the Creator had the clear right and authority to give instructions and even commands to his creatures including man. Man was not made a robot since man was given the choice and opportunity to love and obey his Creator. There was only one command to be obeyed in a world where God had abundantly provided for all of man's needs. That choice or free will given man also means that there was the possibility for man to reject and disobey that Creator.

Genesis 3:22 must be interpreted in line with a correct understanding of Genesis 2:16-17.

Gen. 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

The phrase does not read "knowledge of the good and the evil." The knowledge of good and evil could be obtained by man's following God's command. The purpose and intent behind God's command was good. Man did not have to eat of this tree to know what good was. That would indicate that man did not have to disobey and eat of the tree to know evil. Evil could be learned as being the opposite of good. In this one command rested a test of man's obedience and trust in the sovereignty, authority, wisdom, goodness, justice, and holiness of God. Disobedience or breaking of this command of God would be to doubt the goodness of God, to dispute the wisdom of God, to repudiate the sovereignty and authority of God, and to contradict the truthfulness of God.

The main point of Genesis 3:22 seems to be that since man had disobeyed and sinned God in his wisdom and love did not want man to eat of the tree of life and live for ever in this sinful condition.

To attempt to interpret Genesis 3:22 to mean that God knows evil by doing evil would be to contradict many clear statements in the Scriptures.

 

[Theophorus]

But somebody reminded me that the term "know" had a different connotation, such as "Adam knew Eve". This makes a lot more sense... Adam already understood sin, but only now had been guilty of it. But that places a real poser for me when you read Genesis 3:22, as it literally seems to state that God said that Adam had become as them... that he knew good and evil. Does this mean that God has "known" evil as well?

When someone knows their wife, did they understand them beforehand? A person may may "know" any number of things and not understand them, before or after.


[

 

[walkinginchrist]

[FONT=LEAPHH+TimesNewRoman]“I know you not” (Matt. 25.11-12)—Will the Lord ever say to the saved that He does not know them? However, we need to examine this answer of our Lord’s very carefully: [/FONT]

[FONT=LEAPHH+TimesNewRoman](1)”But he answered and said”—The word “but” shows that the answer is unusual and out of all expectation. In Luke 15.22 the same word indicates how totally unthought-of, unhoped-for, and unexpected by the prodigal son were the father’s words to his servants. The word “but” here proves that the “know not” is not an ordinary not knowing. [/FONT]

[FONT=LEAPHH+TimesNewRoman](2) The Lord knows all who are saved (2 Tim. 2.19, Gal. 4.9, John 10.14). Two Greek words are used for “know” in the New Testament: [FONT=LEBEBP+TimesNewRoman,Italic]ginosko [/FONT][FONT=LEAPHH+TimesNewRoman]and [/FONT][FONT=LEBEBP+TimesNewRoman,Italic]oida[/FONT][FONT=LEAPHH+TimesNewRoman]. The former signifies an objective knowledge while the latter signifies a subjective and deeper knowledge. Now [/FONT][FONT=LEBEBP+TimesNewRoman,Italic]oida [/FONT][FONT=LEAPHH+TimesNewRoman]is the Greek word employed here by the Lord. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=LEAPHH+TimesNewRoman](3) How is [FONT=LEBEBP+TimesNewRoman,Italic]oida [/FONT][FONT=LEAPHH+TimesNewRoman]used in the Scriptures? It is recognizably employed to mean approve, commend, endorse, or applaud. What follows are a few examples from the New Testament which illustrate the use of this Greek word. In each example, the verb “to know” or “to not know” is [/FONT][FONT=LEBEBP+TimesNewRoman,Italic]oida [/FONT][FONT=LEAPHH+TimesNewRoman]or its variant. “In the midst of you standeth one whom ye know not” (John 1.26). In this situation, of course, the Jews know ([/FONT][FONT=LEBEBP+TimesNewRoman,Italic]ginosko[/FONT][FONT=LEAPHH+TimesNewRoman]) the Lord, but they do not really know ([/FONT][FONT=LEBEBP+TimesNewRoman,Italic]oida[/FONT][FONT=LEAPHH+TimesNewRoman]) Him because they do not love Him. “I knew him not” (John 1.31). Since John and the Lord Jesus are cousins, the Baptist certainly knows Jesus objectively ([/FONT][FONT=LEBEBP+TimesNewRoman,Italic]ginosko[/FONT][FONT=LEAPHH+TimesNewRoman]) but not subjectively ([/FONT][FONT=LEBEBP+TimesNewRoman,Italic]oida[/FONT][FONT=LEAPHH+TimesNewRoman])—that is to say, John does not know Him deeply. “Ye know neither me, nor my Father” (John 8.19). Though the Jews know ([/FONT][FONT=LEBEBP+TimesNewRoman,Italic]ginosko[/FONT][FONT=LEAPHH+TimesNewRoman]) the Lord quite well externally, they do not approve of Him nor do they receive Him. “I know you not whence ye are” (spoken twice in Luke 13.22-30). Here the Lord speaks of the situation in the kingdom. Some who have eaten and drunk with the Lord and have also heard Him teaching in their streets doubtless know objectively ([/FONT][FONT=LEBEBP+TimesNewRoman,Italic]ginosko[/FONT][FONT=LEAPHH+TimesNewRoman]) the Lord well, yet they are referred to by the Lord as “workers of iniquity”—a phrase which in the original is worded as “workers of unrighteousness”—that is to say, those who do not walk according to rule. “Ye know the house of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 16.15). The Corinthian believers know deeply ([/FONT][FONT=LEBEBP+TimesNewRoman,Italic]oida[/FONT][FONT=LEAPHH+TimesNewRoman]) and not just know objectively ([/FONT][FONT=LEBEBP+TimesNewRoman,Italic]ginosko[/FONT][FONT=LEAPHH+TimesNewRoman]) the house of Stephanas. Hence from all these examples we learn that [/FONT][FONT=LEBEBP+TimesNewRoman,Italic]oida [/FONT][FONT=LEAPHH+TimesNewRoman]is subjective knowing of a person, which implies a sense of trust. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=LEAPHH+TimesNewRoman](4) “Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 10.33; cf. also Luke 12.9). These two instances of the word “deny” have reference to things in the kingdom. Secret Christians will not perish, yet neither will they be approved by the Lord in the kingdom. “Deny” ([FONT=LEBEBP+TimesNewRoman,Italic]arneomai[/FONT][FONT=LEAPHH+TimesNewRoman]) is to not know (in the [/FONT][FONT=LEBEBP+TimesNewRoman,Italic]oida [/FONT][FONT=LEAPHH+TimesNewRoman]sense of not knowing) (see Matt. 26.70). It is to contradict, refute, or overturn. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=LEAPHH+TimesNewRoman](5) There are similar examples of this matter of knowing and not knowing in the Old Testament, as for instance in 1 Samuel 3.7 (“Now Samuel did not yet know Jehovah&#8221 wherein Samuel had indeed [FONT=LEBEBP+TimesNewRoman,Italic]objectively [/FONT][FONT=LEAPHH+TimesNewRoman]known Jehovah, but he had yet to know the Lord in a subjective way. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=LEAPHH+TimesNewRoman](6) The reward of the kingdom is based purely on righteousness. For the Lord to deny has about it the flavor of righteousness. Just as a judge must ask the name of the offender even if the latter is his own son, so the denial here in Matthew 25.12 (“I know you not&#8221 refers to the action and not to the person. It means the Lord cannot accept or approve. [/FONT]

 

[walkinginchrist]

You can understand something in your mind (ie your soul), but you really can't know it deeply unless it is received in your spirit's inner man.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

[/font]

When someone knows their wife, did they understand them beforehand? A person may may "know" any number of things and not understand them, before or after.


[

In Elizabethan language (the language of the KJV) the expression "Adam knew Eve" means that he had sexual intercourse with her.

 

[BigNorsk]

There is no basis to take the knowledge of good and evil and equate it to the knowledge of sin. Sin is to miss the mark, to not do as God would have you do. Is there anything inherently evil in eating the fruit? I do not believe so, yet Adam and Eve both knew that it was God's will that they not eat of that tree.

The thing that caused man to fall was not the knowledge of good and evil, but the sin of eating that which was forbidden. God certainly has the knowledge of good and evil but it is not sinful for him to have it nor does it produce sin in him. The knowledge is not in itself sinful.

The reason man was driven out of the Garden before he could also eat of the tree of life was that if man had eaten of the tree of life and gotten eternal life in his fallen state, then man would have become like the fallen angels, there would have been no means to save him.

I think a lot of the problem in understanding comes when so many groups teach that one cannot sin if one doesn't understand the difference between good and evil and so they say that young children or mentally deficient people cannot sin. That's not a biblical position, and you are now dealing with the fact that the sin that caused all of mankind to fall was done without the knowledge of good and evil.

You can even see the difference in young children. Take a 3 year old, he doesn't really know what is good and what is evil, but he knows what "no" means. And you tell him "no" and he oftens fights against it and disobeys, and he clearly knows that when he disobeys that he is disobeying. He is a sinful creature from the start even though he doesn't know good from evil.

Marv

 

[walkinginchrist]

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic]A Weak Conscience[/FONT]​

The standard of our holy living is Christ, not conscience, though the latter nonetheless is of great significance. It testifies whether or not in our everyday life we have pleased God; it consequently serves as a criterion for the current degree of holiness. If we live by what conscience teaches we have arrived at the place we should be for the present moment. It is therefore a prime factor in our daily walk after the spirit. In whatever matter we disobey the dictate of our conscience we shall be reprimanded by it. As a result we shall lose peace and shall be cut off temporarily from having fellowship with God. There is no question that we must follow what conscience demands; but how perfect its demand is remains a question.

As we have seen, conscience is limited by knowledge. It can guide only by the knowledge it possesses. It condemns every disobedience to what it knows, but it cannot condemn what it itself does not know. Hence a vast distance obtains between the measure of conscience and the measure of God’s holiness. just here we find at least two defects. First, a conscience with limited knowledge condemns only what it knows as wrong and leaves untouched in our life numerous matters which are not according to God’s will. God and those more matured saints know how imperfect we are, and yet we continue to walk in our old fashion for lack of new light. Is not this an enormous defect? This imperfection is nonetheless bearable because God does not judge what we do. not know. Despite this flaw we can fellowship with Him and be accepted if we simply obey whatever our conscience dictates.

But the second defect, unlike the first, does interfere with our fellowship with God. just as a limited knowledge fails to judge what ought to be judged, so it may also judge what should not be judged. Does it mean that conscience is faulty in its guidance? No, the leading of conscience is correct and must be heeded by believers. But there are different degrees of knowledge among the saints. Many things which can be done with knowledge are condemned as sins by the conscience of those who lack knowledge. This manifests the disease of believers’ immaturity. The fathers can do many things with perfect liberty for they have advanced knowledge, experience and position, but for the little children to do them would be entirely wrong because they simply do not possess such knowledge, experience and position. This does not imply that there are two different standards for the Christian’s conduct. It just shows, however, that the standard of good and evil is bound up with individual position. This law applies to the secular, as well as to the spiritual, realm. Many matters agree perfectly with God’s will when done by matured believers, but these very items become sins if copied by immature ones.

The reason for this variance is the different degrees of knowledge in our consciences. When one believer does what his conscience deems good he is obeying the will of God; but the conscience of another person may judge the same thing as evil, and he will be sinning against God if he does it. The absolute will of God is always the same; but He reveals His mind to each person according to the limitation of their spiritual position. Those with knowledge have a stronger conscience and consequently enjoy more liberty; while those without knowledge harbor a weaker conscience and hence experience more bondage.

This is distinctly illustrated in the first letter to the Corinthians. There was much misunderstanding among the Christians at Corinth concerning the eating of food offered to idols. Some of them regarded idols as possessing no real existence since there is no God but One (1 Cor. 8.4). So for them there could be no difference between the food offered to idols and food not so offered: both with propriety could be eaten. But others, having long been accustomed to idols, could not help viewing the food as though it were truly offered to an idol. They felt uneasy when eating it. Because their conscience was weak while eating the food, they were defiled (v.7). The Apostle treated this divergence of view as a matter of knowledge (v.7). The former had light and therefore did not sin when they ate, for their conscience did not bother them; the latter, however, not enjoying such knowledge, felt uneasy while eating and so were guilty. Thus we see the great importance of knowledge. The increase of it sometimes may increase the condemnation of conscience but it may equally decrease its condemnation.

It is advisable for us to beseech the Lord to grant us more knowledge in order that we may not be bound unreasonably, but this knowledge must be kept in humility lest we, like the Corinthians, fall into the flesh. In case our knowledge is inadequate and our conscience continues its censure, we must obey its voice at all cost. We should never philosophize that since this thing is not wrong according to God’s highest standard, we can do it in spite of what our conscience says. Let us not forget that conscience is our current standard of God’s leading. We need to submit to it, else we sin. God judges whatever conscience judges.

What we have discussed here concerns merely outward items such as food. In those items of a more spiritual character there can be no such difference of liberty and bondage, however much our knowledge grows. Only in these external physical matters does God deal with us according to our age. In the young believers He pays much attention to their food, clothing and other external issues, because He desires to put to death the evil deeds of the body. If the young genuinely have a heart to follow the Lord they shall find Him frequently calling them, through their spirit’s conscience, to subdue themselves in these matters. But those with deeper experience in the Lord seem to enjoy more liberty in their conscience with respect to these items because they already have learned how to obey Him.

Yet the more advanced ones are confronted by one of the most serious hazards here. Their conscience becomes so strong as to drift into cold numbness. Young Christians who follow the Lord wholeheartedly obey Him at many points, for their conscience is sensitive and easily moved by the Holy Spirit. Old believers, on the other hand, have so much knowledge that they tend to overdevelop their mind so as to numb the sensitivity of the conscience. They are tempted to do things according to the knowledge of their mind and seemingly render themselves immovable by the Holy Spirit. This is a fatal blow to spiritual life. It removes the freshness from a believer’s walk and causes it to become old and dull. Regardless how much knowledge we possess, let us be careful not to follow it but the conscience of our spirit. Should we disregard what is condemned intuitively by our conscience and take our knowledge as our standard of conduct, we have already settled into walking after the flesh. Is it not true that our conscience sometimes can be greatly disturbed when we set out to do what is absolutely legitimate according to the truth we know? That which conscience condemns is reckoned as not in accordance with God’s will, even though by the knowledge of our mind it is good. This is because our knowledge is acquired through the searchings of our intellect and not by revelations in our intuition. Hence the leading of conscience and of knowledge can prove to be quite conflicting.

Paul indicates that one’s spiritual life shall be impaired enormously if he disregards the reproach of conscience and follows the knowledge of his mind instead. “For if any one sees you, a man of knowledge, at table in an idol’s temple, might he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak man is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died” (1 Cor. 8.10-11). Seeing a believer with knowledge eating food offered to idols, the one without knowledge tends to think he too can so eat. But if the latter eats against the voice of his conscience he falls into sin. Let us never for a moment, then, walk by the knowledge we have. However much of it we have accumulated, we ought only to heed the intuition and conscience of the spirit. Perhaps one’s knowledge may influence his conscience; even so, what he must follow directly is his conscience. God is looking more for our obedience to His will than for the “correctness” of our conduct. Our listening to the voice of conscience guarantees the genuine character of our consecration and obedience. Through our conscience God examines our motive—whether we desire to obey Him or we seek something else.

Another thing one must guard against is the blocking of his conscience. It often loses its normal operation through a kind of blockage. When we are surrounded by those whose conscience is deadly numb, ours may be numbed also through their argument, conversation, teaching, persuasion or example. Beware of teachers with hardened consciences: beware of man-made consciences: reject all attempts of man to mold yours. Our consciences must be responsible directly to God in all regards. We ourselves must know His will and be responsible for executing it. We will fail if we neglect our conscience to follow that of another.

Let us recapitulate. The conscience of the believer constitutes one of the indispensable faculties of his spirit. We ought to follow its guidance fully. Though it is influenced by knowledge, its voice nonetheless represents God’s highest will for His children today. It is well for us to arrive at the highest for today. Other matters we need not worry about. Let us continuously maintain our conscience in a healthy condition. Do not permit any sin to hurt its feeling. If at any time we discover that it has become cold and hard as though nothing can move us, let us recognize by this that we have fallen deeply into the flesh. In such a case, all the Bible knowledge we have acquired is but stored in the mind of the flesh and is lacking in living power. We ought to follow the intuition of our spirit unceasingly, being filled with the Holy Spirit, in order that our conscience may increase daily in sensitivity and our repentance may be as instantaneous as our knowledge of anything wrong between us and God. Do not be concerned purely with the mind and neglect the intuitive conscience. The extent of spirituality is measured by the sensitivity to our conscience. Countless are those Christians who have disregarded their conscience in the past and are now unlively, merely holding some dead knowledge in their brain. May we be ever watchful lest we stumble into the same trap. Do not be afraid to be easily moved. Never fear to have the conscience exercised too much; only fear for it not to be moved enough. Conscience serves as a monitor for God. It informs us where something has gone wrong or needs to be repaired. We can avoid much destructive consequences later if we but listen to conscience earlier.

 

[walkinginchrist]

Summary: a weak conscience is still a conscience to abide in because it is the minimum of God's requirement for that person.