What did Adam and Eve not know?

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Like the bother said.. it was a lie. They had no problem with a animal/serpent talking.

??
A few people I know do believe a donkey spoke, as written in Scripture.

Since snake and angel of light are so similar in the ancient texts,(Scripture),
we believe the one who usually speaks is the one who spoke , not the one who never speaks.

 

[JackRT]

The Greeks also used talking animals as a teaching tool. They were known as fables. Aesop was a master of this literary genre.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

v4-5 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

v7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

what exactly did Adam and Even "not know" before eating the fruit. The serpent tells them if they eat the fruit they will know the difference between good and evil... do we accept this? After they ate it, they knew they were naked. being naked is neither good/evil yet Adam and Eve knew they were naked after eating the fruit and before it seems they did not. To me this seems to be about either shame or the lust of being naked that they experienced. They always knew their bodies weren't covered but something was different after eating the fruit that uncovered bodies meant something else.

so how does Adam and Eve knowing they were naked connect with them knowing good and evil? if they didn't know good and evil how were they to know that following God was good and following the serpent was evil?

Adam and Eve did not have general knowledge of good and evil (i.e. the Moral Law, like: Do not kill, do not covet, do not steal, etc.). All they knew to be good was to obey God's command in not eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and if they disobeyed, they would die. I see Adam and Eve sort of similar to like that of a golden retriever. They are generally good natured dogs and have good qualities to them, but they do not have the capacity to think in terms of like an adult today about ethics or in making ethical choices.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

??
A few people I know do believe a donkey spoke, as written in Scripture.

Since snake and angel of light are so similar in the ancient texts,(Scripture),
we believe the one who usually speaks is the one who spoke , not the one who never speaks.

The serpent was possessed by the devil and he mostly likely spoke through it.
The donkey spoke because the Lord made that to happen.
For our God is a God of miracles.
I believe it is merely a person's lack of faith in what God's Word says if they were to write this story of Balaam off as a fable.
Peter says, "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty." (2 Peter 1:16). Jesus even quoted the OT with authority and treated them as real events and stories.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The donkey spoke because the Lord made that to happen.

No believer I know ever questioned this. Some I don't know try to explain it another way.... because of their mentors/teachers/religions 'traditions'? < shrugs > I don't know why.

I believe it is merely a person's lack of faith in what God's Word says if they were to write this story of Balaam off as a fable.

It may be what the ones teaching them taught them and they didn't think to question it?
===========
Some (maybe more) have 'shown' that yes, the donkey spoke, as written,
and the 'snake' was an angel of light, or appeared as an angel of light,
and that the 'snake' idea was developed from and became tradition.

Peter says, "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty." (2 Peter 1:16). Jesus even quoted the OT with authority and treated them as real events and stories.

 

[nicholas123]

Nowhere does it say it is the knowledge of the difference between good and evil, though most assume it and project, but the knowledge of good and evil is treated as a whole.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

for comparison:
Hebrews 5:14 But solid food is for the mature ... - Bible Hub
Hebrews 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained their senses to distinguish good from evil.
Solid food, on the other hand, is for adults, who through practice are able to distinguish between good and evil. Holman Christian Standard Bible But solid food is for the mature--for those whose senses have been trained to distinguish between good and evil.

Deuteronomy 1:39 And the little ones, whom you ... - Bible Hub
Deuteronomy 1:39 And the little ones, whom you said would become captives--your children who do not know good from evil--will enter the land that I will give them, and they will possess it.
Webster's Bible Translation. Moreover, your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and to them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

 

[Deade]

It should stand as a warning to us when trying to judge or know the absolute difference between absolute good and absolute evil for absolutely sure, etc...

That kind of knowledge or knowing belongs to God alone, etc...

Satan convinced them that they could be the judges of good and evil for themselves, and they were wrong, and we are still wrong, etc, especially absolutely, and for absolutely sure, etc...

This says it all. They decided to determine good and evil for themselves. It is the same sin Satan and his cohorts (the third fallen) were guilty of. This is still going on, today. We all need to look to God for our morality.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The BEGINNING of WISDOM is the fear of God.
What hasatan and the rebelling angels did is the exact opposite of wisdom.

Plus, no chance at all for redemption/ forgiveness / restoration

- instead, everything perfect that they once had is/was/forever lost in their lying, all condemned for their rebellion.

But Satan is a lair. And full of wisdom. Got 1/3 of heaven to go with him .

 

[Neogaia777]

This says it all. They decided to determine good and evil for themselves. It is the same sin Satan and his cohorts (the third fallen) were guilty of. This is still going on, today. We all need to look to God for our morality. View attachment 266862

And be very careful about our judging, I agree, Amen...

God Bless!

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

I'm late to this discussion and have not read through every response, but I'm surprised that I haven't really seen anyone point out some seemingly obvious things about the passage in question.

v4-5 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

v7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

This is the scripture text. It doesn't give us many details. But the problem is that we have added a LOT of details by our traditional understanding of what it means. Here's what I mean...

what exactly did Adam and Even "not know" before eating the fruit. The serpent tells them if they eat the fruit they will know the difference between good and evil... do we accept this?

I've highlighted a significant problem in your post here... that's NOT what the bible says!

Everyone seems to assume that "knowing good and evil" = "know the difference between good and evil."

But that's not what it means!

As it turns out, the word "knowing" is the same word used later in the bible for "Adam knew his wife and she conceived."

In other words, to "know" is to know by personal experience. It's to have intimate personal knowledge of something.

Up to that point, Adam and Eve had never experienced evil. They had only known "good." The huge change in store for them was in to experience evil in addition to good ("knowing good AND evil").

The assumption that they knew the difference between good and evil falls apart immediately within the narrative itself... for they chose nothing BUT "evil" after eating the fruit!

1. They covered their bodies.
2. They hid from God.
3. They blamed someone else when confronted about their own sin.

None of these things were "good." They were misguided at best and utterly stupid at worst.

After they ate it, they knew they were naked.

It's easy to read the account and assume that they "knew they were naked" as if that "knowing" came as a result of eating the fruit somehow. But that understanding ignores the question that God asked in Genesis 3:11... "Who told you that you were naked?"

God never asks a question He doesn't already know the answer to. Therefore, we must conclude that if God asked a "who" question, it must have a "who" answer. Someone told them that they were "naked." And the ONLY "who" it could possibly be is Satan.

Therefore, the only real conclusion we can derive from the Bible text itself is that the reason they were even thinking about being "naked" was that it was an idea that Satan himself planted in their minds.

Something else to think about... before that "telling," nakedness as a concept didn't even exist... for there was nothing that did not live exactly as God created it... plant, animal, or human. There was no reason for the word "naked" to exist because there was no such thing as clothing.

being naked is neither good/evil yet Adam and Eve knew they were naked after eating the fruit and before it seems they did not. To me this seems to be about either shame or the lust of being naked that they experienced. They always knew their bodies weren't covered but something was different after eating the fruit that uncovered bodies meant something else.

As I said, the text itself leads us to the conclusion that they had listened to Satan about being "naked" (a term and concept he had to invent on the spot).

so how does Adam and Eve knowing they were naked connect with them knowing good and evil? if they didn't know good and evil how were they to know that following God was good and following the serpent was evil?

Again, the "knowing" was not about distinguishing or recognizing "evil," but rather first-hand experiencing of evil (in addition to good).

And sadly, once they experienced evil, it seemed to be the only thing they chose thereafter.

There was nothing wrong with their created state... and nothing became wrong with their created state when they sinned. That notion came from Satan... not the fruit, and not God!

Why would Satan care? Because Adam and Eve were made in God's image. Satan--who wanted to be "like God"--used his words to influence Adam and Eve to be ashamed of their own image-bearing bodies.

The naked human body is NOT a problem to God. It's literally His self-portrait, crafted by His own hands. God does not hate nudity... Satan does. And since the very first day of his influence on humans, he's been distorting what the unclad human form means.

Satan's doctrine about the body has so thoroughly pervaded modern Christian thinking that our eyes are unable to even read and understand the story of the fall correctly... we--like Adam and Eve--have listened to Satan's lies that the naked human form is a problem.

Isaiah 5:20 - "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil"

Yet we look right here in the account of the fall and--like Satan and Adam and Eve--we call good (the naked human form as created by God and described as "very good" - see Genesis 1:31) "evil."

 

[JackRT]

That was a most interesting post. Thank you.

 

[Deade]

That was a most interesting post. Thank you.

I think his (MyChainsAreGone) whole post is an exercise in overthinking the subject.

View attachment 268717

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

I think his (MyChainsAreGone) whole post is an exercise in overthinking the subject.

In what way? Where am I in error?

 

[Deade]

In what way? Where am I in error?

You made a simple concept very complicated. They decided it was shameful to be without clothes. They interjected the lewd thoughts to make them feel dirty. They decided that was wrong for themselves. Took it upon themselves to decide right and wrong. They, in their minds, took that away from God. Nothing more need be said.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

You made a simple concept very complicated. They decided it was shameful to be without clothes. They interjected the lewd thoughts to make them feel dirty. They decided that was wrong for themselves. Took it upon themselves to decide right and wrong. They, in their minds, took that away from God. Nothing more need be said.

To be sure, your summary is defensible enough, I suppose, but there are LOTS of reasonable and even important questions that your summary totally ignores.

For example:

• Were their thoughts about their naked bodies correct?
• Who is the "Who" of "Who told you...?"

For the record, also, your summary--short as it was--still added several things to the account that are not found in the text.

• The notion that they "decided it was shameful" is not actually accurate... for Adam only professed fear... "I was afraid..." he said.
• The term "lewd" has meaning to us today that cannot be found in the scriptural account.
• The idea that "knowing good and evil" is about choosing good or evil.

Finally, how can you possibly consider this event "simple"? The fall of man was the singular event which made salvation--and the personal sacrifice of the Son of God--necessary. The repercussions of that event impact each human who has ever lived.

Simple? Not at all. Critical to our theology? Absolutely. Important to understand correctly? Unquestionably.

 

[Alistair_Wonderland]

They knew shame, something which God never intended us to feel for the body which was made in His image. Satan was pulling the cruelest joke in history; it's like someone asking what a tiger looks like, so you throw them in a cage with a tiger, only far worse. "You wanna see what imperfection and evil looks like? Here, I'll give you some. Enjoy!" Jerk. Now thanks to him, we have things like Jake Paul and CGI remakes of Disney cartoons.

 

[DamianWarS]

I've highlighted a significant problem in your post here... that's NOT what the bible says!

Everyone seems to assume that "knowing good and evil" = "know the difference between good and evil."

But that's not what it means!

As it turns out, the word "knowing" is the same word used later in the bible for "Adam knew his wife and she conceived."

In other words, to "know" is to know by personal experience. It's to have intimate personal knowledge of something.

Up to that point, Adam and Eve had never experienced evil. They had only known "good." The huge change in store for them was in to experience evil in addition to good ("knowing good AND evil").

The assumption that they knew the difference between good and evil falls apart immediately within the narrative itself... for they chose nothing BUT "evil" after eating the fruit!

1. They covered their bodies.
2. They hid from God.
3. They blamed someone else when confronted about their own sin.

None of these things were "good." They were misguided at best and utterly stupid at worst.

remember Seinfeld's "yada-yada" episode and the suggestion that yada means sex? this is because "yada" does mean sex and it's not just a bunch of gibberish. The Hebrew word for "know" is "yada" and it's a euphemism for sex.

knowing good/evil and knowing the differences between good/evil is an interesting question but I'm not sure what value it adds to the discussion and it seems unproductive. The account has them hiding from God and God is good. they were in a fallen state, the fallen state is evil. the text itself seems to implicitly identify that Adam and Eve knew their state changed and this state caused them to hide from God (good) so they recognized their fallen state as incompatible with God's perfect state, ergo they recognized evil and good (at least to contrast)

It's easy to read the account and assume that they "knew they were naked" as if that "knowing" came as a result of eating the fruit somehow. But that understanding ignores the question that God asked in Genesis 3:11... "Who told you that you were naked?"

God never asks a question He doesn't already know the answer to. Therefore, we must conclude that if God asked a "who" question, it must have a "who" answer. Someone told them that they were "naked." And the ONLY "who" it could possibly be is Satan.

Therefore, the only real conclusion we can derive from the Bible text itself is that the reason they were even thinking about being "naked" was that it was an idea that Satan himself planted in their minds.

Something else to think about... before that "telling," nakedness as a concept didn't even exist... for there was nothing that did not live exactly as God created it... plant, animal, or human. There was no reason for the word "naked" to exist because there was no such thing as clothing.

nakedness is a metaphor for shame and sin. this is why it needs to clarify in 2:25 that they were naked yet felt no shame because the two mean the same thing. once they figured out they were naked what it is they felt was shame and it has nothing really to do that they were physically naked. Your logic is on the right track it's just too literal. what changes before the fall to after the fall? not their nakedness so why would they care even if they were told they were naked? they hid because of their sin not because of their skin (I know that's a really corny line). God clothes them with animal skin which means he had to kill an animal (sacrifice) to cover their nakedness and cloth their sin/shame in righteousness. There is far more to the story their superficial skin

As I said, the text itself leads us to the conclusion that they had listened to Satan about being "naked" (a term and concept he had to invent on the spot).

this is one of the reasons why the account points to a non-literal account because of inconsistencies like this. Even if explained to Adam and Eve this doesn't create shame and it would take years to learn this taboo of nakedness. You could argue they were told God doesn't like nakedness which would create a reason why they were hiding because they didn't want God to see them but this adds too much extra information to support this and is irresponsible. That's not what the account is about.

Again, the "knowing" was not about distinguishing or recognizing "evil," but rather first-hand experiencing of evil (in addition to good).

And sadly, once they experienced evil, it seemed to be the only thing they chose thereafter.

There was nothing wrong with their created state... and nothing became wrong with their created state when they sinned. That notion came from Satan... not the fruit, and not God!

Why would Satan care? Because Adam and Eve were made in God's image. Satan--who wanted to be "like God"--used his words to influence Adam and Eve to be ashamed of their own image-bearing bodies.

The naked human body is NOT a problem to God. It's literally His self-portrait, crafted by His own hands. God does not hate nudity... Satan does. And since the very first day of his influence on humans, he's been distorting what the unclad human form means.

Satan's doctrine about the body has so thoroughly pervaded modern Christian thinking that our eyes are unable to even read and understand the story of the fall correctly... we--like Adam and Eve--have listened to Satan's lies that the naked human form is a problem.

Isaiah 5:20 - "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil"

Yet we look right here in the account of the fall and--like Satan and Adam and Eve--we call good (the naked human form as created by God and described as "very good" - see Genesis 1:31) "evil."

you're stuck too much in the literal details. nakedness is not only skin deep. it is sin. God "fixes" this through animal sacrifice but it's not about being naked or wearing clothes it's about restoring us to a state of righteousness. This is the quintessential part that cries out to a saviour to restore us, but we're not seeking a pre-fallen childlike state, we are seeking to know fully as we are fully known.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

There are a lot of things that I could respond to in your post... but let me just challenge the really big points that I don't think are defensible.

...nakedness is a metaphor for shame and sin. this is why it needs to clarify in 2:25 that they were naked yet felt no shame because the two mean the same thing.

First point...

There's no solid basis to assert that the nakedness was only a "metaphor." The account is related as a truthful historical account... not some sort of analogy or metaphor.

And your assertion that "nakedness" and "shame" mean the same thing actually makes no sense... because the very assertion that they were naked without shame is an intentional declaration that they are not the same... and should not be treated as synonymous.

...what changes before the fall to after the fall? not their nakedness so why would they care even if they were told they were naked? they hid because of their sin not because of their skin (I know that's a really corny line). God clothes them with animal skin which means he had to kill an animal (sacrifice) to cover their nakedness and cloth their sin/shame in righteousness...

... nakedness is not only skin deep. it is sin. God "fixes" this through animal sacrifice but it's not about being naked or wearing clothes it's about restoring us to a state of righteousness.

There is zero evidence in all of the bible that God's provision of the "coats of skin" constituted some sort of "sacrifice" for sin, or that God's provision of clothing had anything to do with dealing with their sin.

I had certainly heard that teaching all my life, but when I really studied this passage carefully, it's a doctrine I was forced to reject. Here's why:

• Nowhere in the entire bible is this account referenced as a sacrifice... something that is extremely unlikely if indeed it was THE prototypical sacrifice in all of human history. We aren't even told in the text that an animal died to give its skin! (Some Jewish Hebrew scholars even suggest that the Hebrew text supports the interpretation that God clothed them with human skin... not animal skins!).
• All sacrifices require repentance on the part of the sinner to have any effect at all. The account of the fall records NO repentance on the part of Adam nor Eve. Quite the opposite, actually.
• No sacrifice in all of the scriptures is performed by the hand of God; every sacrifice is always performed by the sinner... literally, the hand that sinned wields the knife!

For these three reasons, I find that I can no longer endorse the teaching that The clothing of Adam and Eve constituted a sin-sacrifice of any sort.

As I pointed out in my first post on this topic, there's a lot in this account that we have traditionally added as a part of our collective understanding... and many of those things crumble when subjected to honest evaluation. So it is with some of your assertions.

 

[Deade]

To be sure, your summary is defensible enough, I suppose, but there are LOTS of reasonable and even important questions that your summary totally ignores.

For example:

• Were their thoughts about their naked bodies correct?
• Who is the "Who" of "Who told you...?"

For the record, also, your summary--short as it was--still added several things to the account that are not found in the text.

• The notion that they "decided it was shameful" is not actually accurate... for Adam only professed fear... "I was afraid..." he said.
• The term "lewd" has meaning to us today that cannot be found in the scriptural account.
• The idea that "knowing good and evil" is about choosing good or evil.

Finally, how can you possibly consider this event "simple"? The fall of man was the singular event which made salvation--and the personal sacrifice of the Son of God--necessary. The repercussions of that event impact each human who has ever lived.

Simple? Not at all. Critical to our theology? Absolutely. Important to understand correctly? Unquestionably.

You are still overthinking it.