Adam and Eve incorrectly blamed?

[Dyrwen]

How would a person who has never felt pain know it would hurt to shoot himself in the foot?

THANK YOU. Geez, finally a good analogy in this thread.

 

[Thwingly]

Hello everyone,

In response to Crazy Liz's question: Because that person is fully able to reason that it would hurt. God has never participated in evil, but he knows it fully. In the same way Adam and Eve were able to know evil through their rationality or through analogy (or some other means), without actual participating in it. If you don't doubt God's knowledge of evil through reason, don't doubt mankind's, since mankind was created in the likeness of God. I will be glad to answer any more objections you may have. Thanks.

-Thwingly

 

[love&forgiveness]

there is no ,evil and would be no evil if nobody disobeyed God or stopped trusting in Him.
sin always comes from not listening to God ,are those today who don't believe in God innocent?
if someone today commits a sinful act because they didn't know it was wrong ,are they innocent?
man may not believe in God today and may decide in their own minds what is right or wrong ,so when they do something which is not condemed by society or they feel is not wrong of their own mind ,but it is condemed by God, are they then innocent?
sin is turning away from God or not following Him ,so even if you don't know sin as sin you are still guilty.
no one is innocent in this world until they are reborn of Christ ,until then they have no real understanding of sin ,so are they not sinners?
sin is not just disobeying the law ,for the law did not exist until moses ,so they sinned before that knowing not any law or commandments ,were they then innocent?
adam and eve were perfect there was no sin in their world ,the serpent offered them sin without them knowing of it ,but they still commited the act of not trusting in and believing in God ,the same act today that will condem anyone who is guilty of it to hell.

 

[HadouKen24]

In response to Crazy Liz's question: Because that person is fully able to reason that it would hurt. God has never participated in evil, but he knows it fully. In the same way Adam and Eve were able to know evil through their rationality or through analogy (or some other means), without actual participating in it. If you don't doubt God's knowledge of evil through reason, don't doubt mankind's, since mankind was created in the likeness of God.

They could reason it? Easier said than done.

Reason is nothing more than applying logical rules to axioms derived from experience. The reasoning which goes behind knowing that shooting yourself in the foot hurts runs thusly:

1) When my flesh is mutilated, I feel a terrible sensation that I know I should avoid.

2) Shooting myself in the foot mutilates my flesh.

Therefore, it would hurt to shoot myself in the foot.

If you don't have the first premise, then you will not know that shooting yourself in the foot hurts. Likewise, if you do not know what evil is, you cannot know that it is evil to disobey God.

 

[Routerider]

That's never made much sense to me, either, Pooty. I've heard arguements put forth from a hardline Calvinistic perspective, that God is just becuase God makes the rules and defines "justness" and "nonjustness," and the existance (or non-existance_ of an objective sense of "right and wrong" would in this case be irrelevant. I'd like to see what replies this gets.

Good point, another words deep down inside us we want to kick god's butt but we can't since he's god so we just kiss his rear through out life.

 

[Thwingly]

Hello everyone,

Thanks Hadouken24. First of all, the first premise can be established by understanding sensitivity of touch, even if you haven't experienced pain, you have experienced pleasure, and you could probably reason that it would not be a good idea to go beyond the normal level of pressure, just as you could reason that it would not be a good idea to dramatically change the temperature of the room. However, this is hard to understand because we have experienced these already.

Maybe there are some strictly single people out there who can comprehend. If not, just go back to a moment in your life where you had been single all your life. It would not take a genius to realize that your life would be much different if you were instead, dating someone. Someone might object by saying that we only realize this difference because we see other people with it. That's good, because the serpent was separated from God, and Adam and Eve could have seen that. Adam and Eve could have also reasoned that God, being the creator, was sovereign, he had authority, and that the serpent did not. In essence, they would understand that they were supposed to obey God, but they had no point of reference from which to understand the blessings or curses of obeying or not obeying God. For example, let's say you eat at Burger King everyday, and you have never aten at Mcdonald's. You can reason that, since Burger King is such a great place, you should stay there. However, one day, you decide to head out to Mcdonald's, and of course, it tastes horrible (I am not endorsing either restaurant...). Does that make sense?

-Thwingly

 

[Crazy Liz]

Hello everyone,

Thanks Hadouken24. First of all, the first premise can be established by understanding sensitivity of touch, even if you haven't experienced pain, you have experienced pleasure, and you could probably reason that it would not be a good idea to go beyond the normal level of pressure, just as you could reason that it would not be a good idea to dramatically change the temperature of the room. However, this is hard to understand because we have experienced these already.

Maybe there are some strictly single people out there who can comprehend. If not, just go back to a moment in your life where you had been single all your life. It would not take a genius to realize that your life would be much different if you were instead, dating someone. Someone might object by saying that we only realize this difference because we see other people with it. That's good, because the serpent was separated from God, and Adam and Eve could have seen that. Adam and Eve could have also reasoned that God, being the creator, was sovereign, he had authority, and that the serpent did not. In essence, they would understand that they were supposed to obey God, but they had no point of reference from which to understand the blessings or curses of obeying or not obeying God. For example, let's say you eat at Burger King everyday, and you have never aten at Mcdonald's. You can reason that, since Burger King is such a great place, you should stay there. However, one day, you decide to head out to Mcdonald's, and of course, it tastes horrible (I am not endorsing either restaurant...). Does that make sense?

-Thwingly

Thwingy, it seems you firmly believe Adam and Eve already knew the difference between good and evil before they ate the fruit. You reason to this conclusion solely by extrapolating from the scripture that says they were created in God's image, and God knows the difference between good and evil. I might find your argument persuasive if scripture didn't say different.

If you are correct, why was the tree called the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

How do you interpret Genesis 3:7:

en the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Or Genesis 3:7:

And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?

O especially Genesis 3:22-23:

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

If they knew (or could deduce from reason which they had) the difference between good and evil before eating the fruit, what do these verses mean? Why are they included in scripture? Why is the tree called the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

 

[Thwingly]

Hello Crazy Liz,
Yes, I'm aware of those verses. I propose two different ways of understanding, or "knowing" something. Using reason, and... experiencing it. I submit that it is possible the scriptural definition of knowledge refers to experiencing it, whereas understanding would refer to analogous methods. A

Also, recall my burger king/mcdonald's analogy. Adam and Eve understand that God is soveriegn, that they should stay with God. This is what I'm really getting at, but I only claim this as a possibility, that Adam and Eve knew that God was sovereign, and that they could not live without him, and while they didn't know what was on the other side, they shouldn't have passed over. Imagine yourself on one side of the fence, this side is completely peaceful in ever way, it literally could not get any better. However, the deception lies in them thinking it could, because they did not know. Also, see if you can't find a verse that implies they knew neither good nor evil, otherwise it could be that they knew only good.

Anyways, I'll get to your questions now.

I would say, in Genesis 3:7, I think that corresponds with what I said above (if not please point out where I'm wrong).

In the second Genesis 3:7, once again, I think this corresponds with what I've been saying.

Genesis 3:22-23 Man, and that time knew what was on both sides of the fence, instead of just one. I wouldn't know why the tree was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil, nor why these verses are in scripture, but I don't think these ones in particular contradict what I'm saying (your welcome to correct me). Thanks...

-Thwingly

 

[CSMR]

Why is the tree called the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

I'd like to know this.
Adam and Eve had God's command, forbidding them to eat the fruit. They knew that it was God's command; therefore they knew what good and evil mean (because good and evil are what God commands and forbids, so if they didn't know that then they couldn't have known what God's command meant). They also knew what was good and evil, since they knew what God's commands were (God was "there").

So the "knowledge of good and evil" can't mean "what it is for something to be good or evil" or "what is good and evil".

Is it knowledge in the carnal sense, in which after the fall we are under the power of evil, but retain the good knowledge that it is evil? But then God is also said in the story to know good and evil, and He certainly doesn't know them in this way.

Is it the power over good and evil, so that Adam and Eve falsely gave themselves the ability to legislate what is right and wrong, which is only the power of God. In the act of eating the fruit they certainly took this power, proclaiming their will to be right and God's command unworthy to be followed. But doesn't this stretch the meaning of knowledge, to have it mean power?

What does "like one of us" mean too; that's really odd.

Hi again Thwingly & Crazy Liz.

 

[onajourney87]

I have something to add that may be helpful.

Adam and Eve before eating the fruit were naked, but without shame:
Genesis 2:25
The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

But after eating the fruit, after their 'eyes were open', they are ashamed:
Genesis 3:6-7
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Adam and Eve, after eating the fruit, gained knowledge(or experience?) of something, likely lust, that made them feel wrong for being naked.

Anyways, I hope that helps more than it complicates this topic.

osm

 

[Arthur Dietrich]

Ok. Raise your hand if you've ever eaten a cricket.

Ok. Now, those who didn't raise their hands...tell me what a cricket tastes like.

 

[love&forgiveness]

God forbid them to eat of the tree and warned them not to ,even though they knew not the consequences of it ,they had been warned by One who created it and them.
if you'd never seen a fire and never knew of the consequences of putting your hand in this fire ,but say your father who had given you every thing and treated you with love ,told you not to put your hand in this fire because it would burn.you never have experienced what it is to burn ,so if you then put your hand in this fire having been warned by your loving father ,are you then not to blame ,for you made this choice are you then not to blame? and if someone else you had never shown you love told you to do it ,they might be partially to blame ,but it still doesn't change the fact that you made the choice of feeling what it is liked to be burned.you have chosen to feel pain over trusting your father who if you listen to Him offers you a life without pain.
God bless.
paul

 

[Crazy Liz]

Is it knowledge in the carnal sense, in which after the fall we are under the power of evil, but retain the good knowledge that it is evil? But then God is also said in the story to know good and evil, and He certainly doesn't know them in this way.

...

What does "like one of us" mean too; that's really odd.

For me, this phrase is the clincher that Thwingy has to be wrong. Whatever it was that changed when they ate the fruit, it made them more like God in some way.

I guess my next question would have something to do with why we have 12 pages of debate on this topic. Why is this question so imprtant to us?

 

[Crazy Liz]

Ok. Raise your hand if you've ever eaten a cricket.

Ok. Now, those who didn't raise their hands...tell me what a cricket tastes like.

Easy! It tastes like chicken.

Doesn't everything?

 

[Thwingly]

For me, this phrase is the clincher that Thwingy has to be wrong. Whatever it was that changed when they ate the fruit, it made them more like God in some way.

I guess my next question would have something to do with why we have 12 pages of debate on this topic. Why is this question so imprtant to us?

Ok, I have no idea what you are refering to, that is, I'm pretty sure you mean the phrase "What does "like one of us" mean too; that's really odd." But I have no idea what that is refering to. I invite you to explain this, so I can justify my position. No offense, but you went a long ways in saying that I had to be wrong.

Next, they only thought they would become more like God, in actuality, they were in the likeness of God, like Jesus. Now I don't think it should take any debating to support that, you are more like God when you are holy, rather then we you know evil.

Genesis 3:17-19

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'

"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

It doesn't sound like this list of consequences makes him more like God...

It is probably important to avid non-believers, therefore it is important for us to provide a quality response.

In light of this, I don't see that anyone has refuted my proposal, if you are going to attempt to refute it, please make this clear.

Thanks everyone.

-Thwingly

 

[Crazy Liz]

Ok, I have no idea what you are refering to, that is, I'm pretty sure you mean the phrase "What does "like one of us" mean too; that's really odd." But I have no idea what that is refering to. I invite you to explain this, so I can justify my position. No offense, but you went a long ways in saying that I had to be wrong.

Next, they only thought they would become more like God, in actuality, they were in the likeness of God, like Jesus. Now I don't think it should take any debating to support that, you are more like God when you are holy, rather then we you know evil.

No. "And the LORD God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.'"

God said the humans had become like God, knowing good and evil. I haven't studied the Hebrew, but assuming this is a good translation, "become" means they are now like God in some way they were not before.

Although Christian theology has taught for centuries that the image of God became obliterated or at least obscured by the Fall, the Bible says that in the sense of knowing good and evil, humans became more like God by eating the fruit.

Believe me, I'm no "avid non-believer." I'm a Christian, but I simply can't square what you're saying with the Bible.

 

[CSMR]

Thwingly's right in saying that there is knowledge of of what good and evil are before the fall. This is absolutely clear from the fact that God commands Adam and Eve.

I can't see anything that works other than the interpretaion of "knowledge" as autonomy, in which Adam and Eve grasp to themselves the knowledge of good and evil as their posession, whereas in fact it is only the posession of God. Here knowledge of the law is what gives one the right to give the law. God is the giver of the law, with power over the law, "knowledge" of the law.

In taking the right to set what is good and evil for themselves, they become like God, who does the setting of good and evil; but to their condemnation.

I should think the creation story has an importance even to the most avid believer, and that even thirteen pages might not be going too far!

 

[Crazy Liz]

Why can't you accept that the Bible says they didn't know good and evil before eating the fruit and they did after?

ISTM you have to be making some kind of argument from "first principles," rather than trying to understand God's revelation, and that you are not testing your conclusions against scripture.

Just because a command was given does not prove knowledge of good and evil. A young child has to hear a parent say "no" at least a few times before the child will know what it means. I realize that this is not a perfect analogy, as the humans apparently had a higher degree of linguistic proficiency than a toddler, but linguistic proficiency and knowledge of the significance of words are not necessarily the same thing.

Let me ask one more question of those who insist the humans in the story knew the difference between good and evil before eating: Exactly what important part of your belief system is threatened by the possibility that the Bible means what it says in this instance?

 

[Thwingly]

Hello Crazy Liz,
In regards to your first question, you haven't shown me anything that proves that Adam and Eve didn't know what good and evil is.

You quote this: "And the Lord God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.'" I would interpret this as meaning, as far as knowing BOTH good and evil, they were now like God in that sense, not that they knew neither before that, and not necassarily that they are like God more overall. The problem with supposing that they actually had no idea what good and evil were means that they had no basis for their decision. It would be like flipping a coin almost. And then that causes people in future generations to die and go to hell for eternity. It has to be shown that Adam and Eve were responsible for what they did.

Peace,
Thwingly.

 

[Crazy Liz]

OK. Now I think we may be getting somewhere, Thwingly.

Hello Crazy Liz,
In regards to your first question, you haven't shown me anything that proves that Adam and Eve didn't know what good and evil is.

I think, since the Bible says they did not know it before they ate and did know it after, the burden of proof is on you. However, I'm willing to put this aside for the moment because I think there's a threshold issue your latest post finally reveals.

You quote this: "And the Lord God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.'" I would interpret this as meaning, as far as knowing BOTH good and evil, they were now like God in that sense, not that they knew neither before that, and not necassarily that they are like God more overall.

I didn't say they became more like God overall. Just that God said they had become more like God in this one aspect.

The problem with supposing that they actually had no idea what good and evil were means that they had no basis for their decision. It would be like flipping a coin almost. And then that causes people in future generations to die and go to hell for eternity. It has to be shown that Adam and Eve were responsible for what they did.

This is the crux of your post, and, it appears the motivation behind all your arguments. If we can, I'd like to put every other issue aside and discuss this one because until I understand where you are coming from here, all the rest of our discussion is really meaningless.

Why does it "have to be shown that Adam and Eve were responsible for what they did?" Why is it necessary to show they had a basis for their decision? What exactly is going to come tumbling down around you if they simply were innocent, had no knowledge, and were tricked?

Let me take a guess, and you can correct me if I'm wrong. ISTM you may feel some need to put blame on the first humans, and you feel it would be unfair to blame them if they really didn't know what they were about to do was bad. You don't blame a toddler for running out into the street because he doesn't yet know anything about the danger. Yet you feel like the consequences of this particular act was so cataclysmic you must assign blame. You can't think of this story in terms similar to that of a toddler running out in traffic and being killed, or perhaps severely injured so as to stay alive but never develop normally, changing the lives of his entire family and many other people. When someone is injured like this and many people are affected, it seems necessary to put the blame on somebody, doesn't it? But is there always someone to blame? If the same toddler contracted a disease with similar results, most of us wouldn't look for someone to blame - or at least we would be able to admit that although looking for blame is one of our human responses to tragedy, it is not logical.

I'd really like to understand why it is necessary to establish that the first humans are to blame.

Or perhaps I've misunderstood your statement that it has to be shown that the first humans were responsible for what they did. Please explain why this is necessary. I am sincerely trying to understand, since I don't think this is necessary at all.