The Tree of Knowledge

recedite

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxlPVSAnWOo

Having watched Carl Sagan's video here, it strikes me that the biblical account of Adam & Eve's expulsion from the Garden of Eden (AKA the state of ignorance) seems like it was written by an atheist. I will point out here my perspective is agnostic. But I would really like to know what the other perspective is. I think I remember something about the young couple realising they were naked after partaking of the fruit. But surely that was obvious already. The only new thing they might have discovered was the (undeserved?) shame of being naked.
So why the ban on knowledge, and why the expulsion?
(skip on to 5.45 mins on the video if the beginning offends you)

Jester Minute

recedite wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxlPVSAnWOo

Having watched Carl Sagan's video here, it strikes me that the biblical account of Adam & Eve's expulsion from the Garden of Eden (AKA the state of ignorance) seems like it was written by an atheist. I will point out here my perspective is agnostic. But I would really like to know what the other perspective is. I think I remember something about the young couple realising they were naked after partaking of the fruit. But surely that was obvious already. The only new thing they might have discovered was the (undeserved?) shame of being naked.
So why the ban on knowledge, and why the expulsion?
(skip on to 5.45 mins on the video if the beginning offends you)

Pope John Paul II said (more or less) that the shame the first couple experienced was essentially a defense mechanism, rather than disgust or embarrassment about their bodies. They had to protect themselves from the lustful gaze of the other. Before the fall, they had looked upon the beauty of each other, both body and soul, as persons. But now, after the fall, there is this fallen tendency to objectify the other person - to strip them of their human dignity, and to see them as an object to satisfy our desires. So love is warped and use comes in. I think it was Pope John Paul II who said that the opposite of love is not hate, but use.

This is all contained in his Theology of the Body. I would like to read the whole thing some day. As I understand it, the TOB will be a tool to present the constant Church teaching on sexuality in a new and attractive way for the modern world.

The ban on knowledge was really (I think) the fact that man cannot decide for himself what is good or evil. God has already affirmed the good.

Once man had fallen, he was banished from the garden and barred. He was not allowed to eat from the tree of life since that would lock him forever in his fallen condition. The banishment from the garden really served to protect man from himself (as well as punish him) and he left the garden with the promise of a redeemer.

Festus

Classic atheistic misinformation. Sagan presents the tree as a tree of knowledge and that Adam and Eve were forbidden knowledge, to be kept ignorant and having no understanding or wisdom.

it would be nice if those who wish to dis Christian belief read the Bible and informed themselves of what we actually believe in.

The Adam and Eve account records that they were not forbidden knowledge but only knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve before the fall were not ignorant save for their knowledge of evil. they knew of good and right and wrong.

If only the Sagans of this world approched religion and theology with the same vigour and attention to detail as they approach science.

Point of fact - the offensive part of this video begins at 6.06 and runs to the end.

Fanny Cradock

I want to know how Jack Nicholson got himself into the painting of the Garden of Eden?

See 6:44 onwards.

recedite

Festus wrote: »

Adam and Eve before the fall were not ignorant save for their knowledge of evil.

So it was really a Tree of Evil Knowledge? Assuming they already knew the other stuff. I'm starting to think that the whole thing was some sort of allegorical reference to the timeless issue of the pre pubescent child. You know the sort of moment every parent faces when their child reaches a certain age; what might have been called in times past the end of innocence.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I want to know how Jack Nicholson got himself into the painting of the Garden of Eden?

That's weird alright. I don't know which painting or how old it is.

Jester Minute wrote: »

Once man had fallen, he was banished from the garden and barred. He was not allowed to eat from the tree of life since that would lock him forever in his fallen condition.

Yeah I imagine Tree of Life would be a more popular translation, not sure which is more authentic though.

Fanny Cradock

recedite wrote: »

So it was really a Tree of Evil Knowledge? Assuming they already knew the other stuff. I'm starting to think that the whole thing was some sort of allegorical reference to the timeless issue of the pre pubescent child. You know the sort of moment every parent faces when their child reaches a certain age; what might have been called in times past the end of innocence.

You must understand that not all Christians believe that Genesis is a historical and scientific account of creation. We go further than this and say that the intended audience - the ancient Hebrews - would have understood this. Zoom forward to the 4th century and we have Augustine of Hippo (a hugely influential figure in early Christianity) arguing that the Genesis creation was not a literal account but a logical framework. A brief summary here.

Sagan speaks in generalisations and argues against all and no religion in particular. It's a neat rhetorical trick, made all the more impressive by his wonderful narration articulated with such comforting intonations. But it is a trick nevertheless. He happily appended his metaphysical beliefs onto his science, and this is evident in his adoption of a conflict thesis. No doubt it all chimes with the converted and half-converted. But I don't think there is a great deal of substance to his words.

Jester Minute

recedite wrote: »

Yeah I imagine Tree of Life would be a more popular translation, not sure which is more authentic though.

There were two trees: the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Seaneh

Jester Minute wrote: »

There were two trees: the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

It's not like atheists are going to let little things like accuracy or knowledge get in the way of their flawed logic...

recedite

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You must understand that not all Christians believe that Genesis is a historical and scientific account of creation.

Right, but would you agree that the purpose of the original analogy was to dissuade people from looking for information or knowledge outside of what was being interpreted to them by their priest/holy man. And possibly in later times the focus switched to the nakedness issue?

I didn't realise there were two trees involved.

Seaneh

recedite wrote: »

Right, but would you agree that the purpose of the original analogy was to dissuade people from looking for information or knowledge outside of what was being interpreted to them by their priest/holy man. And possibly in later times the focus switched to the nakedness issue?

I didn't realise there were two trees involved.

If you didn't know there were two trees in the garden ots safe to assu,e you havent read genesis. And if you havent read something how could you possible have assumptions about its intentions or meanings? This is fairly typical of atheist 'opinion' on a lot of books of the bible. More often than not they will pull a few passaged out of somewhere and jump feet first into a conclusion without knowing the first thing they are talking about. the book this normally happens with is Job.

Fanny Cradock

recedite wrote: »

Right, but would you agree that the purpose of the original analogy was to dissuade people from looking for information or knowledge outside of what was being interpreted to them by their priest/holy man. And possibly in later times the focus switched to the nakedness issue?

Not at all. That is Sagan's interpretation, not mine. One line of argument against such an interpretation would be to look at the foundations of modern science. Most of the institutions that promoted natural philosophy (what we now call science) were founded by religious institutions. And quite a few of what could be called "the stars" of early science thought that by exploring nature they were exploring God's creation.

Soul Winner

Sagan starts out with the following:

"Our ancestors understood origins by extrapolating from the their own experience. How else could they have done it?"

Then he proceeds to base what follows in the speech on this premise.

But the ancient Hebrew's creation account is nothing like all the other Pagan creation accounts which preceded it or which came after. The Hebrews scriptures simply state:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1

In the Psalms it states that the mechanism He used was the Word of His mouth:

"By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth." Psalm 33:6

And this concept is reiterated in the New Testament where it states that Jesus was this Speaking Agent by which God created everything:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." John 1:1

This is a completely different creation concept than that of all other Pagan accounts which have their Gods creating the universe from pre-existing matter. The Biblical account is very different. It has an external Being creating it from nothing by simply speaking it into existence. How this concept can be construed as an extrapolation from the Hebrews own experience is beyond me. So right from the get-go Sagan is basing what he says on an false premises. So it logically follows that what he then proceeds to spout is not based on a proper solid study of all religions.

He asks how else could they have done it? Easy, by the revelation of the God who did it. This is how the Hebrews knew what to record. It was revealed to them by the Creator. They did not and could not extrapolate this mechanism from their own experiences like the Pagans. Does this prove that this is actually how it happened? Of course not. It just proves that Sagan was wrong by saying that 'our ancestors understood origins by extrapolating from the their own experience.'

I'll get to the tree later, have to head out now.

housetypeb

Wonder where else the hebrews could have come up with the idea for creation if its not the word of god ?

Maybe from older cultures. such as egypt ,for example, its not too far away from isreal is it?




Main article: Ex nihilo




The Creation, c. 1896-1902, by James Tissot, at the Jewish Museum (New York)


Creation ex nihilo (L. "from nothing") is thought to be the most common type of creation described in these stories. It is the type of creation described in the Genesis creation narrative in the Bible in Judaism and Christianity, and also in the Koran's Sura VII in Islam.[17][18] It is also known as "creation de novo". Besides in the Bible, Ex nihilo creation is found in creation stories from ancient Egypt, the Rig Veda and many animistic cultures in Africa, Asia, Oceania and North America.[19] In most of these stories the world is brought into being by the speech, dream, breath, or pure thought of a creator but creation ex nihilo may also take place through a creator's bodily secretions. The literal translation of the phrase ex nihilo is "from nothing" but in many creation myths the line is blurred whether the creative act would be better classified as a creation ex nihilo or creation from chaos. With ex nihilo, the potential and the substance of creation springs from within the creator. Such a creator may or may not be existing in physical surroundings such as darkness or water, but does not create the world from them. In creation from chaos the substance used for creation is pre-existing within the unformed void

recedite

Soul Winner wrote: »

But the ancient Hebrew's creation account is nothing like all the other Pagan creation accounts which preceded it or which came after.

The Hebrew's explanation is a lot more abstract than most, although some such as the Australian Aborigines had an abstract "dreamtime" for the beginning. I think Sagan was generalising about all religion when he talks about the extrapolating.

Seaneh wrote: »

If you didn't know there were two trees in the garden ots safe to assu,e you havent read genesis. And if you havent read something how could you possible have assumptions about its intentions or meanings? This is fairly typical of atheist 'opinion' on a lot of books of the bible. More often than not they will pull a few passaged out of somewhere and jump feet first into a conclusion without knowing the first thing they are talking about. the book this normally happens with is Job.

Fair point. So I have now done some bible study, and read the first half of Genesis. It seems the Tree of Life confers eternal life, whereas the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil provided that which differentiates us from the other animals; that human spark which might be described as self awareness.
Thus an animal does not become embarrassed at being naked, or a magpie is not committing a wrong by preying on the nestlings of songbirds. They are not aware of these things. It seems then that Adam started off in a less than human state, as some sort of pet in a small zoo located east of a place called Eden, which was somewhere in the Middle East, not too far from the Nile and the Euphrates rivers. When he gained "knowledge" he became "as a god" and he was released into the world, with Eve, there to fend for themselves.

It follows from that, that there is in fact no ban on knowledge, and we would inevitably carry on experimenting with free will etc. until God got annoyed with us and sent the Flood. The survivors repented, but continued in the pursuit of knowledge, and so here we are today.:)

I haven't got to Job yet , but I had a look at Leviticus as it has the famously controversial bits concerning slave ownership and stoning people. There is an interesting account of the dietary habits of the ancient Hebrews. On the meat side of things, not only was pork and blood banned, but also most other animals and also fat. Only lean meat from animals that both chewed the cud and were cloven footed, as well as scaly fish and locusts were allowed. It must have been difficult to stick to the diet, as all the abrahamic religions have relaxed the rules to a greater or lesser extent since then.

Fanny Cradock

recedite wrote: »

the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil provided that which differentiates us from the other animals; that human spark which might be described as self awareness.

Are you suggesting that Adam and Eve - whether we choose to understand them as historical figures or something a little more metaphorical - were not self-aware before the fall? I think that this is only the case in only the loosest sense of the term. I would have thought that the whole point of the story is that Adam and Eve chose to turn away from God - which is pretty much the definition of sin..

recedite wrote: »

It follows from that, that there is in fact no ban on knowledge, and we would inevitably carry on experimenting with free will etc.

This might be somewhat off the point but perhaps it is an interesting aside to the whole question of knowledge. I think that it would be fair to say that the Hebrews (ancient Jews if you prefer) valued a different type of knowledge to that which contemporary European societies value. Where as we place a great deal of emphasis upon exploring what could be called abstract knowledge - the "how" type of questions - it could be argued that the Hebrews greatly valued wisdom based knowledge. The distinction between the two is that abstract knowledge imposes no obligation upon the questioner, whereas the wisdom based knowledge of the Jews was understood as obligation to God and their place in creation.

With regard to this latter type of knowledge - the obligation to God and creation that I mentioned - Ellen Davis describes how the concept of The Fear of the Lord - which is understood not as a fear of getting punished but a fear of causing offence to a loved one - was central to Jewish understanding of everything.

recedite wrote: »

as all the abrahamic religions have relaxed the rules to a greater or lesser extent since then.

I take it you don't know many observant Jews or Muslims?

recedite

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would have thought that the whole point of the story is that Adam and Eve chose to turn away from God - which is pretty much the definition of sin..

I don't think they really chose to turn away, but they disobeyed that one order so that they would acquire more wisdom;at that stage they were not allowed too much awareness. And God did tell a little porky pie, he said they would die if they ate the fruit. The snake was correct when he predicted that they would not die. Unless of course we are talking about the death of "the less aware state of the proto human being".

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I take it you don't know many observant Jews or Muslims?

Muslims would have no problem eating a rabbit, or I think, an oyster but Jews would. But I don't think Jews are too bothered about trimming all the fat off their roast lamb these days.

Seaneh

recedite wrote: »

I don't think they really chose to turn away, but they disobeyed that one order so that they would acquire more wisdom;at that stage they were not allowed too much awareness. And God did tell a little porky pie, he said they would die if they ate the fruit. The snake was correct when he predicted that they would not die. Unless of course we are talking about the death of "the less aware state of the proto human being".

God doesn't lie. He never has. Adam and Eve did die...

Festus

recedite wrote: »

I didn't realise there were two trees involved.

Neither apparently did Carl Sagan. If this is his knowledge of theology one has to also question his knowledge of science or at least his ability to read and do research properly.

Or maybe it was a deliberate ommision on his part to promote an atheistic agenda.

recedite

Seaneh wrote: »

God doesn't lie. He never has. Adam and Eve did die...

Well, yes they did die a few hundred years later, but not as a result of eating poisonous fruit. It was because they were denied access to fruit from the other Tree of (eternal) Life, which was of course a consequence of the original decision. I suppose the talking snake and God were both correct in their own way.
Adam had 2 choices in this bible story.
1. Remain in a low state of awareness, in the garden, with eternal life.
2. Upgrade to a higher state, becoming "as a god" compared to his previous state, but with a limited phyical lifespan. Only after he chose No.2 was he (and also his descendants) free to indulge in the pursuit of knowledge.

Certainly there are many people today who would have to consider carefully if they were given this choice. It's not an easy choice to make.

Soul Winner

recedite wrote: »

Well, yes they did die a few hundred years later, but not as a result of eating poisonous fruit. It was because they were denied access to fruit from the other Tree of (eternal) Life, which was of course a consequence of the original decision. I suppose the talking snake and God were both correct in their own way.
Adam had 2 choices in this bible story.
1. Remain in a low state of awareness, in the garden, with eternal life.
2. Upgrade to a higher state, becoming "as a god" compared to his previous state, but with a limited phyical lifespan. Only after he chose No.2 was he (and also his descendants) free to indulge in the pursuit of knowledge.

Certainly there are many people today who would have to consider carefully if they were given this choice. It's not an easy choice to make.

If that really was the choice then its a no brainier (pun not intended) - go with eternal life. What good is knowledge to you if you're dead? But I don't think that was the case. God deliberately put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil there for a reason. And had He really not wanted them to eat of it because it was poison then He wouldn't have put it there or said anything about it. But He specifically singles out one tree that they were not to touch or eat from. The reason they died wasn't because the tree was poison but because God's pre-spoken curse was activated by their disobedience to His Word. Their standing with Him was based on them keeping this very simple covenant that He laid down between Himself and them. They broke the covenant and lost everything. Who knows what God was prepping them for? Maybe after a few millennia of obeying God's simple command He was going to promote them to an even higher state of being? We'll never really know. What we do know is that God said: "Let us make man (Adam) in our own image." Part of this image making was still going on in the garden when He was testing them with the tree. Does God have a right to do this? Of course He does. Do you have a right to have rules for your own house that visitors must respect? Of course you do.

Anyway God made recompense for their sin and now by faith we can have access to the tree of life again through faith in Christ. When we have the spirit of Christ we have the mind of Christ. God is still making people over in His image as long as faith is operating in the life of the believer. This is the Word of God that Christians are supposing be obeying today. We still have the choice of whether to listen and obey His word today or not, things haven't changed much really.

Festus

recedite wrote: »

Well, yes they did die a few hundred years later, but not as a result of eating poisonous fruit. It was because they were denied access to fruit from the other Tree of (eternal) Life, which was of course a consequence of the original decision. I suppose the talking snake and God were both correct in their own way.
Adam had 2 choices in this bible story.
1. Remain in a low state of awareness, in the garden, with eternal life.
2. Upgrade to a higher state, becoming "as a god" compared to his previous state, but with a limited phyical lifespan. Only after he chose No.2 was he (and also his descendants) free to indulge in the pursuit of knowledge.

Certainly there are many people today who would have to consider carefully if they were given this choice. It's not an easy choice to make.

The pursuit of knowledge is not the problem. There was only ever one restriction on the pursuit of knowledge and that was the knowledge of evil.
There were no restrictions on Adam and Eve or their descendents to learn or their ability to learn.
Children learn without knowing what evil is. The know Good and they know right and wrong. We cannot presume to know what a childs instinctual knowledge of evil is which is why we restrict children in many cases from adult courts when they do things children are not expected to do.

Forget what you think you have learned from Carl Sagan. It is wrong.

Adam and Eve were given charge of the earth, to subdue it and populate it with humankind.

Imagine if you can a world where all adults pursue knowledge without knowing what evil is.

Read the words of Jesus when he says we must all become like little children. They are wise words and we would do well to heed them.

Xcellor

Just a question. Given that there are two camps of Christian belief.

1) Believe Adam and Eve were real people.
2) Believe its a story.

At what point in the bible did the characters become real? Since the lineage of many characters can be traced back to Adam. Even Jesus.

How do Christians who are part of camp 2 know who is makey uppy and who is real?

Also if the creation account is just a story what exactly are humans being punished for? A makey uppy sin?

X

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

The pursuit of knowledge is not the problem. There was only ever one restriction on the pursuit of knowledge and that was the knowledge of evil.

Wouldn't that be good and evil? Moral knowledge in other words

There were no restrictions on Adam and Eve or their descendents to learn or their ability to learn.

Indeed. The lack of a moral componant in their makeup wouldn't prevent them learning about mechanics, for example

Children learn without knowing what evil is. They know Good and they know right and wrong. We cannot presume to know what a childs instinctual knowledge of evil is which is why we restrict children in many cases from adult courts when they do things children are not expected to do.

Children know right and wrong because they have a knowledge of good and evil. They have that knowlege because of the fall. They don't have as developed a knowledge as adults which is why they are restricted in their responsibility

Imagine if you can a world where all adults pursue knowledge without knowing what evil is.

With the knowing being an the same level of intimacy attaching to the knowing as knowing ones wife involves. Not simply knowing about it in a detached way, but knowing it in an intimate way, a way that generates deep seated responses.

It's that deep seated response to evil (and good) which produce such dramatic results in the world.

janeeen

How do Christians who are part of camp 2 know who is makey uppy and who is real?

I think a person who believes that the Geneses account is only fiction, can not actually call them selfs a true Christen.
Jesus came to this earth to make amends for the sin of Adam,if the account in Geneses is only a story what was the point of Jesus been crucified?

antiskeptic

Xcellor wrote: »

How do Christians who are part of camp 2 know who is makey uppy and who is real?

Good question I

Also if the creation account is just a story what exactly are humans being punished for? A makey uppy sin?

Good question II. Although I'd imagine an answer might involve humans being punished for their own sins - which shifts the question to how it is they obtained their propensity to sin. If designed that way by God, then it would appear unjust to punish them for acting according to their design.

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Wouldn't that be good and evil? Moral knowledge in other words

Possibly. Some people do not subscribe to religious descriptions.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed. The lack of a moral componant in their makeup wouldn't prevent them learning about mechanics, for example

Lack of a moral component might lead them to inventing mechanical torture devices. Lack of knowledge of evil would lead them to invent devices for good only.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Children know right and wrong because they have a knowledge of good and evil. They have that knowlege because of the fall. They don't have as developed a knowledge as adults which is why they are restricted in their responsibility

That would be an eisgeitic opinion.

I would disagree that children inherently know what evil is. They do seem to know inherently what good is.
If children have a knowledge of evil why would Jesus say what He did in Matthew 18?

Unfortuanately to protect our children we must teach them what evil is and as parents we have to decide when is the best time and how best to go about it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

With the knowing being an the same level of intimacy attaching to the knowing as knowing ones wife involves. Not simply knowing about it in a detached way, but knowing it in an intimate way, a way that generates deep seated responses.

It's that deep seated response to evil (and good) which produce such dramatic results in the world.

Introducing "knowing" in the biblical sense of sexuality will only muddy the waters of this discussion.

Xcellor

janeeen wrote: »

I think a person who believes that the Geneses account is only fiction, can not actually call them selfs a true Christen.
Jesus came to this earth to make amends for the sin of Adam,if the account in Geneses is only a story what was the point of Jesus been crucified?

As far as Jesus was concerned Adam and Eve were real people. As far as the bible is concerned I don't see how it cannot be taken literally because of the points I raised in my previous post.

Since the lineage is tied from Adam all the way through the nation of Israel, King David all the way through to Jesus Christ.

If you discount one character as being part of this "story" then the bible as a whole can be nothing more than a story.i.e If Adam is story... then his sons must be stories too... Abel/Cain/Seth... If they are stories their sons/daughters (who were related to Noah). So that means Noah is also a story... Ok but didn't Noah and his family have kids... Yep... leading further onto Abraham.... etc.

Could a Christian who believes Adam and Eve are makey up please explain this.

God who was the father of Adam, who was the father of Seth, who was the father of Enos, who was the father of Cainan, who was the father of Mahalalel, who was the father of Jared, who was the father of Enoch, who was the father of Methuselah, who was the father of Lamech, who was the father of Noah, who was the father of Shem, who was the father of Arpachshad, who was the father of Cainan, who was the father of Shelah, who was the father of Eder, who was the father of Peleg, who was the father of Reu, who was the father of Serug, who was the father of Nahor, who was the father of Terah, who was the father of Abraham.

Abraham begot Isaac; and Isaac begot Jacob; and Jacob begot Judah and his brethren; and Judah begot Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begot Hezron; and Hezron begot Ram; and Ram begot Ammin'adab; and Amminadab begot Nahshon; and Nahshon begot Salmon; and Salmon begot Boaz of Rahab; and Boaz begot Obed of Ruth; and Obed begot Jesse; and Jesse begot David, the king; and David, the king, begot Solomon of her that had been the wife of Uriah; and Solomon begot Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begot Abijah; and Abijah begot Asa; and Asa begot Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begot Joram; and Joram begot Uzziah; and Uzziah begot Jotham; and Jotham begot Ahaz; and Ahaz begot Hezekiah; and Hezekiah begot Manasseh; and Manasseh begot Amon; and Amon begot Josiah; and Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon and after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconiah begot Shealtiel; and Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel; and Zerubbabel begot Abiud; and Abiud begot Eliakim; and Eliakim begot Azor; and Azor begot Sadoc; and Sadoc begot Achim; and Achim begot Eliud; and Eliud begot Eleazar and Eleazar begot Matthan; and Matthan begot Jacob; and Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

Possibly. Some people do not subscribe to religious descriptions.

I was attempting to suggest that since the forbidden fruit contained a knowledge of both good and evil it would be erroneous to suggest that..

There was only ever one restriction on the pursuit of knowledge and that was the knowledge of evil.

..it would appear that a knowledge of good was also forbidden.

Lack of a moral component might lead them to inventing mechanical torture devices. Lack of knowledge of evil would lead them to invent devices for good only.

Without the fruit of The Fruit, there would be no sin within and no motivation to torture. Why would someone invent something they had no motivation to invent?

I would disagree that children inherently know what evil is. They do seem to know inherently what good is.

Yet you don't have to teach a child to lie, nor do you have to teach them how to pull a guilty face if queried on that lie?

If children have a knowledge of evil why would Jesus say what He did in Matthew 18?

Exegetically? He appears to tell us himself

3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.'

Become like.

It's assuming the lowly position of a child that seems to be the characteristic desired by Jesus. There is no reference to a knowledge or lack regarding good and evil. Besides, I'm not sure how one would unknow their knowledge of evil in order to become like a child (assuming, which I don't, that a child has no knowledge of it)

Unfortuanately to protect our children we must teach them what evil is and as parents we have to decide when is the best time and how best to go about it.

"Now Jonny, share your sweeties with Billy...." is as oft a heard parental encouragement.

Introducing "knowing" in the biblical sense of sexuality will only muddy the waters of this discussion.

Intimacy was the thing I had in mind - not sexuality.

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

..it would appear that a knowledge of good was also forbidden.

How do you figure that?

Fanny Cradock

recedite wrote: »

I don't think they really chose to turn away, but they disobeyed that one order so that they would acquire more wisdom;at that stage they were not allowed too much awareness.

That is a singularly heterodox interpretation. One that I don't think very many Christians would accept. Bearing in mind my last post, I don't think it accurate to say that Adam and Eve were being barred from wisdom. They were being barred from knowledge of evil. To claim that evil is necessary for wisdom is not something that fits with the Judeo-Christian traditions. Indeed, in both Judaism and Christianity it is precisely that evil that separates us from God and makes us less human.

And God did tell a little porky pie, he said they would die if they ate the fruit. The snake was correct when he predicted that they would not die. Unless of course we are talking about the death of "the less aware state of the proto human being".

That is also an unusual interpretation. Broadly speaking, creationists would say that God and man were separated the moment A&E partook of the fruit. And that disobedience was the point when death entered into the world.

Evolutionists like myself would say that the death has been written into the fabric of creation since existence began. We would say that the death mentioned in Genesis was therefore a spiritual death - meaning a spiritual separation from God - and not a physical one. In either case, God is not seen to be telling a lie.

Xcellor wrote: »

Just a question. Given that there are two camps of Christian belief.

1) Believe Adam and Eve were real people.
2) Believe its a story.

At what point in the bible did the characters become real? Since the lineage of many characters can be traced back to Adam. Even Jesus.

How do Christians who are part of camp 2 know who is makey uppy and who is real?

Also if the creation account is just a story what exactly are humans being punished for? A makey uppy sin?

X

The same way you can tell that Animal Farm is a work of fiction - one that has a deeper allegorical meaning that retells the history of the Soviet Union during the early to mid 1900's. If the meaning isn't blindingly obvious - not always surprising given the generational, historical and cultural divides - biblical scholars (not all of them are believers, btw) employ various hermeneutical and exegetical methods to determine what the authors intended.

It might be tempting to believe that anyone born in some dusty backwater land however many thousands of years ago was mental midget incapable of understanding complex literary formats such as poetry and elevated prose or tools such as allegory and metaphor. But I don't think this is true.

Fanny Cradock

janeeen wrote: »

I think a person who believes that the Geneses account is only fiction, can not actually call them selfs a true Christen.
Jesus came to this earth to make amends for the sin of Adam,if the account in Geneses is only a story what was the point of Jesus been crucified?

You are familiar with metaphor, right? Instead of making blanked assertions based upon your ignorance of other interpretations of Genesis, perhaps you should actually try to educate yourself.

Thankfully, though, it isn't up to you to decide who is and who isn't a Christian.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

How do you figure that?

The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was forbidden. By eating the fruit you get the knowledge - both aspects of it.

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was forbidden. By eating the fruit you get the knowledge - both aspects of it.

It does help your case when you misquote and employ eisgeisis doesn't it. :rolleyes:

Eating of the tree was forbidded. Not the fruit but the eating of it.

Nor can we say that Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good before they eat of the tree. Adam had knowledge enough to name the animals. Eve had knowledge of Good because before she ate of the tree she saw that it was good to eat (Genesis 3 v6). If Eve had no knowledge of good it would have been wrong to record in the account that she saw that is was good to eat.
Clearly Adam and Eve had knowledge of Good and Bad. They had knowledge of Right and Wrong. They knew it was wrong and bad to eat of the tree even if it looked good to eat because they had been commanded by God not to, hence the requirement of a tempter to induce them to commit the sin of disobedience.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

It does help your case when you misquote and employ eisgeisis doesn't it. :rolleyes:

I would have said I was summarising a well known story.

Eating of the tree was forbidded. Not the fruit but the eating of it.

And by forbidding the eating of it, the result of eating it might also be prevented. Indeed, there is no hint that there was anything else to be achieved this by the prohibition.

21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.

Do you agree that the Lords intention, by forbidding eating, was to block access to the knowledge of good and evil.

Nor can we say that Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good before they eat of the tree. Adam had knowledge enough to name the animals. Eve had knowledge of Good because before she ate of the tree she saw that it was good to eat (Genesis 3 v6). If Eve had no knowledge of good it would have been wrong to record in the account that she saw that is was good to eat.

You're (probably deliberately) conflating the idea "good for food" (a utilitarian idea of goodness) with a moral goodness (which we deduce from the forbidden fruits good being assocated with evil).

But it might be that we have no common ground at all and that semantics is our only future.

Clearly Adam and Eve had knowledge of Good and Bad.

Utility is not morality

They had knowledge of Right and Wrong.

Moral right and wrong? Reference? Him taking a right turn in the garden is NOT sufficient

They knew it was wrong and bad to eat of the tree even if it looked good to eat because they had been commanded by God not to,

Reference to moral awareness pre-Fall? (assuming that you aren't referring to a utilitarian idea of "bad")

hence the requirement of a tempter to induce them to commit the sin of disobedience.

You don't need to be morally equipped to disobey. You only need not to do as you've been told.

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

I would have said I was summarising a well known story.

antiskeptic wrote: »

But it might be that we have no common ground at all and that semantics is our only future.

According to Jesus the Creation is true. According to Jesus Adam and Eve were real. That makes it an account, not a well known story.
Dismissing core elements of the Bible as a story suggests that you can put the whole of the Bible into the realm of fiction.

We have no common ground.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote:

We have no common ground.

As to why not...


Semantics (utilised as an escape hatch during debate)

Festus wrote:

Eve had knowledge of Good because before she ate of the tree she saw that it was good to eat (Genesis 3 v6).

This conflates morality (a knowledge of good and evil) with utility (the food was good to eat)


Semantics (jumping inappropiately to a preferred conclusion)

Festus wrote: »

According to Jesus the Creation is true. According to Jesus Adam and Eve were real. That makes it an account, not a well known story. Dismissing core elements of the Bible as a story suggests that you can put the whole of the Bible into the realm of fiction.

n. pl. sto·ries 1. An account or recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious.

Festus

Are you genuinely interested in exploring what knowledge Adam and Eve had pre fall or are you more interested in jumping inappropiately to your own preferred conclusions while looking for an escape hatch?

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

Are you genuinely interested in exploring what knowledge Adam and Eve had pre fall or are you more interested in jumping inappropiately to your own preferred conclusions while looking for an escape hatch?

We were looking at the possibility of your conflating utilitarian good with moral good. It seems to me that you do this in supposing Eve had a knowledge of moral good and evil simply because she saw the fruit as good for food. I mean, the dog in the street has a knowledge of that kind of good - but we don't go supposing them moral creatures on account of it.

We also note her obtaining the knowledge of moral-sounding 'good' by eating the fruit. The basis for supposing that good a morally-related one stems from it being associated with the moral term 'evil'.

Finally, she cannot be said to obtain a knowledge of something by eating if she already has that same knowledge prior to eating.

That's the argument, based on positive and negative deductions from the text, which leads me to conclude Eve had no knowledge of moral good before the Fall. If you can extract a different view from the text then by all means.

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

It seems to me that you do this in supposing Eve had a knowledge of moral good and evil simply because she saw the fruit as good for food.

Where am I supposing she had knowledge of good and evil based on her looking at the fruit and seeing that it was good to eat?

If you are going to mis-quote, add to my words and introduce eisgetic argument this discussion is going nowhere.

recedite

Soul Winner wrote: »

If that really was the choice then its a no brainier (pun not intended) - go with eternal life. What good is knowledge to you if you're dead? Who knows what God was prepping them for? Maybe after a few millennia of obeying God's simple command He was going to promote them to an even higher state of being? We'll never really know.

If I showed you some simpleton in a mental institution, and made you an offer that if you trade places with him you could be immortal, would you jump at the chance? And before anyone condemns me for a non P.C. reference, don't forget the legal defence of "diminished responsibility".That is, if a lawyer for someone who has killed another person can show that the killer has some mental deficiency that effectively prevents them from being able to tell Good from Evil, then they cannot be convicted of murder. Instead they are convicted of manslaughter and sent to a mental institution.

Your idea that God might have gone on to "upgrade" Adam after further testing is interesting. It might be the alternative perspective I was looking for when I started this thread, but why is this point not more widely publicised?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That is a singularly heterodox interpretation. One that I don't think very many Christians would accept. Bearing in mind my last post, I don't think it accurate to say that Adam and Eve were being barred from wisdom. They were being barred from knowledge of evil. To claim that evil is necessary for wisdom is not something that fits with the Judeo-Christian traditions. Indeed, in both Judaism and Christianity it is precisely that evil that separates us from God and makes us less human....
biblical scholars (not all of them are believers, btw) employ various hermeneutical and exegetical methods to determine what the authors intended.

True, but I went straight to the source, The Bible, and that's what I read there. Of course I know well the traditional "interpretation" that Adam and Eve were ideal and pure before eating the fruit, and afterwards took on a capability for sin. But the actual text does not concur with this. It is clearly the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and after eating of it, their level of awareness became "as a god".
BTW your wiki link for hermeneutical says that it derives from the Greek god Hermes; "considered the inventor of language and speech, an interpreter, a liar, a thief and a trickster." Hence I prefer to go straight to the source of anything myself, rather than rely on an orthodox interpretation.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It might be tempting to believe that anyone born in some dusty backwater land however many thousands of years ago was mental midget incapable of understanding complex literary formats such as poetry and elevated prose or tools such as allegory and metaphor. But I don't think this is true

True, at that stage they were the same as ourselves, but without the education that we have. However, anthropologists believe that hundreds of thousands of years ago, there were early hominids around that looked somewhat similar to ourselves, but were missing some vital mental component. As a result they were capable of using simple tools and communicating with each other. But they were never able to progress beyond that, because they had not yet acquired that "human spark" that we have.

On Good and Evil;
My cat knows it is not allowed to take food off the table. If I am there, it obeys, but when I turn my back, it jumps up to steal the food. Then it gets punished; it gets thrown outside.
Sometimes it catches a shrew, half kills it, and then keeps it alive as a tortured toy.
Is this cat capable of doing bad things? Yes.
Is it capable of doing good things? Yes.
Is it capable of willful disobedience? Yes.
Is it capable of knowing good from evil? No.
Is it a sinner? That's not for me to judge.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

Where am I supposing she had knowledge of good and evil based on her looking at the fruit and seeing that it was good to eat?

If you are going to mis-quote, add to my words and introduce eisgetic argument this discussion is going nowhere.

I'll try to be more rigorous in future.

Remove the reference to evil and the apparent conflation stands. She knew utilitarian good (says the text). There is no mention of her knowing morality good.

Fanny Cradock

recedite wrote: »

True, but I went straight to the source, The Bible, and that's what I read there.

If you want to go directly to the source then I suggest you begin learning Hebrew.

recedite wrote: »

Of course I know well the traditional "interpretation" that Adam and Eve were ideal and pure before eating the fruit, and afterwards took on a capability for sin.

I'm not sure that that is the traditional interpretation. It has been suggested by scholars such as N.T. Wright (link to talk - loads more here) that creation was always a project that was to be completed in stages. In other words, creation as we know it - irrespective of the fall - was only one step along the road to new creation - the name for the Christian hope that heaven and this creation will eventually meet and mix and form something else. Given this, while one could argue that A&E (assuming they even existed) were pure, one could not say that they were ideal.

recedite wrote: »

It is clearly the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and after eating of it, their level of awareness became "as a god".

I've no idea what the "as a god" thing means. Where are you getting that from?

As for the contention that Adam and Eve suddenly became aware of good - that is a clam that isn't explicitly supported by the text. After eating the fruit of the tree of good and evil, verses 7-14 say nothing about them inheriting goodness. Besides, if the contention of Judaism and Christianity is that God, amongst other qualities, is good, then A&E, as creatures in communion with God, were themselves good.

Last year I received a number of vaccinations against some pretty nasty blood related diseases. One particular course of vaccinations was a 3-in-1 job. Despite already being previously vaccinated against one of these diseases covered, I received a vaccination against something I was already vaccinated against.

In similar manner, if A&E were already good then eating the fruit didn't give them goodness - a quality they already possessed. If, however, you contend that they were neither good nor evil before eating the fruit you might want to suggest what they were.

recedite wrote: »

BTW your wiki link for hermeneutical says that it derives from the Greek god Hermes; "considered the inventor of language and speech, an interpreter, a liar, a thief and a trickster." Hence I prefer to go straight to the source of anything myself, rather than rely on an orthodox interpretation.

What has the etymology got to do with anything? The name Philip derives from the Greek meaning "horse lover". Does that mean that everyone called Philip has a soft spot for all things equestrian? Hermeneutics is a perfectly acceptable tool applied by scholars in areas of study both related and unrelated to biblical study.

recedite wrote: »

On Good and Evil;
My cat knows it is not allowed to take food off the table. If I am there, it obeys, but when I turn my back, it jumps up to steal the food. Then it gets punished; it gets thrown outside.
Sometimes it catches a shrew, half kills it, and then keeps it alive as a tortured toy.
Is this cat capable of doing bad things? Yes.
Is it capable of doing good things? Yes.
Is it capable of willful disobedience? Yes.
Is it capable of knowing good from evil? No.
Is it a sinner? That's not for me to judge.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the Genesis account, which is primarily an account of God and man, not God and your cat.

recedite

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've no idea what the "as a god" thing means. Where are you getting that from?.......

I'm not sure what this has to do with the Genesis account, which is primarily an account of God and man, not God and your cat.

Your online Bible has slightly different wording; "you will be like God, knowing the difference between good and evil"
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3&version=AMP

recedite

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3&version=AMP

"And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;
17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and blessing and calamity you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

Can anyone explain this to me; it appears the snake was correct to contradict this?

Fanny Cradock

recedite wrote: »

Your online Bible has slightly different wording; "you will be like God, knowing the difference between good and evil"
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3&version=AMP

That is quite a different thing - sharing a common knowledge isn't quite the same as being "as a god". Also, it must be noted that these words came from the snake - the one who deceived A&E.

Fanny Cradock

recedite wrote: »

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3&version=AMP

"And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;
17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and blessing and calamity you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

Can anyone explain this to me; it appears the snake was correct to contradict this?

I suggested two interpretations in post 30.

antiskeptic

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I suggested two interpretations in post 30.

Hi Fanny..


I noticed you said this (which is the same thing Festus seems to be saying).

Fanny @ post 30 wrote:

I don't think it accurate to say that Adam and Eve were being barred from wisdom. They were being barred from knowledge of evil

The text says "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" which would indicate the barring to apply to both good and evil.

Yet you limit the barring order to apply to evil only. How come?

Fanny Cradock

I don't quite follow what you mean by barring order but perhaps I answered your question in post 42

Bear in mind that I don't think that there was a tree, just like I don't believe there was a snake or that Jesus was a gate.

antiskeptic

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't quite follow what you mean by barring order but perhaps I answered your question in post 42

By 'barring order' I mean that God forbid that they access a particular knowledge. Onto post 42 then..

Fanny @msg 42 wrote:

As for the contention that Adam and Eve suddenly became aware of good - that is a clam that isn't explicitly supported by the text.

Considering what the text does say:

It says that they ate of a fruit which provided knowledge of both good and evil - without stressing the one more than the other. We need to retain the pairing and if wanting to divide it we'd need a reason)

The title of the tree is The Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil. Not the tree of additional knowledge.

The text doesn't indicate that they had a knowledge of either good or evil before eating.

I don't see how they could be said to gain knowledge of something they already had knowledge of - the text not suggesing the knowledge gained was an increase of degree of knowledge.

God himself says that the act of eating brought about the change: "they have become like us, knowing good and evil". If they had a knowledge of good and evil before eating then they would have been like God in that regard already - they couldn't become something they already were

After eating the fruit of the tree of good and evil, verses 7-14 say nothing about them inheriting goodness.

Nor evil. Nakedness (for example) isn't an evil thing.

The reason I think it's a knowledge of good and evil gained is that the one doesn't really work without the other. Can you have right without left, up without down, pain without health. Can you be guilty without a knowledge of what's good?

Besides, if the contention of Judaism and Christianity is that God, amongst other qualities, is good, then A&E, as creatures in communion with God, were themselves good.

Does it not strike you that the uber-intimate relationship we as Christians look forward to finally, an intimacy that would exceed anything even eternal life this side of the grave has to offer ... is utterly absent from the narrative of The Garden?

God's relationship with Adam and Eve has all the hallmarks of a guardian, not a parent. He educates, instructs, provides for, walks with (not in) them in the cool of the garden. There is distance - not intimate communion, which is suggestive of Adam and Eve as other than the children of God we have become.

Besides, a knowledge of good & evil (as a tied pair) implies an intimacy with moral issues. I wouldn't suppose God a moral creature (in that he has no intimate relations with sin in order to know evil). His being good wouldn't be one side of the good/evil coin.

Last year I received a number of vaccinations against some pretty nasty blood related diseases. One particular course of vaccinations was a 3-in-1 job. Despite already being previously vaccinated against one of these diseases covered, I received a vaccination against something I was already vaccinated against.

In similar manner, if A&E were already good then eating the fruit didn't give them goodness - a quality they already possessed. If, however, you contend that they were neither good nor evil before eating the fruit you might want to suggest what they were.

Consequential beings? People who can make choices based on consequences (negative(death) vs. positive(like God)). We do it all the time

Bear in mind that I don't think that there was a tree, just like I don't believe there was a snake or that Jesus was a gate.

What about his walking on water?

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'll try to be more rigorous in future.

Remove the reference to evil and the apparent conflation stands. She knew utilitarian good (says the text). There is no mention of her knowing morality good.

Well, for start "utilitarian good" and "moral good" are words that do not appear in the text of this account so lets but that particular eisgeisis to bed.

Take your understanding of knowledge to mean intimacy - does this not imply then that prior to eating the fruit they had theoretical knowledge and after they had practical knowledge from physically commiting the sin of disobedience?
Going further, if they had no knowledge before eating the fruit then they were completely innocent and having no knowledge of good or bad then being punished for something they did not understand to be wrong would seem a little harsh.

Adam and Eve clearly understood language. They did not ask the question "what is good" or "what is evil" therefore it is entirely reasonable to suppose they knew the words and had concepts of that the words meant but no practical knowledge of evil. They, or at least Adam, had practical knowledge of good for God commanded Adam to name the animals, which he did, and this pleased God so Adam would have known that pleasing God was good. God did not reject any of Adams names for the animals.

The command given was not just not to eat of to but also not to even touch it. Just by touching it, which they had to do in order to eat it, they broke the command. Maybe, at that point they could have stopped and pleaded to God that the serpent led them astray and while they touched it, whcih was wrong, they did not eat. But they did not and by continuing and eating they compounded their experience of being disobedient and all the horrors of evil were revealed to them. They now knew not only in their minds but in their hearts and souls what evil was and what evil comes from disobedience to God. Having this knowledge of evil and being mere weak human flesh they could no longer be allowed to remain in Eden.

Just as the angels were created good but capable of sin Adam and Eve were created good but capable of sin. The iniqueity had to be drawn out and it was by the temptations of the devil.

recedite

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That is quite a different thing - sharing a common knowledge isn't quite the same as being "as a god". Also, it must be noted that these words came from the snake - the one who deceived A&E.

A common level of knowledge..

God backs up the snake later;
22And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us [the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit], to know [how to distinguish between] good and evil and blessing and calamity; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live URL="http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/#fen-AMP-78b"]b[/URLforever--