The Tree of Knowledge

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

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.

Those word don't need to appear in order for it to be exegesis.

Are you seriously going to cling to the notion that their knowing something as "good for food" is evidence of their knowing moral goodness? You seem to accept that "good and evil" refers to morality.

Perhaps you can clarify this before I proceed. There can come a point in a discussion where the boundaries are breached and play must stop. This would, to my mind, be one of them.

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are you seriously going to cling to the notion that their knowing something as "good for food" is evidence of their knowing moral goodness?

Where did I say that in #50?

Read #50 again and again and again until you understand what I said and try to do this without reading into my words what you think you want me to be saying.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

Where did I say that in #50?

You didn't say it in msg 50, you said it in msg 33 and haven't let go of the idea. How can a discussion take place with someone who supposes Eve's knowing that something is good to eat is supportive of the notion that she had a pre-Fall knowledge of good and evil (morality)?

Festus at msg 33 wrote:

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from whence your suggestion "clearly" knowing right from wrong (a moral concern) if not from the fact that they knew food was good to eat (a utilitarian concern)?

Fanny Cradock

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

All valid points.

Firstly, and probably most importantly, I don't believe that there was a special fruit that dispensed knowledge of good and evil. In a sense, I guess I could leave it at that because it is pointless for me to be arguing over the finer points of what I believe to be a metaphorical story - albeit one that tells broad historical facts. However, it is only fair that I take a stab at an answer.

Indeed, the text doesn't say that they had knowledge of good or evil before they ate the fruit. But I would again stress that they were part of a good creation. Therefore, I think it is logical to assume that as sentient beings in a good creation they were themselves good. They may not have understood it as "goodness" - perhaps because they would have need a mark to juxtapose it against - so maybe it is enough to say that they were as God intended.

I'm curious to know what you think it would have meant for A&E to be without knowledge of good and evil. Would they have been morally neutral - doing neither good nor evil? Where they doing good and evil but just not aware of it? What?

Part of my problem with the idea that they suddenly inherited good and evil is that I can't imagine what it would be like to be neither good nor evil. Could they admire God's creation? Could they love God and each other? Would they possess any passion at all?

I'm not sure that an emotion like love can be boiled down to an emotion based on consequence. It's all too 'cause and effect'.

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

I've already given an example from experience where I received a part of a greater whole that I already possessed. If you read a free "teaser" chapter of a forthcoming book release then you aren't exactly gaining new knowledge if you reread the chapter when you buy the book.

antiskeptic wrote: »

God himself says that the act of eating brought about the change: "they have become like us, knowing good and evil".

I love that verse and the undertones that point towards the Trinity. I think I've already covered this in my above paragraph.

antiskeptic wrote: »

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?

I can see your point. But, again, what would beings without either knowledge of good or evil be like?

antiskeptic wrote: »

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?

I think it lends itself to the idea that there was always some other stage of creation in the pipeline, and that this existence was never the final goal. See the N.T. Wright audio link if you want to hear more.

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

Parents do all that! Parents are guardians.

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

Well, I'm suggesting that they aren't a tied pair. Perhaps when they are tied we then find ourselves stumbling from one moral quagmire to the next. I don't simply think that A&E gained knowledge of evil, I think they also inherited a conflict between two ways of being.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What about his walking on water?

I've no problem with this. There are certain accounts - like the resurrection - that are non-negotiable, IMO. Jesus walking on water isn't a metaphor for our spiritual walk or whatever because I don't think that it was intended to be understood as anything other than a historical event. I can't say that the same about the finer points of Genesis.

If nothing else, I think I'll sign out with the sentiments expressed in this post. I would encourage you to read it.

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

You didn't say it in msg 50, you said it in msg 33 and haven't let go of the idea. How can a discussion take place with someone who supposes knowing something is good to eat means they have knowledge of moral good and evil.

Well let go of #33 and move down the page a bit and read #50.

My thoughts have developed. Why haven't yours?

antiskeptic

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Firstly, and probably most importantly, I don't believe that there was a special fruit that dispensed knowledge of good and evil. In a sense, I guess I could leave it at that because it is pointless for me to be arguing over the finer points of what I believe to be a metaphorical story - albeit one that tells broad historical facts.

Which reminds me. Despite widespread exposure to various apologetics, I've not actually encountered the explanation of the Christian who sees the Genesis account as allegorical. The beauty of a literal take lies in the way God is distanced from responsibility for man having a sinful nature. And because of that distance, man can be rightfully judged. How does the alternative work - given the problems that arise if God is directly responsible for our having a sinful nature.

Maybe you have a link to a good article - it's about time I familiarised myself with that position

Indeed, the text doesn't say that they had knowledge of good or evil before they ate the fruit. But I would again stress that they were part of a good creation. Therefore, I think it is logical to assume that as sentient beings in a good creation they were themselves good. They may not have understood it as "goodness" - perhaps because they would have need a mark to juxtapose it against - so maybe it is enough to say that they were as God intended.

That's a fine way to put it .. "as God intended it". We might picture them according to Newtons Law of Motion - objects set in the direction 'good' by God. Without the action of an opposing or diverting force, they would continue in that direction forever. They were robots in a sense, heading in the direction that initial conditions had charted for them. I've no issue with them being good in this passive, robotic sense: not choosing good because there is nothing to choose between

I'm curious to know what you think it would have meant for A&E to be without knowledge of good and evil. Would they have been morally neutral - doing neither good nor evil? Where they doing good and evil but just not aware of it? What?

As per above - charting a course of good due to that being the programming (so to speak). It wouldn't occur to Adam to deliberately hit Eve and so Eve would never be deliberately hit. Good would always be done for want of an opposing/diverting force.

Part of my problem with the idea that they suddenly inherited good and evil is that I can't imagine what it would be like to be neither good nor evil. Could they admire God's creation? Could they love God and each other? Would they possess any passion at all?

I'm not sure that an emotion like love can be boiled down to an emotion based on consequence. It's all too 'cause and effect'.

I’m supposing the consequences offered balanced so that the choice lay with them – they weren’t pushed by consequences into deciding the way they did, in other words. Quite how the mechanism of free choice works (whether the realm in which the choice is made is ‘consequences’ or ‘morality’) is beyond me.
-
I made reference to the lack of intimacy in the garden account which could alternatively be described as a lack of passion. I know you say later that parents do the caring things God did but if the role of guardian accounts for the data, then the assumption of loving parent is unwarranted if the purpose is to fill a discomforting vacuum.

Not that I think it need be discomforting. If the nature of love necessitates exercise of choice, then Adam and Eve might be considered proto-children incapable of it. As fallen creatures though, they were placed in the position of (potentially) accessing such choice-based love. I don't find it disturbing that they weren't that finished product in the garden. And wouldn’t find it disturbing that they couldn’t fully love God.

I've already given an example from experience where I received a part of a greater whole that I already possessed. If you read a free "teaser" chapter of a forthcoming book release then you aren't exactly gaining new knowledge if you reread the chapter when you buy the book.

Indeed. I know that absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence but it seems to me that the pointers are to a lack of knowledge. On the issue of their pre-Fall knowledge of good, the text is mute.

I think it lends itself to the idea that there was always some other stage of creation in the pipeline, and that this existence was never the final goal. See the N.T. Wright audio link if you want to hear more.

I agree. And the earlier point suggests that we shouldn’t be disturbed by Adam and Eve: proto-children either. I’ll give him a listen when I get a mo.

Well, I'm suggesting that they aren't a tied pair. Perhaps when they are tied we then find ourselves stumbling from one moral quagmire to the next. I don't simply think that A&E gained knowledge of evil, I think they also inherited a conflict between two ways of being.

Whilst stumbling from one moral quagmire to another is indeed the product of tied pairs, we can at least say that we stumble in both directions – to good and evil. Without a tied pair, without conflict, there is but robotedness. Robots aren’t beings in order to enjoy (or otherwise) a way of being.

If nothing else, I think I'll sign out with the sentiments expressed in this post. I would encourage you to read it.

I’m on the way out now. But will..

recedite

Festus wrote: »

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.

Seriously, its not much better than your "tastes good" argument earlier. My cat knows when I am pleased with it and when I am not. It knows getting a kick up the ar$e is not good.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But I would again stress that they were part of a good creation. Therefore, I think it is logical to assume that as sentient beings in a good creation they were themselves good.

I'm afraid you have missed the central point. Its not about being good or bad. These "qualities" are robotic as was already mentioned. Bambi was good, as are butterflies, but lions are bad in that they are natural born killers.

This is about knowing the difference between good and evil, and therefore being forced to make moral choices in life.

The snake in this story always tells the truth, yet he is pilloried because he is disloyal to his master. The fact that his master is lying is not considered to be any excuse for the disloyalty. It's exactly the kind of morality that armies have always tried to drill into their soldiers. Blind obedience is required. Knowledge of right and wrong is not. Thinking is not to be encouraged.

My morality values a knowledge of the difference between good and evil far above loyalty. Beyond that lie the choices and responsibilities to be a force for good.
As John Lennon said - Imagine all the people. Living for today. Imagine there's no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for. And no religion too ...
Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Kashmir dispute, no Indo/Pakistan partition, no Israel/Palestine wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no Northern Ireland 'troubles'. Imagine no Taliban blowing up ancient statues, lashing women for showing an inch of skin, or publicly beheading blasphemers and apostates. Imagine no persecutions of the Jews - no Jews to persecute indeed, for without religion they would long ago have intermarried with the surrounding populations.
Thanks people, its been an interesting discussion.

Fanny Cradock

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which reminds me. Despite widespread exposure to various apologetics, I've not actually encountered the explanation of the Christian who sees the Genesis account as allegorical. The beauty of a literal take lies in the way God is distanced from responsibility for man having a sinful nature. And because of that distance, man can be rightfully judged. How does the alternative work - given the problems that arise if God is directly responsible for our having a sinful nature.

Maybe you have a link to a good article - it's about time I familiarised myself with that position

You won't be surprised to find out that the internet is chock full of information on it. Unfortunately my computer (or a bit of it) blew up yesterday and I don't have access to any of my bookmarked pages. Sadly that meansI have to rely on my notably poor memory for any suggestions.

Anyway, I would recommend checking out multimedia section of The Faraday Institute and searching for talks by Earnest Lucas Actually, I linked to a paper of his in one of my earlier posts. You'll probably find other speakers who share his view if you search in the multimedia section, search by all and do a browser search (ctrl f) for Genesis or some such keyword.

You might want to check out www.biologos.org to see what they have to say. They have a fair amount of info to keep you going.

On the blog front, I had encountered this promising looking blog just before the computer packed in. You might also find some interesting stuff at IM (see the link I encouraged you to read in my last post).

You might also find something of interest in the external links section of the wiki theistic evolution page. Failing that there is always Google and a load of keywords

There is probably quite a bit of theological wiggle room within this particular topic, which means that you might encounter various theological subtleties amongst people who otherwise share the same broad opinions.

That's all I can think of now. Sorry, don't have time to address the rest of your post! Maybe another time. Must dash!

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

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?

It could be but not necessarily. 'Intimacy' would be but a description of the intensity of the relationship as it is, not a commentary on what went before.

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.

The text suggests that promised consequences were delivered upon as a result of their choice. Delivering on promised consequences isn't punishment, it's delivering the consequences attaching to a particular choice - as promised.

Punishment is a different thing, a morally-related notion. Granted, they might experience the consequences delivered on as punishment(after the fact) now that they have become moral creatures. But there is no mention of a moral aspect in the formulation of the choice presented to them - it is utterly consequential in nature.

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.

The word 'good' isn't mentioned by either God to them or by them themselves.

We must assume they understood language/concepts in so far as they are mentioned by them. And so we must assume they understood the notion of "eat" and the concept of "death" as something negative. We have no basis for supposing they understood concepts not mentioned by them such as "good", "evil", "laptop".

An good assumption needs a sound basis. Not an assumed one.

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.

As before, you conflate good (as in pleasant consequences following an action - God is pleased with you) with moral good.

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.

The first thing to establish exegetically is their possessing a (degree of) knowledge of morality prior to their choosing. Until then, statements like that above are as a building awaiting a foundation.

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

The first thing to establish exegetically is their possessing a (degree of) knowledge of morality prior to their choosing. Until then, statements like that above are as a building awaiting a foundation.

So what makes you think they had no knowledge of right and wrong, good or bad?

The tree was not a Tree of Knowledge, nor was it a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad, nor was it a tree of Knowledge of Morality.
It was a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

When the serpent spoke to them he did not say "you will learn morality" nor did he say " you will learn of good and bad", he said "you shall be like gods knowing good and evil"

Prior to that had Eve responded the serpent that they had been commanded not to touch or eat of the tree lest they die. If Adam and Eve did not know that death was bad then the command from God was lost on them.

So we can draw from this that they know what bad was - death is bad.
They knew that to disobey God was bad, for if they did not know this then they could not commit the sin of disobedience and take and eat the fruit.
They committed an intentional and willful act of disobedience.
If they had no knowledge of good and bad then they could not have committed a sin as a sin can only be committed with full knowledge that it is a sin and that it has consequences.

Quite simply if they had no moral knowledge then they could not sin. They did sin therefore they had moral knowledge.
After their sin they knew evil, though they appear to have shunned it but by then the damage was done and could not be undone. They physically knew evil. They had committed an evil act. An act they knew was wrong otherwise it could not have been a sin, the Original Sin.
Because of their actions we have the capacity to conceptualise, conceive and enact evil in word, thought and deed.

The Bible then goes on to say that Adam knew Eve. From this we can understand the concept of Knowledge as being physical. Before eating the fruit their knowledge of good and evil was theoretical. After eating the fruit their knowledge of good and evil was physical.
Before they ate the fruit God instructed them to go forth and multiply so presumable they had theoretical knowledge of how they would achieve this. Eve is also refered to as Adam's wife. The implication here is either theoretical or physical knowledge of what one does with a wife following an instruction to be fruitful and to multiply. We only know for certain that Eve conceived after the fall and that their children had belly buttons because they were born but it is not said explicitly in the account of Genesis that Adam and Eve had no belly buttons but their children did.

Where do you want to go next antiskeptic? - the logical conclusion of your argument is that Adam and Eve did not sin.
Do you want to apportion blame to God for creating the serpent or Lucifer?

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

So what makes you think they had no knowledge of right and wrong, good or bad?

Might help if we henceforth use specific terms so as to avoid confusion? Moral good/right and moral bad/evil/wrong and consequential good and bad are being considered.


My brief response to your question is that the (con)text doesn't suggest they had any knowledge of moral good/bad. As we shall see later, your argument that they had this knowledge isn't based on the text itself - rather it's based on a particular ex-textual definition of sin.

More positively for my position, their knowledge of good and bad is described only in consequential terms. Both the prohibition and enticement are couched that way (this will occur vs. that will occur) as is her understanding of both the prohibition ("but God did say that on the day...") and enticement ".. saw it was desirable for gain..."). The sense that there is any moral awareness on their part is utterly absent.

Such is exegesis.

The tree was not a Tree of Knowledge, nor was it a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad, nor was it a tree of Knowledge of Morality. It was a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

When the serpent spoke to them he did not say "you will learn morality" nor did he say " you will learn of good and bad", he said "you shall be like gods knowing good and evil"

I know.

Are you suggesting we consider "good and evil" to refer to something other than moral good and evil? If not, then the term morality is but a short way of saying moral good and evil.

Let's not suppose that a "knowledge of right and left" can be taken to mean a knowledge of moral right and directional left. No, we take the term as a pair. And so, the very presence of the moral term 'evil' informs us that the good being referred to is moral good. Thus the tree is providing a knowledge of morality.

Prior to that had Eve responded the serpent that they had been commanded not to touch or eat of the tree lest they die. If Adam and Eve did not know that death was bad then the command from God was lost on them.

I agree.

However, the bad need only be understood as a bad consequence in order to exert effect. There need be no moral bad componant involved in their knowledge - in order that a restraining effect exist.

So we can draw from this that they know what bad was - death is bad. They knew that to disobey God was bad, for if they did not know this then they could not commit the sin of disobedience and take and eat the fruit.

The text permits us to conclude they knew disobeying God would have a negative consequence. They don't have to know it is morally bad to disobey in order to disobey. Disobedience merely means 'wilfully not doing what you're told to do'.

We are not justified in saying they have to have an awareness of moral good and bad in order to sin. Not without support for that definition of sin.

They committed an intentional and willful act of disobedience...

No argument here.

..If they had no knowledge of good and bad then they could not have committed a sin as a sin can only be committed with full knowledge that it is a sin...

It would depend on how you define sin. If it is defined only as " knowlingly and wilfully disobeying God" then there is no need for a moral knowledge per se - a consequential knowledge would be sufficient, the kind of knowledge we can extract as theirs from the pre-Fall text.

... and that it has consequences.

Indeed, the text suggests they knew there would be negative consequences.

Quite simply if they had no moral knowledge then they could not sin. They did sin therefore they had moral knowledge. After their sin they knew evil, though they appear to have shunned it but by then the damage was done and could not be undone. They physically knew evil. They had committed an evil act. An act they knew was wrong otherwise it could not have been a sin, the Original Sin.

I've questioned the opening assertion of this paragraph above. You also seem to be drawing a distinction between knowing moral wrong and knowing moral evil. Could you clarify what the different is and why you suppose this to be the case?

Before eating the fruit their knowledge of good and evil was theoretical. After eating the fruit their knowledge of good and evil was physical.

Can I suggest that there is no evidence in the text to suggest this?

Quite aside from their pre-fall theoretical knowledge of sex not being mentioned, a theoretical knowledge of sex can't be extrapolated into them having a theoretical knowledge of morality.

Where do you want to go next antiskeptic? - the logical conclusion of your argument is that Adam and Eve did not sin.

As we have seen, that conclusion is based not on the text but on a particular (unsupported btw) assertion regarding sin.

Do you want to apportion blame to God for creating the serpent or Lucifer?

No. But I would suggest that God is responsible for permitting the serpent access to the garden. I mean, it's not as if God didn't know what the serpent was up to.