How did Adam and Eve know good from evil?

Rrhain has a point, even if he is the worst at getting them across. The point is that A&E wouldn't know if they should trust god, who said that they would die, or the sepent, who said that they would know good and evil.The funny thing is that the serpent was right and god was wrong (they didn't die and they did get the knowledge).

Oh, they died... you know that.We could quibble for pages over whether it would be on that day or in the day, and how long he meant by day, but I'd rather not.Just reading the story, god says if you eat the fruit you'll die. The snake say if you eat the fruit you'll know. They ate the fruit and then they knew. Its pretty simple really. I can see that god was wrong and the snake was right.Now, you can interpret the story to be saying that they would have lived forever if they hadn't disobeyed god and use that for the whole The Fall^TM thing, but then you aren't really reading it literally anymore.So then, I could interpret it to be referring to man's evolution from the beasts and acquisition of a morality system.We can apologize for all kinds of wacky stories and throw them into this arena to battle it out, but its all stuff that we're making up and ascribing to the text that we do have.Looking at Genesis 3, we have a very anthropomorphic god bumbling about in the garden and stumbling upon adam hiding from him, so god's all WTF? and... yeah, well...Its old jewish folklore. We don't have a lot to go with here. But I betcha 1000 internets that my story can beat up your story

That's an apologetic stretch. The jews that came up with the story didn't have Peter's letters in mind when they were talking about Genesis.

quote:

---

Just reading the story, god says if you eat the fruit you'll die. The snake say if you eat the fruit you'll know. They ate the fruit and then they knew. Its pretty simple really. I can see that god was wrong and the snake was right.

​

Now, you can interpret the story to be saying that they would have lived forever if they hadn't disobeyed god and use that for the whole The Fall^TM thing, but then you aren't really reading it literally anymore.

​

So then, I could interpret it to be referring to man's evolution from the beasts and acquisition of a morality system.

---

No... let B = god and C = the snake.Adam and Eve wouldn't have been able to know if they should believe god or the snake. They didn't know which choice led to which consequence. Only if you assume the two choices were both given by god. That's not what the analogy is saying.

Yup. Like I said in Message 50:

quote:

---

We can apologize for all kinds of wacky stories and throw them into this arena to battle it out, but its all stuff that we're making up and ascribing to the text that we do have.

​

...

​

Its old jewish folklore. We don't have a lot to go with here. But I betcha 1000 internets that my story can beat up your story

---

From Message 70: You have your position, that what god said did happen, and you're going to other parts of the Bible to find passages that you can shoehorn into your interpretation of the story to make your position correct. Isn't that textbook apologetics?You are not just reading the story and taking from it what it says: God said they'd die, the snake said they'd know, they ate it and then they knew.Now, if what you say is correct, you have to wonder why the jews hearing this story would understand it to be something totally different that what it really means, which had to wait until Peter wrote his letter to get the full meaning across. Why would god inspire this story to them to mean something different than what it plainly says to them?From Message 71: You ended just before the part, Gen 3:4-5, where they are given the other option that prevents them from knowing which one is right (because they don't have the knowledge yet):

quote:

---

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

---

God says "you'll die", the snake says "no you won't, you'll know".So, without the knowledge, how would they know which one is right?That's the point of the anology. You don't know which one is right, B or C, so which one do you choose?And if we look at what does happen when they eat it, Gen 3:6-7:

quote:

---

6 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. 7 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.

---

Immediately after they ate it, their eyes were opened, they got the knowledge, and they did not die.Later on, god explains their punishment for eating the fruit, Gen 3:17-19:

quote:

---

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."

---

This is not the same as what they were warned, Gen 3:17:

quote:

---

17 But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.

---

That seems to be a warning of an immediate death, not some death 1000 years in the future.And if we look towards then end of the chapter, gen 3:22-24:

quote:

---

22 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. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

---

God was worried about Adam and Eve becomming actual gods themselves by eating of both of the trees. He didn't want them to get the knowledge so he threatened them with death if they did, but that's not what happened, they did get the knowledge. So god goes so far as to put guards at the entrance so they can't become like him. God was worried about the competition and it makes sense that he would have given them a false threat of death to prevent them from eating the fruit.

I see what you mean, but you're adding stuff to the story to get there. The story doesn't talk about A&E's abilities to trust or not.Using just what we have in Genesis, the anology makes sense. But they didn't die when they ate the fruit, like god said, and they did get the knowledge like the snake said. They didn't know which one to trust... and that's the point of the analogy.

Well, the whole dialog is just three lines:+"Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"-"We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'"+"You will not surely die, For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."I don't see how you can get such a clear interpretation from that without adding some preconceived notions to it.Maybe it isn't about who to trust at all. And she doesn't even really have a "dilemma":--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.--The snake comes along and says that god was lying to you about dying because he didn't want you to become like him with that knowledge.I don't see how she could have known who to trust. But the snake was right; They didn't die but instead got the knowledge.--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-- Actually, I think that is one of the points of the whole thing. The whole dominion thing is from Gen 1, not the Adam and Eve story. There's just not enough in the Adam and Eve story to make those presuppositions that you do. I don't think its anything like that at all. You're assuming that they new they could trust god and that they couldn't trust the snake but that information is not in the story. And afterwards, it turns out that the snake was right anyways because they did get the knowledge.

Impossible. A person is unable to know that. Ah. The entire story, which is impressively detailed, is one gigantic apology. You have this detailed topographical map laid over a pile of Legos. Its neat how its all interwoven so as to show a prophecy that then "proves" that it must be revelation. But you are taking these little tidbits from all over, and adding so much more information to them, that there's no way to know how accurate it is because most of it is filler.It could easily be made up in a way to con people into believing it. It is pretty well thought out though, and seems internally consistant so far. Looks like there's similarities to the Catholic Church, both in the story line and how there's a central source of the revealed interpretation.One of the important things to the Catholic Church is, though, to be congruent with reality... like not denying evolution n'stuff. seems nobody likes the jews... Lucky you to be in the inspired group. Good thing your church was selling what you needed.Too bad for the jews that they had to have their whole religion be a big gag in order for God's plan to unfold. That wasn't very nice. No she didn't. She said that god said that they'd die if they did. She didn't know if that was true or not, nor if the snakes claim that they'd get knowledge instead was. That's just filler. What is meant by "knowledge" is the knowledge of "good and bad". So no, they didn't know if the result of eating the fruit was bad or not or good. At least, that is what the Legos say. They lacked knowledge of what was bad. And what they should have done is just more filler. But the whole story wouldn't have happened if they didn't do it and set it off. You think God's entire creation is bad?If they did what you say they should, then we wouldn't be here today. Are we all God's accidents? Well fine, your filler is internally consistant.From Message 105: That's what everyone is saying!Its old jewish folklore that really doesn't make a lot of sense. Like I said, it even has god bumbling around the garden and sumbling across Adam hiding. This is a very primitive and anthropomorphic concept of god, its not some literal and inerrant revealed truth from god's mouth itself. Or that the interpretation is wrong. But you don't care at all about the jewish mythology and what the writers thought they were saying, do you? God could have just given them free will, he didn't have to set them up. Your filler is pretty good, but I don't want to argue the interpreted details. Its jewish folklore that was passed down to explain man's place in the world, including his relation to women, the other animals, the earth etc. It fits nicely with what is understood of the bronze age jewish culture.Mommy, how come the men are in charge and the woman aren't? Well, here's a campfire tale of how it all started, Johnny, some snake tricked the first woman to eat the fruit from this tree that god said they shouldn't, and....

Any way, expressing free-will doesn't require a law to obey or not. As soon as Adam was in the garden, he was free to eat from any other tree. He had the free will to choose a banana over an orange, or whatever. You think free will is only about obeying or disobeying?From my Message 106:

quote:

---

Was it bad that they ate the fruit? Yes it was. They experienced a lot of pain and hardship, the first murder, being cut off from God their father and they began to grow old and die... death didnt have to be instant, it became a life sentence until they did die. I cant imagine how being on death row is a good thing.

​

But the whole story wouldn't have happened if they didn't do it and set it off. You think God's entire creation is bad?

​

If they did what you say they should, then we wouldn't be here today. Are we all God's accidents?

---

From you Message 115: Consider the writers and intented audience... They already thought that being naked was bad. The point of having A&E be unashamed of their nakedness was to exemplify their lack of knowledge of good and evil. Its reiterated when immediately after eating the fruit they go: 'OMG! We're freakin' naked!" They realized it, they didn't decide it.

What passages do you get that from?Doesn't this mean that god had to "set them up" because he was incapable of giving them free will without establishing a law for them to disobey? And why would his intention be that they did not have free will?

Gen 2 has a primitive and anthropomorphic god that screwed up his first creation attempt and had to alter it (Adam was alone and the animals didn't do it so he had to try again with Eve), who losses his main dish and ends up stumbling upon them hiding, and in the end goes: oh crap, I better put guards at the gate so they do take this even further and become immortals.He was hardly competent.