Koyaanisqatsi

I wasn't sure where to put this one (and sure it's been addressed somewhere, but it's late and I was bored; sorry mods).

If disobeying God by eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil was an "evil" act worthy of punishment, how did Adam and Eve know it was evil prior to eating the apple, thereby establishing their culpability in order to punish them?

And how could they have committed an evil act prior to knowing what evil was? If they had no knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the apple, then how could they have disobeyed god in the first place? Wouldn't one have to know what evil was prior to committing an evil act and wouldn't punishment be predicated upon that "pre" knowledge of wrongness?

The first thing we do in any criminal proceeding is determine whether or not the defendant knew "right from wrong" prior to (or during) the act they are charged with. If they didn't know right from wrong, then we don't punish them.

Thoughts?

Javaman

... and certainly not all of their descendants
I'm paraphrasing here but, most answers to your query I've seen end up being something like, "While A&E may not have known good from evil (or right from wrong), they knew at least enough to obey their lord." I think this answer is disingenuous. This Genesis story also leads to asking why the lord lied and the snake told the truth. IIRC, this subject has led to many threads in the past.

GakuseiDon

The Bible never says that they didn't know good and evil, just that when they ate of the tree "their eyes were open". It's usually referred to the death of their relationship with God, and the problems thereof.
I think the Bible clearly identifies "death" with "their eyes were opened". Eve says, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate". What else could the serpent be deceiving Eve about?

Amos

The first thing to identify is that man sinned and the result of this sin was the creation of Adam and the creation of Adam is equal to the fall of man. The fall of man happens in Gen3. where man wanted to be "like god" (small g) instead of just being God (Gen 1) and Lord God (Gen 2). Accordingly the word Adam should never appear in the bible until God said "Adam where are you" because the "shame/no shame" distinction that is found between Gen.2 and 3 means that an ego (wherein only we can have shame) has been created and this ego identity is called Adam. Thereore, man fell and the fall of man created Adam as a second identity and the [lesser] serpent became Eve.

The bible does not say that without eating the fruit we would not die but it says that we will know that we will die. The difference here is that a conscious memory is needed to remember that we will die (because we remember that others died).

Nobody said that the act was evil in itself but will result man knowing the difference between good and evil.

Devilnaut

Imagine what would have happened if the snake in the garden had said "eat from this tree, and you will know good and evil, and you will be separated from God. And go forth and sin and learn and experience and become wise. And then, when your time comes, you must stop listening to me for you must become saved and return to God"

What a paradox that would be

Tod

The Bible never says that they didn't know good and evil, just that when they ate of the tree "their eyes were open".

Greetings...

Sure the Bible says that they didn't know good and evil. In Gen 3:22 Yahweh says: "Now that the man has become like one of us in knowing good from evil, he must not be allowed to reach out his hand and pick from the tree of life too, and eat and live for ever!" (emphasis mine)

"NOW" he knows good and evil, indicating he didn't know before. He has "BECOME" like one of us, again indicating he didn't know good and evil before.

Javaman

And thus, the paradox. A brand new human, not knowing the difference is told by two different beings to do different things... not knowing good from evil. They (and all their progeny) are henceforth punished for their act.
Then again, it's just a story.

christ-on-a-stick

An excellent question for which I have never gotten a coherent answer from a Christian (literalist).

The standard line I've received has been something like "...but they still DISOBEYED [a direct order!]" - to which I have replied, "but how would they know that disobedience was WRONG if they did not yet have the knowledge"?

No answer (unless of course "they just would have" can be counted as an answer).

I look forward to the literalist Xian's response to this.

I mean, c'mon, not only were they ignorant of good and evil, but there was that wily serpent thrown in to the mix to trick 'em!

Would any decent human parent invoke a death sentence on their 2-year-old child for disobeying them when another adult came along and said "no really, it's okay, you can have the cookie?" Give me a break.

Javaman

And so, God (being God and all) would have known what the snake was up to, right? And would also have known the outcome of the snake's little talk. If he didn't, he's not the God described by most Christians that I know.

beastmaster

A&E always understood good and evil. It's just that before eating the fruit, their knowledge was directly dependent on god's instruction. After eating the fruit, A&E attained *independent* knowledge of good and evil, making A&E (partially) godlike, and driving a separation between man and god.

It's all a metaphor for the awakening of the adolescent mind. The pre-adolescent "knows" good and evil well enough to know to do this ("eat your spinach") or not do that ("don't take candy from strangers"), per their parents' instructions. But the emerging adolescent attains an independent conscience and moral sensibility. And at that point a separation is driven between child and parent.

Eating the fruit was not evil; it was "sinful" (i.e., separating man from god). Evil and sin are two different things (evil comes from god; sin doesn't).

Anyway, it's just a cute little fairy tale.