sonofone

Question concerning inerrancy.If Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the forbidden fruit.Would this have not rendered them incapable of knowing right from wrong? And if they did not or were not able to distinguish between right and wrong how would they know they were making a bad choice?

Does this make sense?

rhutchin

Until God told Adam not to eat of the one tree, there was nothing "wrong" that Adam might do. At this point Adam was created perfect and in the image of God so he had no selfish desires. Adam was free to do whatever he wanted and whatever he wanted would have been perfectly good.

Then, God introduces a law. Do not eat of the fruit of the one particular tree. Adam understood the law even without the comprehensive understanding of good and evil that he was to gain from violating that law.

sonofone

You say Adam understood the law even without the understanding of good and evil.I'm not saying you're wrong here,but help me make sense of this.

If my 3 year old repeats a word he heard that is profanity,he is not held accountable for it as he has no grasp of the concept of good word bad word.Now if I correct my 3 y.o. because he has a conscience and is aware of good and evil if only on the basis of good stimuli vs,bad stimuli then he is in a position to begin distinguishing the difference.Even then it becomes a learning process for which he will receive plenty of mercy.As he is just beginning to learn.

Now if Adam has no concept of good or evil,then he has no internal compass to help him navigate good choice or bad choice.So if he makes a bad choice,where is the mercy?

Would he not be equally as innocent if not more so than my 3 y.o, since at this point he does not even possess the conscience that helps him discern good choice bad choice?

The bible introduces the serpent as the independent introducer of evil,which suggest that apart from this temptation they would have remained obedient to the command.

So for the first time they are faced with two conflicting truths,one which we knew to good and evil but one which they would have no way of knowing,since they lacked this internal compass.

We are left to believe that Eve is deceived which suggest she came to make a choice she knew was wrong prior to her having any knowledge of right or wrong?

Why are we not forced to regard her choice as innocent? I mean I suspect I know the reason why we can't as we would have a whole lot of splaning to do

I just happened upon this question on last week as I was discussing the question of Jesus nature in another forum.So I would appreciate your feedback.

rhutchin

Let's say that you tell your 3 yr old not to go out into the street because he will be punished if he does. That you tell him means that you think he understands or at least understands the connection to punishment (regardless, Adam certainly understood the restriction). If your 3 yr old goes into the street, do you punish him? Do you have mercy? You wouldn't because you have a greater understanding than your 3 yr old. You carry out the punishment because a 3 yr old can link his behavior to the punishment and modify his behavior. Adam disobeyed a command that he understood. Whether it was good or evil to eat the fruit is determined not by the character of the fruit by by God and what He determined Adam should not do. To obey, Adam merely had to know what God had said without understanding any philosophical rationale for the command or its relation to good and evil.

Eve indicates that she does not understand fully the restriction imposed on them by God. However, the nature of the temptation is to make Eve believe that it would actually be good for her and Adam to eat the fruit. The temptation is framed to make both Adam and Eve think that the opposite of what they should think. That is the nature of temptation. People will know that something is wrong and then explain how it actually accomplishes good to do the wrong. Robin Hood might steal from the rich arguing that he gives what he steals to the poor who the rich have abused. A mob hitman kills another mobster arguing that he has done society a favor. (Not the best examples but all I could think of on the spur of the moment.)

Even though Eve misunderstood the command, she understood enough not to do what she thought she should not do. She was not innocent.

sonofone

You're still in my mind left with a fundamental flaw in thinking.In order to make a value judgment,you have to have a basic understanding of either side of your choice.

If Adam did not know good or evil how could he come to know obedience verses disobedience.How could he measure it? How could I hold a mental incompetent responsible for his choices?

So if I say don't do this or something bad will happen,if you have no way of understanding or appreciating good from bad how can you make a rational choice?

rhutchin

Did Adam have to make a value judgment? Or did he know precisely what God had commanded?

The command says not to commit adultery. Is it good or evil to commit adultery? Had God not said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, would it be good or evil to commit adultery? Adultery is not necessarily good or evil but God can still command that you are not to do it. Whether adultery is good or evil is irrelevant. What matters is that which God commands.

Are you equating Adam with a mental incompetent?

If you know the punishment for your action, then you can make a rational decision based simply on the punishment and ignore any philosophical discussion about the goodness or badness of the punishable action.

sonofone

Punishment is bad just as reward is good.Adam was a mental incompetent when it came to his awareness of good vs evil.So if I tell a person such as this that something bad will happen if you do it how can they be place any value on this statement,without context?

It seems we are asking Adam to do the impossible,that is make a good choice by remaining obedient to God and do not make a bad choice by being disobedient when he has no concept of good or evil

Johnny Skeptic

First of all, it is impossible to reasonably verify that Adam and Eve existed. Second of all, the claims that God is merciful, and plans to send skeptics to hell of eternity without parole, are contradictory. The claims cannot both be true unless we redefine the word "merciful." Even if the Bible did not claim that God is merciful, I would never accept a God who plans to send skeptics to hell for eternity without parole. In my opinion, nothing could be more detestible than eternal vengeance without parole.

Amaleq13

This is simply incoherent.

How can one know one should (ie it is good) obey God without understanding the difference between good and evil?

Adam is threatened with death but, according to you, he would have had no knowledge of what "death" meant since he had seen none.

sonofone

Thank you Ameleq,I was beginning to wonder if I was missing something myself.