Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How did Adam and Eve know good from evil?
hotjer
Member (Idle past 4545 days)
Posts: 113
From: Denmark
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 1 of 227 (553371)
04-02-2010 10:18 PM


This might be a silly speculation; nonetheless I want to ask what you guys think about these thoughts.
In Genesis; when Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge their eyes are open and they know good from evil, however, to me all of this seems kind of fishy in the first place.
Adam and Eve did not know good from evil: right from wrong before they ate fruit from the tree of knowledge, but they were told not to eat from it, however; how should they know it was wrong to disobey the LORD God?
To me it seems like we can ask the question "how did they know it was wrong/evil to (...) and eat the forbidden fruit?" forever. Looks like a Paradox to me.
These speculations also started some thoughts on why gold is good, why it is bad to be naked (why should they be ashamed?) etc. but my question is:
How did Adam and Eve know good from evil before they ate the fruit?
I look forward to hearing from you
Hotjer
Edited by hotjer, : grammar

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Peg, posted 04-03-2010 7:16 AM hotjer has replied
 Message 5 by Rrhain, posted 04-03-2010 7:58 AM hotjer has replied
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 04-03-2010 9:16 AM hotjer has not replied
 Message 131 by adelpit346, posted 04-09-2010 10:36 PM hotjer has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 227 (553444)
04-03-2010 4:06 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the How did Adam and Eve know good from evil? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 3 of 227 (553450)
04-03-2010 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by hotjer
04-02-2010 10:18 PM


the first thing to understand is that the tree did not magically give them any sort of knowledge...it was simply a tree....it didnt impart anything to them.
The tree represented Gods rulership...his right as the sovereign to make the laws and decide what is good and bad for mankind.
By obeying that law, they were obeying God and thus were completely dependent upon him for the knowledge of good and bad....if God said something was bad, they knew it would be bad and if God said something was good they knew it would be good. While they were under Gods rule, they viewed their nakedness as good because that was Gods view.
But by eating from the tree they were no longer under the sovreignty of God...they now came under their own sovreignty. They now chose for themsevles what was to be good and what was to be bad.
The immediate thing that changed was that they no longer viewed their nakedness as something good. They took a different view and decided it was bad, so they covered up.
This is why mankind learns by trial and error. We dont really know what is going to be good or bad until we experience the good or bad consequences of our actions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hotjer, posted 04-02-2010 10:18 PM hotjer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by hotjer, posted 04-03-2010 7:52 AM Peg has replied
 Message 8 by Coragyps, posted 04-03-2010 10:05 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-04-2010 9:22 AM Peg has not replied

  
hotjer
Member (Idle past 4545 days)
Posts: 113
From: Denmark
Joined: 04-02-2010


(1)
Message 4 of 227 (553453)
04-03-2010 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Peg
04-03-2010 7:16 AM


Interesting answer.
I wonder why it is not good for mankind to decide for themselves and be independent?
Actually, this reminds me of one of my first microeconomic lectures: the assumption that people are rational.
If we assume Adam and Eve are rational beings, they are able to fully understand the consequences for eating fruit of that specific tree. However, this assumption leads to another assumption; they must be all-knowing in regards of at least this specific issue. Before you can make a rational decision you must be able to understand how it is to live in Eden forever in peace and harmony or to die and everything else that follows afterwards.
This is only true if we assume pure rationality.
If this is not true, then they are irrational and will eventually decide to do something Stupid.
All of these are just thoughts and I could be more precise if I wanted to. However, I will be more precise if it is required, for explaining why there is no paradox.
Anyways, Basically Adam and Eve and every Christian are expected to accept the absurdity of God’s will and nature? I know Sren Kierkegaard had that kind of view (more intellectual expressed than I do thou).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Peg, posted 04-03-2010 7:16 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Peg, posted 04-03-2010 4:12 PM hotjer has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 5 of 227 (553454)
04-03-2010 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by hotjer
04-02-2010 10:18 PM


It's simple: They didn't. The entire premise for the theology of the Bible is based upon a falsehood.
Adam and Eve didn't know good from evil and thus, they did not sin when they ate from the tree of knowledge. No, they were not stupid. They were simply incapable of understanding what they were doing.
In fact, Adam and Eve had already "sinned" long before they ate from the tree of knowledge. They were naked. You will note that the very first thing they panic over after having their eyes opened and becoming as gods, knowing good and evil, is not panic over having broken the commandment of god.
No, it's panic over them being naked.
So clearly the "fall" has nothing to do with "original sin" or anything of the kind.
Now, there will be those who try to say that it's metaphorical, that there wasn't any magical properties to the tree, but they are deliberately ignoring the direct text which states the exact opposite. Remember, Adam and Eve "became as gods."
In fact, god panics over this and realizes he needs to throw them out of Eden lest they complete their apotheosis and eat from the tree of life and gain immortality.
You are assuming that the text of the Bible is supposed to make sense.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hotjer, posted 04-02-2010 10:18 PM hotjer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by hotjer, posted 04-03-2010 8:07 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
hotjer
Member (Idle past 4545 days)
Posts: 113
From: Denmark
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 6 of 227 (553456)
04-03-2010 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Rrhain
04-03-2010 7:58 AM


Personally, I do not think the bible make sense, I just wanted to know what people might think of my speculation, especially believers. However, thanks for your respond. I agree with your conclusion as I pointed out in the start of the respond.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Rrhain, posted 04-03-2010 7:58 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 7 of 227 (553461)
04-03-2010 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by hotjer
04-02-2010 10:18 PM


The Adam and Eve story is simply a fable, a "Just So" story intended to give a pseudo-explanation of why humans are different from other animals.
As with all fables, it does not have to be perfectly consistent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hotjer, posted 04-02-2010 10:18 PM hotjer has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 8 of 227 (553465)
04-03-2010 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Peg
04-03-2010 7:16 AM


...it was simply a tree....it didnt impart anything to them...
Read Genesis again, Peg. It says the opposite.
Hello, Hotjer! Welcome to EvC!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Peg, posted 04-03-2010 7:16 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 9 of 227 (553496)
04-03-2010 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by hotjer
04-03-2010 7:52 AM


hotjer writes:
I wonder why it is not good for mankind to decide for themselves and be independent?
are you kidding??? Have you seen the state of the world lately?
Open a history book and look at the legacy of the past... and we are still making the same mistakes today.
there is inequality, exploitation of animals, humans and the environment, poverty, starvation, war, crime and murder...there is no end to human misery due to independence from God.
hotjer writes:
If this is not true, then they are irrational and will eventually decide to do something Stupid
which is exactly what happened. they lived for a length of time under Gods direction without any troubles, then they went and did something stupid and things were never the same for anyone ever again.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by hotjer, posted 04-03-2010 7:52 AM hotjer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by hotjer, posted 04-03-2010 4:36 PM Peg has replied
 Message 11 by bluescat48, posted 04-03-2010 6:10 PM Peg has replied

  
hotjer
Member (Idle past 4545 days)
Posts: 113
From: Denmark
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 10 of 227 (553502)
04-03-2010 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Peg
04-03-2010 4:12 PM


I suspect you to assume that absence of God cause Chaos. I disagree with you; however, that is a whole other discussion. It does not matter whether we obey God or the spaghetti monster if you did assume that. I think we should focus more on some of the things we talked about just now. I look forward to see your responses from the other attendances.
Regarding your second point; God could just destroy the tree and there would be no troubles. Anyways, I like this discussion to be about before Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree. Some disagree with you; what is your respond?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Peg, posted 04-03-2010 4:12 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Peg, posted 04-03-2010 7:32 PM hotjer has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 11 of 227 (553516)
04-03-2010 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Peg
04-03-2010 4:12 PM


inequality etc.
there is inequality, exploitation of animals, humans and the environment, poverty, starvation, war, crime and murder...there is no end to human misery due to independence from God.
Where did man come up with inequality, from your Bible myths, ie that Blacks were descended from Ham's son Canaan and were therefore cursed. How many murdered have been committed in God's name. Look at the religious wars Arabs vs Jews in the middle east, Catholics vs Protestants in Northern Ireland. or Christian vs Christian, World War II.
Both sides claimed God was on their side. As for poverty, starvation and the environment, who is attempting to fix this? Not the religious. In the States anyway, the vocal religious push just the opposite, everything from subjugation of women, blacks, homosexuals and any other group that does,'t fit with their theocratic ideology. Sure the moderate Theists aren't like that but the fundies even claim that the moderates are akin to Atheists since they accept non-fundie ideals as evolution, equality, saving the environment etc.
Edited by bluescat48, : typooos

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Peg, posted 04-03-2010 4:12 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Peg, posted 04-03-2010 7:44 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 12 of 227 (553528)
04-03-2010 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by hotjer
04-03-2010 4:36 PM


hotjer writes:
Some disagree with you; what is your respond?
well Rhains view is 1. the bible is a falsehood and therefore i doubt he believes the account about the tree even happened.
2ndly, Rhain says "Adam and Eve didn't know good from evil and thus, they did not sin when they ate from the tree of knowledge. No, they were not stupid. They were simply incapable of understanding what they were doing."
Yet if you look at the account, we learn that Eve DID know the consequences of eating, so she wasnt stupid, she understood the reason why she should not eat from the tree
Genesis 3 writes:
 Now the serpent proved to be the most cautious of all the wild beasts of the field that Jehovah God had made. So it began to say to the woman: Is it really so that God said YOU must not eat from every tree of the garden? 2At this the woman said to the serpent: Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat. 3But as for [eating] of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘YOU must not eat from it, no, YOU must not touch it that YOU do not die.’
Then we have nwr who says "The Adam and Eve story is simply a fable"
Yet if that were true, why are they spoken of as historical people by Jesus Christ? And why is the perfect life of Jesus compared to the perfect life of Adam? If Adam wasnt a real person, then to compare a real man to him would not make sense. It only makes sense if Adam was a real person.
1Corinthians 15 writes:
45It is even so written: The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam (Jesus) became a life-giving spirit. 46Nevertheless, the first is, not that which is spiritual, but that which is physical, afterward that which is spiritual. 47The first man is out of the earth and made of dust; the second man is out of heaven. 48As the one made of dust [is], so those made of dust [are] also; and as the heavenly one [is], so those who are heavenly [are] also. 49And just as we have borne the image of the one made of dust, we shall bear also the image of the heavenly one

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by hotjer, posted 04-03-2010 4:36 PM hotjer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Rrhain, posted 04-03-2010 8:06 PM Peg has replied
 Message 15 by nwr, posted 04-03-2010 8:21 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 18 by Coragyps, posted 04-03-2010 8:26 PM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 13 of 227 (553533)
04-03-2010 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by bluescat48
04-03-2010 6:10 PM


Re: inequality etc.
bluescat48 writes:
Where did man come up with inequality, from your Bible myths
Mans view is not Gods view and the bible is testimony to that fact. Inequality is a man-made phenomenon.
equality in the bible writes:
Acts 17:26 [God] made out of one man every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth.
Job 34:19 "[There is One] who has not shown partiality to princes
And has not given more consideration to the noble one than to the lowly one,
For all of them are the work of his hands"
Acts 10:34 "At this Peter opened his mouth and said: For a certainty I perceive that God is not partial, 35but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him"
Romans 2:11 "For there is no partiality with God".
Galatians 2:6 "But on the part of those who seemed to be somethingwhatever sort of men they formerly were makes no difference to meGod does not go by a man’s outward appearance"
How about healthcare? shouldnt everyone have access to it? Yet in America, the land of the free where human rights are 'apparently' upheld, many people are fighting the idea that the poor should have health insurance. Is that because of God? No, you know its not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by bluescat48, posted 04-03-2010 6:10 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Rrhain, posted 04-03-2010 8:22 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 17 by Coragyps, posted 04-03-2010 8:22 PM Peg has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 14 of 227 (553534)
04-03-2010 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Peg
04-03-2010 7:32 PM


Peg writes:
quote:
Yet if you look at the account, we learn that Eve DID know the consequences of eating, so she wasnt stupid, she understood the reason why she should not eat from the tree
Incorrect. The fact that Eve was capable of repeating what god told her doesn't mean she understood anything. Remember, Adam and Eve were already sinning. They were naked. The very first thing they panic over once they have their eyes opened and become as gods, knowing good and evil, is their nakedness.
Understanding consequences doesn't mean you understand what you're doing.
And at any rate, you're missing the point: God has told her that if she eats of the tree, she will die. The serpent (who is not the devil as there is no such thing as the devil in Judaism) told her that no, she will not die but will instead become as gods, knowing good and evil.
So how is Eve supposed to know whose advice to take? The ability to make this choice depends upon the ability to understand good and evil...which Eve doesn't have yet because she hasn't eaten from the tree. Ignoring for the moment the fact that god lied and the serpent was telling the truth, the question you need to answer is explain how Eve is supposed to know to follow god when she doesn't know that god is good because she doesn't know what good and evil are?
We're back to one of my questions that nobody ever answers. It would be very nice, Peg, if you would be the first:
Beetaratagang or clerendipity?
One of those paths will lead you to eternal bliss while the other will lead you to eternal damnation. You're not stupid, and you understand the consequences, so which do you choose?
quote:
Yet if that were true, why are they spoken of as historical people by Jesus Christ?
For the same reason that all cultures speak of their fables and legends as real people. By your logic, the entire Greek pantheon is a reality because the Ancient Greeks talk of them as if they were real.
So Beowulf really destroyed Grendel? Achilles really was dipped in the river Styx by Thetis? Japan was formed from the union of Izanagi and Izanami?
If you are going to demand that your personal mythology is taken seriously, then you must extend that courtesy to other mythologies, too, for they are believed just as sincerely and with just as much evidence as yours.
quote:
And why is the perfect life of Jesus compared to the perfect life of Adam? If Adam wasnt a real person, then to compare a real man to him would not make sense.
Huh? That makes no sense. Why would holding up someone to an imaginary ideal not make sense? Do you believe the Buddha is real? And yet, the Buddha achieved a state of perfect enlightenment and people are compared to the Buddha all the time.
Again, if you're going to demand that your mythology be taken seriously, then you must extend the same courtesy to those mythologies that aren't yours.
quote:
It only makes sense if Adam was a real person.
So you admit that Sissyphus was a real person for nobody would compare themselves to him unless he were real, right?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Peg, posted 04-03-2010 7:32 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Peg, posted 04-03-2010 10:08 PM Rrhain has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 15 of 227 (553535)
04-03-2010 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Peg
04-03-2010 7:32 PM


Peg writes:
Then we have nwr who says "The Adam and Eve story is simply a fable"
Yet if that were true, why are they spoken of as historical people by Jesus Christ?
Why do we often speak of Sherlock Holmes as if he were a historical person?
Peg writes:
And why is the perfect life of Jesus compared to the perfect life of Adam?
Why do we compare the work of real detectives with that of Sherlock Holmes? Why do we compare reasoning of real people with the logic of Sherlock Holmes?
Surely, the answer is that Sherlock Holmes is a well known cultural icon. And, likewise, Adam and Eve would have been well known cultural icons for the people that Jesus spoke with.
Peg writes:
If Adam wasnt a real person, then to compare a real man to him would not make sense. It only makes sense if Adam was a real person.
If you try the paraphrase by replacing "Adam" with "Sherlock Holmes", you will see that your argument is bogus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Peg, posted 04-03-2010 7:32 PM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024