Was sin necessary for knowledge?

[John V]

Will post my thoughts later. Wanted to get the first thread in the new forum!

Can you be more specific? I know that God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, so they had that knowledge not to do so. Are you asking if sin was necessary for the spreading of knowledge in all areas like, science, medicine, i.e.?

A common atheist complaint is that:

- knowledge is generally considered to be good, but
- A&E could only gain knowledge of good and evil by sinning.

I'm working from the common, but not universal, position that before the snake tempted them they were naive - neither righteous nor sinners.

They sin. Note that they don't just get knowledge of evil through sinning - they get knowledge of both good and evil, even though they hadn't done good.

So, if doing one gives knowledge of both, it stands to reason that doing good - rejecting the snake's temptation - would have likewise opened their eyes to both good and evil.

Also consider the angels. Using the common Christian position that the snake, Lucifer, Satan, the dragon in Revelation, etc. are all references to the same being, we see that:

- Lucifer was tempted internally, succumbed to the temptation, and went to evil (Isa 14)
- He tempted A&E, and they fell
- He probably tempted the other angels, and a third of them fell (Rev 12:4)
- Two thirds of the angels did not fall

It seems clear that the godly angels did not sin, yet they apparently have knowledge of both good and evil.

So, A&E could have gained the same knowledge by rejecting the snake as they got from eating the fruit.

(Note that this is speculative and has nothing to do with God's foreknowledge. I believe God knew that they would fall. The point is that theoretically that wasn't the only way for them to gain knowledge of good and evil.