God's injustice towards Adam and Eve

[Minimalist]

How about after this fairy tale bullshit is beaten to death we go on to see if Hansel and Gretel were committing incest in the woods?

[Mister Agenda]

I am not following this at all, why exactly could they not understand what death was prior to anyone dying? None of us has experienced it and we all seem to understand it just fine.

Well, we have examples of it happening, don't we? That said, I'll yield the point, I suppose someone could have a 'good enough' understanding of death if it was explained to them: it's bad, your body eventually disintegrates, and your loved ones will be sad.

I am also missing the relevance of this anyways, they should not have eaten the fruit because God told them not to, end of story.

It's relevant to whether they were competent to be held accountable. There's a good reason we don't execute a six-year-old who kills someone.

God telling us not to do any action-regardless of what it is-is enough to make it wrong to do that action.

Hypothetically speaking, sure. It doesn't mean the person doing it understands the wrongness of what they're doing. The plain wording of the story has A&E not knowing right from wrong until after they ate the fruit. I appreciate that you have a different interpretation, but it seems to be based entirely on the premise that it can't possibly REALLY make God look unjust.

They were aware of it but not ashamed of it.

Sigh, that's what I mean by their awareness of their nakedness, sorry I didn't express it in a way that made that clear enough for you. Anyway yes, they did not feel shame prior to eating the fruit. You can't feel shame unless you know you did something wrong.

How does that mean they did not know right from wrong prior to eating the fruit?

Shame is consciousness that your behavior was wrong. It's in the defintion and everything.

If they did not know right from wrong then the serpent would not have had to persuade Eve as he did, he could have simply told her she should eat the fruit.

A minute ago you were arguing that she knew what dying was, now you're arguing she had to know right from wrong in order to not want to do something she'd been told would kill her? It doesn't take a moral sense to resist doing things that might kill you, just a sense of self-preservation.

Rather he had to question what God had said because she clearly knew that she ought to not disobey God.

You could make a much better case for that had not God specified there would be dire consequences for disobedience. The threat of death nullifies any argument that she had to know it was morally wrong to disobey to resist the serpent's wiles for even a moment. Instead it emphasizes her child-like mentality that she will apparently believes whatever she was last told, no matter who or what it came from.

The rest of Genesis seems to indicate that eating the fruit seemed to cloud their moral judgment if anything.

According to your version, they had perfect moral judgement up to the point where they ate the fruit, which is pretty odd since when they had perfect moreal clarity, they ate the fruit!

Look, I get that this particular part of Genesis is poorly written, but you're taking a story where a single fruit can affect your sense of morality or make you immortal literally. I don't think the people who first wrote it down took it nearly as literally as you do.

[Tonus]

So if the account recorded some internal debate by A&E you'd find it reasonable?

That would depend on what it revealed. I find it an interesting story but the lack of detail allows for a broad range of interpretation.

I like the JW's explanation: they believe that the Tree of Knowledge was just another tree; its fruit did not contain some magic ingredient that would expand anyone's mind. What made the tree 'special' was that god commanded Adam not to eat from it on pain of death. The tree was a symbol of god's sovereignty. As long as they stayed away from it, Adam and Eve were making it clear that they respected god's right to make the rules and guide their actions.

When the serpent tells Eve that she will "become like god, knowing good and evil" he is really telling her that she would become like god in that she would be able to determine for herself what was right or wrong. Eating from the fruit would be her way of declaring her independence from god, and from his rules. Hence she would 'know' right from wrong because she would decide what was right or wrong.

It doesn't quite account for why the couple suddenly realizes that they are nude and decide to cover up, unless it's a metaphor for their guilt. But that wouldn't square with the idea that they had knowingly decided to reject god, nor does it explain their apparent lack of any emotional attachment to god. That one seems odd to me-- did the writers just not consider that at all, or did it simply not make it into the version that we have today?

[Statler Waldorf]

How about after this fairy tale bullshit is beaten to death we go on to see if Hansel and Gretel were committing incest in the woods?

Perhaps on a forum dedicated to those who claim to not believe in the existence of Hansel and Gretel but for some reason those online communities are hard to find even though atheists love to claim that the belief in God is no different than the belief in fairy tales. Apparently even they know that the two are not analogous.

Well, we have examples of it happening, don't we? That said, I'll yield the point, I suppose someone could have a 'good enough' understanding of death if it was explained to them: it's bad, your body eventually disintegrates, and your loved ones will be sad.

I agree, I feel that I understood what it was when I was a child and had yet to have anyone I knew die.

It's relevant to whether they were competent to be held accountable. There's a good reason we don't execute a six-year-old who kills someone.

Are you trying to hold God to a manmade conception of justice? God owned Adam and Eve so any attempted analogies drawn from how humans treat other humans is going to fall short of being analogous because we do not own one another.

Hypothetically speaking, sure. It doesn't mean the person doing it understands the wrongness of what they're doing. The plain wording of the story has A&E not knowing right from wrong until after they ate the fruit. I appreciate that you have a different interpretation, but it seems to be based entirely on the premise that it can't possibly REALLY make God look unjust.

Well it’s impossible for God to be unjust because justice itself is rooted in His immutable character. Does the plain reading of the story indicate that Adam and Eve were not alive since they were not allowed to eat from the “Tree of Life”? If not, then why does the plain reading indicate that they did not know any good from evil until after they ate from the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”? I think you are reading too much into the names of the two trees.

Sigh, that's what I mean by their awareness of their nakedness, sorry I didn't express it in a way that made that clear enough for you. Anyway yes, they did not feel shame prior to eating the fruit. You can't feel shame unless you know you did something wrong.

It’s not like it was morally wrong for Adam and Eve to be naked prior to the fall and they just did not know it, it was actually not morally wrong. The fall had a drastic effect on all of creation.

Shame is consciousness that your behavior was wrong. It's in the defintion and everything.

Yes, but they may have felt shame because being naked became wrong after the fall. My Bible actually does not say they were ashamed, it simply says that their eyes were opened and they knew that they were naked.

A minute ago you were arguing that she knew what dying was, now you're arguing she had to know right from wrong in order to not want to do something she'd been told would kill her? It doesn't take a moral sense to resist doing things that might kill you, just a sense of self-preservation.

The reason she initially gave him for not eating the fruit was that God had commanded them not to. Rather than challenging whether or not she should listen to God, the serpent challenges what God actually told her.

You could make a much better case for that had not God specified there would be dire consequences for disobedience. The threat of death nullifies any argument that she had to know it was morally wrong to disobey to resist the serpent's wiles for even a moment. Instead it emphasizes her child-like mentality that she will apparently believes whatever she was last told, no matter who or what it came from.

Wait, so if I tell my hypothetical children the horrible consequences of adultery I am somehow undermining the fact that it is morally wrong?

According to your version, they had perfect moral judgement up to the point where they ate the fruit, which is pretty odd since when they had perfect moreal clarity, they ate the fruit!

No, that’s not what I am saying at all. I am saying that they knew that they morally ought to obey God and He was in communion with them and turn giving them perfect revelation as to what was right and wrong. They were resting upon his perfect and ultimate moral authority. Once they ate the fruit they lost that, they were left with their own fallible and clouded judgments. That’s the entire concept of sin, it’s a separation between man and God.

Look, I get that this particular part of Genesis is poorly written, but you're taking a story where a single fruit can affect your sense of morality or make you immortal literally. I don't think the people who first wrote it down took it nearly as literally as you do.

Then why is it written in the style of a historical narrative? Why did Jesus believe it was accurate history? Paul? Peter? And John? It would be absurd of me to believe I am more spiritually enlightened than Christ himself. I do not believe it is poorly written at all, it’s a profoundly deep narrative that makes perfect sense when examined within the context of the Bible and redemptive history as a whole.

[ShaMan]

the text never says that Adam and Eve were incapable of knowing good from evil prior to eating from “The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil”.

WRONGO!

6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

(bold added for illustration purposes.)

[Statler Waldorf]

WRONGO!

6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

(bold added for illustration purposes.)

I realize you even used bold but I still missed it! Where exactly does the text say that they did not know any good from evil prior to eating the fruit? I will grant you that it says that they did not know they were naked…

[Violet]

Not if nobody dies.

Are you saying that you do not understand what death is because you have not experienced it?

No, silly. I'm saying that if there is no death (particularly animal death) in the land they live: then why would they ever come to understand a thing that does not happen?

I have no experience of an earthquake if I've never felt one. How could I know what one feels like?

[Statler Waldorf]

No, silly. I'm saying that if there is no death (particularly animal death) in the land they live: then why would they ever come to understand a thing that does not happen?

I have no experience of an earthquake if I've never felt one. How could I know what one feels like?

Alice! You’re conflating two very different things here. Understanding what death is and understanding what it feels like. I have never felt an earthquake, but I still understand what they are. Adam and Eve were perfectly capable of understanding what death was even though they had never witnessed it.

[ShaMan]

I realize you even used bold but I still missed it! Where exactly does the text say that they did not know any good from evil prior to eating the fruit? I will grant you that it says that they did not know they were naked…

6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

The words in red. The tree was good for making one wise, and they had new knowledge (knew they were naked and that it was shameful) only after eating the fruit.

Your attempt to go around the obvious by parsing words is sad. Neither does the text say that there eyes were closed prior to eating the fruit, but it is obviously implied in the text. What makes you think their eyes were closed prior to eating the fruit? Oh, I see, it's implied in the text that immediately follows... "Their eyes were opened"... which implies that they were formerly closed, and in this case, to the 'knowledge' of evil that would make them know what shame was and that they should hide in it.

Formerly I would have become frustrated by your type of 'logic' but now I just distance myself from people with disingenuous proclivities. If you fail to read properly, or only backpedal when confronted, then I will not be responding to any more of your posts. Good day.

[Violet]

Alice! You’re conflating two very different things here. Understanding what death is and understanding what it feels like. I have never felt an earthquake, but I still understand what they are.

Not if you've never heard of an earthquake because one has *never happened* before.

Child's hand and the hot stove comes to mind.

Adam and Eve were perfectly capable of understanding what death was even though they had never witnessed it.

If they were indeed capable of understanding it, then they certainly did not act as though they understood it. Regardless, the language is so figurative with "the knowledge of good and evil" that one simply cannot know whether life and death count among the spectrum or not.

Perhaps an earlier translation might be more literal, but as it was written in such an underdeveloped language, it is probably anything but.