Was sin necessary for knowledge?

[Silver]

See, I knew this would be the problem. Semantics.

Moral knowledge = semantics.

Moral knowledge as opposed to what? Immoral knowledge?

Stop creating such minute problems and deal with the real, bigger issue.

[John V]

It seems as though moral knowledge would be required to sin, though, 

Paul says that Eve was deceived, but Adam wasn't. If Adam wasn't deceived, it would seem that he did have moral knowledge prior to eating. Also, he says that sin entered the world through Adam, even though Eve ate first. 

Applying this to Gen 3, it seems that Adam gained moral knowledge prior to eating - possibly from observing and considering Eve's action. He then consciously chose to sin, possibly out of fear of losing Eve.

[Silver]

Paul says that Eve was deceived, but Adam wasn't. If Adam wasn't deceived, it would seem that he did have moral knowledge prior to eating. Also, he says that sin entered the world through Adam, even though Eve ate first. 

Applying this to Gen 3, it seems that Adam gained moral knowledge prior to eating - possibly from observing and considering Eve's action. He then consciously chose to sin, possibly out of fear of losing Eve.

That's unsurprising in a society building itself up toward patriarchy. Blame the woman.

[The Grand Nudger]

It seems as though moral knowledge would be required to sin, though, 

Paul says that Eve was deceived, but Adam wasn't. If Adam wasn't deceived, it would seem that he did have moral knowledge prior to eating. Also, he says that sin entered the world through Adam, even though Eve ate first. 

Applying this to Gen 3, it seems that Adam gained moral knowledge prior to eating - possibly from observing and considering Eve's action. He then consciously chose to sin, possibly out of fear of losing Eve.

Exactly the problem.  

Adam, if he sinned, appears to have had moral knowledge -before- eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  

If he didn't..then it could not be said to be sinful to eat from the tree.

Either of these things also have further implications for the same narrative.

[John V]

That's unsurprising in a society building itself up toward patriarchy.  Blame the woman.

The greater blame was put on the man.

[Silver]

That's unsurprising in a society building itself up toward patriarchy.  Blame the woman.

The greater blame was put on the man.

Not when he came out the winner.

[John V]

Exactly the problem.  

Adam, if he sinned, appears to have had moral knowledge -before- eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  

I'm missing how that's problematic.

Adam has done neither good nor evil. He acquires moral knowledge. He's presented with a moral choice. He makes a choice.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, for starters, it makes the tree of knowledge of good and evil a redundant narrative prop..but, recall..it's already one layer deep into something problematic for the narrative.  That in order to sin, one must first have moral knowledge.  The entrence of sin into this world cannot then be laid at the feet of adam (or at the prop of the tree) but at the entity which created adam with such knowledge.

Ultimately..it's an issue of the editors competency or the compromises they made in trying to weave together what we believe to be a composite narrative.  Two or more versions of the same story which stressed different things, all of which deemed to be important - but with significant narrative discontinuity between them.  Entirely common to this sort of myth.  

Unfortunately, this proceeds through each problematic step and leads to ad hoc rationalizations not made explicit in the narrative (such as your suggestion that adam learned of sin by observing eve).

[John V]

Well, for starters, it makes the tree of knowledge of good and evil a redundant narrative prop..

Which it pretty much was. It could have been any command. Don't pet the orange cat would have done the same thing. I don't find this problematic. The issue is whether or not they obey God, not the particular command. I don't find this problematic.

but, recall..it's already one layer deep into something problematic for the narrative.  That in order to sin, one must first have moral knowledge.  The entrence of sin into this world cannot then be laid at the feet of adam (or at the prop of the tree) but at the entity which created adam with such knowledge.

The knowledge isn't the sin. You noted yourself in your first post that God has the knowledge, but is sinless.

Unfortunately, this proceeds through each problematic step and leads to ad hoc rationalizations not made explicit in the narrative (such as your suggestion that adam learned of sin by observing eve).

What's wrong with my reasoning regarding that point?

[A Theist]

Surely that just means that sin was only necessary to obtain knowledge of good and evil, not knowledge itself.

Didn’t Adam name all the animals? That implies he had the knowledge to do such a thing.

In the New Testament, the Bible says in one place, (I Corinthians 10:13), that God is faithful who will not permit us to be tempted above our ability to bear. I would imagine that would also apply to God giving a command and the ability of the person to understand, and to obey, and to carry out the command given. My thought would be that both Adam and Eve knew exactly what God commanded and that they both understood that disobeying Him would be wrong. I think that both A&E had a knowledge of sin that was limited to what God expected of them. I believe that Eve knew it was wrong to listen to the serpent but she was tempted by the lie he told her. I believe Adam knew it was wrong to allow Eve to talk him into eating the fruit when God commanded them both not to. So, I think that both A&E had a knowledge of sin that was limited to only what they understood at the time before they ate the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. The fruit only broadened their knowledge to more sin.