nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Tree of Knowledge

recedite

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxlPVSAnWOo

Having watched Carl Sagan's video here, it strikes me that the biblical account of Adam & Eve's expulsion from the Garden of Eden (AKA the state of ignorance) seems like it was written by an atheist. I will point out here my perspective is agnostic. But I would really like to know what the other perspective is. I think I remember something about the young couple realising they were naked after partaking of the fruit. But surely that was obvious already. The only new thing they might have discovered was the (undeserved?) shame of being naked.
So why the ban on knowledge, and why the expulsion?
(skip on to 5.45 mins on the video if the beginning offends you)

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Jester Minute

recedite wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxlPVSAnWOo

Having watched Carl Sagan's video here, it strikes me that the biblical account of Adam & Eve's expulsion from the Garden of Eden (AKA the state of ignorance) seems like it was written by an atheist. I will point out here my perspective is agnostic. But I would really like to know what the other perspective is. I think I remember something about the young couple realising they were naked after partaking of the fruit. But surely that was obvious already. The only new thing they might have discovered was the (undeserved?) shame of being naked.
So why the ban on knowledge, and why the expulsion?
(skip on to 5.45 mins on the video if the beginning offends you)

Pope John Paul II said (more or less) that the shame the first couple experienced was essentially a defense mechanism, rather than disgust or embarrassment about their bodies. They had to protect themselves from the lustful gaze of the other. Before the fall, they had looked upon the beauty of each other, both body and soul, as persons. But now, after the fall, there is this fallen tendency to objectify the other person - to strip them of their human dignity, and to see them as an object to satisfy our desires. So love is warped and use comes in. I think it was Pope John Paul II who said that the opposite of love is not hate, but use.

This is all contained in his Theology of the Body. I would like to read the whole thing some day. As I understand it, the TOB will be a tool to present the constant Church teaching on sexuality in a new and attractive way for the modern world.

The ban on knowledge was really (I think) the fact that man cannot decide for himself what is good or evil. God has already affirmed the good.

Once man had fallen, he was banished from the garden and barred. He was not allowed to eat from the tree of life since that would lock him forever in his fallen condition. The banishment from the garden really served to protect man from himself (as well as punish him) and he left the garden with the promise of a redeemer.

Festus

Classic atheistic misinformation. Sagan presents the tree as a tree of knowledge and that Adam and Eve were forbidden knowledge, to be kept ignorant and having no understanding or wisdom.

it would be nice if those who wish to dis Christian belief read the Bible and informed themselves of what we actually believe in.

The Adam and Eve account records that they were not forbidden knowledge but only knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve before the fall were not ignorant save for their knowledge of evil. they knew of good and right and wrong.

If only the Sagans of this world approched religion and theology with the same vigour and attention to detail as they approach science.

Point of fact - the offensive part of this video begins at 6.06 and runs to the end.

Fanny Cradock

I want to know how Jack Nicholson got himself into the painting of the Garden of Eden?

See 6:44 onwards.

recedite

Festus wrote: »

Adam and Eve before the fall were not ignorant save for their knowledge of evil.

So it was really a Tree of Evil Knowledge? Assuming they already knew the other stuff. I'm starting to think that the whole thing was some sort of allegorical reference to the timeless issue of the pre pubescent child. You know the sort of moment every parent faces when their child reaches a certain age; what might have been called in times past the end of innocence.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I want to know how Jack Nicholson got himself into the painting of the Garden of Eden?

That's weird alright. I don't know which painting or how old it is.

Jester Minute wrote: »

Once man had fallen, he was banished from the garden and barred. He was not allowed to eat from the tree of life since that would lock him forever in his fallen condition.

Yeah I imagine Tree of Life would be a more popular translation, not sure which is more authentic though.

Fanny Cradock

recedite wrote: »

So it was really a Tree of Evil Knowledge? Assuming they already knew the other stuff. I'm starting to think that the whole thing was some sort of allegorical reference to the timeless issue of the pre pubescent child. You know the sort of moment every parent faces when their child reaches a certain age; what might have been called in times past the end of innocence.

You must understand that not all Christians believe that Genesis is a historical and scientific account of creation. We go further than this and say that the intended audience - the ancient Hebrews - would have understood this. Zoom forward to the 4th century and we have Augustine of Hippo (a hugely influential figure in early Christianity) arguing that the Genesis creation was not a literal account but a logical framework. A brief summary here.

Sagan speaks in generalisations and argues against all and no religion in particular. It's a neat rhetorical trick, made all the more impressive by his wonderful narration articulated with such comforting intonations. But it is a trick nevertheless. He happily appended his metaphysical beliefs onto his science, and this is evident in his adoption of a conflict thesis. No doubt it all chimes with the converted and half-converted. But I don't think there is a great deal of substance to his words.

Jester Minute

recedite wrote: »

Yeah I imagine Tree of Life would be a more popular translation, not sure which is more authentic though.

There were two trees: the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Seaneh

Jester Minute wrote: »

There were two trees: the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

It's not like atheists are going to let little things like accuracy or knowledge get in the way of their flawed logic...

recedite

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You must understand that not all Christians believe that Genesis is a historical and scientific account of creation.

Right, but would you agree that the purpose of the original analogy was to dissuade people from looking for information or knowledge outside of what was being interpreted to them by their priest/holy man. And possibly in later times the focus switched to the nakedness issue?

I didn't realise there were two trees involved.

Seaneh

recedite wrote: »

Right, but would you agree that the purpose of the original analogy was to dissuade people from looking for information or knowledge outside of what was being interpreted to them by their priest/holy man. And possibly in later times the focus switched to the nakedness issue?

I didn't realise there were two trees involved.

If you didn't know there were two trees in the garden ots safe to assu,e you havent read genesis. And if you havent read something how could you possible have assumptions about its intentions or meanings? This is fairly typical of atheist 'opinion' on a lot of books of the bible. More often than not they will pull a few passaged out of somewhere and jump feet first into a conclusion without knowing the first thing they are talking about. the book this normally happens with is Job.

Fanny Cradock

recedite wrote: »

Right, but would you agree that the purpose of the original analogy was to dissuade people from looking for information or knowledge outside of what was being interpreted to them by their priest/holy man. And possibly in later times the focus switched to the nakedness issue?

Not at all. That is Sagan's interpretation, not mine. One line of argument against such an interpretation would be to look at the foundations of modern science. Most of the institutions that promoted natural philosophy (what we now call science) were founded by religious institutions. And quite a few of what could be called "the stars" of early science thought that by exploring nature they were exploring God's creation.

Soul Winner

Sagan starts out with the following:

"Our ancestors understood origins by extrapolating from the their own experience. How else could they have done it?"

Then he proceeds to base what follows in the speech on this premise.

But the ancient Hebrew's creation account is nothing like all the other Pagan creation accounts which preceded it or which came after. The Hebrews scriptures simply state:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1

In the Psalms it states that the mechanism He used was the Word of His mouth:

"By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth." Psalm 33:6

And this concept is reiterated in the New Testament where it states that Jesus was this Speaking Agent by which God created everything:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." John 1:1

This is a completely different creation concept than that of all other Pagan accounts which have their Gods creating the universe from pre-existing matter. The Biblical account is very different. It has an external Being creating it from nothing by simply speaking it into existence. How this concept can be construed as an extrapolation from the Hebrews own experience is beyond me. So right from the get-go Sagan is basing what he says on an false premises. So it logically follows that what he then proceeds to spout is not based on a proper solid study of all religions.

He asks how else could they have done it? Easy, by the revelation of the God who did it. This is how the Hebrews knew what to record. It was revealed to them by the Creator. They did not and could not extrapolate this mechanism from their own experiences like the Pagans. Does this prove that this is actually how it happened? Of course not. It just proves that Sagan was wrong by saying that 'our ancestors understood origins by extrapolating from the their own experience.'

I'll get to the tree later, have to head out now.

housetypeb

Wonder where else the hebrews could have come up with the idea for creation if its not the word of god ?

Maybe from older cultures. such as egypt ,for example, its not too far away from isreal is it?

Main article: Ex nihilo

The Creation, c. 1896-1902, by James Tissot, at the Jewish Museum (New York)

Creation ex nihilo (L. "from nothing") is thought to be the most common type of creation described in these stories. It is the type of creation described in the Genesis creation narrative in the Bible in Judaism and Christianity, and also in the Koran's Sura VII in Islam.[17][18] It is also known as "creation de novo". Besides in the Bible, Ex nihilo creation is found in creation stories from ancient Egypt, the Rig Veda and many animistic cultures in Africa, Asia, Oceania and North America.[19] In most of these stories the world is brought into being by the speech, dream, breath, or pure thought of a creator but creation ex nihilo may also take place through a creator's bodily secretions. The literal translation of the phrase ex nihilo is "from nothing" but in many creation myths the line is blurred whether the creative act would be better classified as a creation ex nihilo or creation from chaos. With ex nihilo, the potential and the substance of creation springs from within the creator. Such a creator may or may not be existing in physical surroundings such as darkness or water, but does not create the world from them. In creation from chaos the substance used for creation is pre-existing within the unformed void

recedite

Soul Winner wrote: »

But the ancient Hebrew's creation account is nothing like all the other Pagan creation accounts which preceded it or which came after.

The Hebrew's explanation is a lot more abstract than most, although some such as the Australian Aborigines had an abstract "dreamtime" for the beginning. I think Sagan was generalising about all religion when he talks about the extrapolating.

Seaneh wrote: »

If you didn't know there were two trees in the garden ots safe to assu,e you havent read genesis. And if you havent read something how could you possible have assumptions about its intentions or meanings? This is fairly typical of atheist 'opinion' on a lot of books of the bible. More often than not they will pull a few passaged out of somewhere and jump feet first into a conclusion without knowing the first thing they are talking about. the book this normally happens with is Job.

Fair point. So I have now done some bible study, and read the first half of Genesis. It seems the Tree of Life confers eternal life, whereas the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil provided that which differentiates us from the other animals; that human spark which might be described as self awareness.
Thus an animal does not become embarrassed at being naked, or a magpie is not committing a wrong by preying on the nestlings of songbirds. They are not aware of these things. It seems then that Adam started off in a less than human state, as some sort of pet in a small zoo located east of a place called Eden, which was somewhere in the Middle East, not too far from the Nile and the Euphrates rivers. When he gained "knowledge" he became "as a god" and he was released into the world, with Eve, there to fend for themselves.

It follows from that, that there is in fact no ban on knowledge, and we would inevitably carry on experimenting with free will etc. until God got annoyed with us and sent the Flood. The survivors repented, but continued in the pursuit of knowledge, and so here we are today.:)

I haven't got to Job yet

, but I had a look at Leviticus as it has the famously controversial bits concerning slave ownership and stoning people. There is an interesting account of the dietary habits of the ancient Hebrews. On the meat side of things, not only was pork and blood banned, but also most other animals and also fat. Only lean meat from animals that both chewed the cud and were cloven footed, as well as scaly fish and locusts were allowed. It must have been difficult to stick to the diet, as all the abrahamic religions have relaxed the rules to a greater or lesser extent since then.

Fanny Cradock

recedite wrote: »

the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil provided that which differentiates us from the other animals; that human spark which might be described as self awareness.

Are you suggesting that Adam and Eve - whether we choose to understand them as historical figures or something a little more metaphorical - were not self-aware before the fall? I think that this is only the case in only the loosest sense of the term. I would have thought that the whole point of the story is that Adam and Eve chose to turn away from God - which is pretty much the definition of sin..

recedite wrote: »

It follows from that, that there is in fact no ban on knowledge, and we would inevitably carry on experimenting with free will etc.

This might be somewhat off the point but perhaps it is an interesting aside to the whole question of knowledge. I think that it would be fair to say that the Hebrews (ancient Jews if you prefer) valued a different type of knowledge to that which contemporary European societies value. Where as we place a great deal of emphasis upon exploring what could be called abstract knowledge - the "how" type of questions - it could be argued that the Hebrews greatly valued wisdom based knowledge. The distinction between the two is that abstract knowledge imposes no obligation upon the questioner, whereas the wisdom based knowledge of the Jews was understood as obligation to God and their place in creation.

With regard to this latter type of knowledge - the obligation to God and creation that I mentioned - Ellen Davis describes how the concept of The Fear of the Lord - which is understood not as a fear of getting punished but a fear of causing offence to a loved one - was central to Jewish understanding of everything.

recedite wrote: »

as all the abrahamic religions have relaxed the rules to a greater or lesser extent since then.

I take it you don't know many observant Jews or Muslims?

recedite

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would have thought that the whole point of the story is that Adam and Eve chose to turn away from God - which is pretty much the definition of sin..

I don't think they really chose to turn away, but they disobeyed that one order so that they would acquire more wisdom;at that stage they were not allowed too much awareness. And God did tell a little porky pie, he said they would die if they ate the fruit. The snake was correct when he predicted that they would not die. Unless of course we are talking about the death of "the less aware state of the proto human being".

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I take it you don't know many observant Jews or Muslims?

Muslims would have no problem eating a rabbit, or I think, an oyster but Jews would. But I don't think Jews are too bothered about trimming all the fat off their roast lamb these days.

Seaneh

recedite wrote: »

I don't think they really chose to turn away, but they disobeyed that one order so that they would acquire more wisdom;at that stage they were not allowed too much awareness. And God did tell a little porky pie, he said they would die if they ate the fruit. The snake was correct when he predicted that they would not die. Unless of course we are talking about the death of "the less aware state of the proto human being".

God doesn't lie. He never has. Adam and Eve did die...

Festus

recedite wrote: »

I didn't realise there were two trees involved.

Neither apparently did Carl Sagan. If this is his knowledge of theology one has to also question his knowledge of science or at least his ability to read and do research properly.

Or maybe it was a deliberate ommision on his part to promote an atheistic agenda.

recedite

Seaneh wrote: »

God doesn't lie. He never has. Adam and Eve did die...

Well, yes they did die a few hundred years later, but not as a result of eating poisonous fruit. It was because they were denied access to fruit from the other Tree of (eternal) Life, which was of course a consequence of the original decision. I suppose the talking snake and God were both correct in their own way.
Adam had 2 choices in this bible story.
1. Remain in a low state of awareness, in the garden, with eternal life.
2. Upgrade to a higher state, becoming "as a god" compared to his previous state, but with a limited phyical lifespan. Only after he chose No.2 was he (and also his descendants) free to indulge in the pursuit of knowledge.

Certainly there are many people today who would have to consider carefully if they were given this choice. It's not an easy choice to make.

Soul Winner

recedite wrote: »

Well, yes they did die a few hundred years later, but not as a result of eating poisonous fruit. It was because they were denied access to fruit from the other Tree of (eternal) Life, which was of course a consequence of the original decision. I suppose the talking snake and God were both correct in their own way.
Adam had 2 choices in this bible story.
1. Remain in a low state of awareness, in the garden, with eternal life.
2. Upgrade to a higher state, becoming "as a god" compared to his previous state, but with a limited phyical lifespan. Only after he chose No.2 was he (and also his descendants) free to indulge in the pursuit of knowledge.

Certainly there are many people today who would have to consider carefully if they were given this choice. It's not an easy choice to make.

If that really was the choice then its a no brainier (pun not intended) - go with eternal life. What good is knowledge to you if you're dead? But I don't think that was the case. God deliberately put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil there for a reason. And had He really not wanted them to eat of it because it was poison then He wouldn't have put it there or said anything about it. But He specifically singles out one tree that they were not to touch or eat from. The reason they died wasn't because the tree was poison but because God's pre-spoken curse was activated by their disobedience to His Word. Their standing with Him was based on them keeping this very simple covenant that He laid down between Himself and them. They broke the covenant and lost everything. Who knows what God was prepping them for? Maybe after a few millennia of obeying God's simple command He was going to promote them to an even higher state of being? We'll never really know. What we do know is that God said: "Let us make man (Adam) in our own image." Part of this image making was still going on in the garden when He was testing them with the tree. Does God have a right to do this? Of course He does. Do you have a right to have rules for your own house that visitors must respect? Of course you do.

Anyway God made recompense for their sin and now by faith we can have access to the tree of life again through faith in Christ. When we have the spirit of Christ we have the mind of Christ. God is still making people over in His image as long as faith is operating in the life of the believer. This is the Word of God that Christians are supposing be obeying today. We still have the choice of whether to listen and obey His word today or not, things haven't changed much really.

Festus

recedite wrote: »

Well, yes they did die a few hundred years later, but not as a result of eating poisonous fruit. It was because they were denied access to fruit from the other Tree of (eternal) Life, which was of course a consequence of the original decision. I suppose the talking snake and God were both correct in their own way.
Adam had 2 choices in this bible story.
1. Remain in a low state of awareness, in the garden, with eternal life.
2. Upgrade to a higher state, becoming "as a god" compared to his previous state, but with a limited phyical lifespan. Only after he chose No.2 was he (and also his descendants) free to indulge in the pursuit of knowledge.

Certainly there are many people today who would have to consider carefully if they were given this choice. It's not an easy choice to make.

The pursuit of knowledge is not the problem. There was only ever one restriction on the pursuit of knowledge and that was the knowledge of evil.
There were no restrictions on Adam and Eve or their descendents to learn or their ability to learn.
Children learn without knowing what evil is. The know Good and they know right and wrong. We cannot presume to know what a childs instinctual knowledge of evil is which is why we restrict children in many cases from adult courts when they do things children are not expected to do.

Forget what you think you have learned from Carl Sagan. It is wrong.

Adam and Eve were given charge of the earth, to subdue it and populate it with humankind.

Imagine if you can a world where all adults pursue knowledge without knowing what evil is.

Read the words of Jesus when he says we must all become like little children. They are wise words and we would do well to heed them.

Xcellor

Just a question. Given that there are two camps of Christian belief.

1) Believe Adam and Eve were real people.
2) Believe its a story.

At what point in the bible did the characters become real? Since the lineage of many characters can be traced back to Adam. Even Jesus.

How do Christians who are part of camp 2 know who is makey uppy and who is real?

Also if the creation account is just a story what exactly are humans being punished for? A makey uppy sin?

X

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

The pursuit of knowledge is not the problem. There was only ever one restriction on the pursuit of knowledge and that was the knowledge of evil.

Wouldn't that be good and evil? Moral knowledge in other words

There were no restrictions on Adam and Eve or their descendents to learn or their ability to learn.

Indeed. The lack of a moral componant in their makeup wouldn't prevent them learning about mechanics, for example

Children learn without knowing what evil is. They know Good and they know right and wrong. We cannot presume to know what a childs instinctual knowledge of evil is which is why we restrict children in many cases from adult courts when they do things children are not expected to do.

Children know right and wrong because they have a knowledge of good and evil. They have that knowlege because of the fall. They don't have as developed a knowledge as adults which is why they are restricted in their responsibility

Imagine if you can a world where all adults pursue knowledge without knowing what evil is.

With the knowing being an the same level of intimacy attaching to the knowing as knowing ones wife involves. Not simply knowing about it in a detached way, but knowing it in an intimate way, a way that generates deep seated responses.

It's that deep seated response to evil (and good) which produce such dramatic results in the world.

janeeen

How do Christians who are part of camp 2 know who is makey uppy and who is real?

I think a person who believes that the Geneses account is only fiction, can not actually call them selfs a true Christen.
Jesus came to this earth to make amends for the sin of Adam,if the account in Geneses is only a story what was the point of Jesus been crucified?

antiskeptic

Xcellor wrote: »

How do Christians who are part of camp 2 know who is makey uppy and who is real?

Good question I

Also if the creation account is just a story what exactly are humans being punished for? A makey uppy sin?

Good question II. Although I'd imagine an answer might involve humans being punished for their own sins - which shifts the question to how it is they obtained their propensity to sin. If designed that way by God, then it would appear unjust to punish them for acting according to their design.

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Wouldn't that be good and evil? Moral knowledge in other words

Possibly. Some people do not subscribe to religious descriptions.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed. The lack of a moral componant in their makeup wouldn't prevent them learning about mechanics, for example

Lack of a moral component might lead them to inventing mechanical torture devices. Lack of knowledge of evil would lead them to invent devices for good only.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Children know right and wrong because they have a knowledge of good and evil. They have that knowlege because of the fall. They don't have as developed a knowledge as adults which is why they are restricted in their responsibility

That would be an eisgeitic opinion.

I would disagree that children inherently know what evil is. They do seem to know inherently what good is.
If children have a knowledge of evil why would Jesus say what He did in Matthew 18?

Unfortuanately to protect our children we must teach them what evil is and as parents we have to decide when is the best time and how best to go about it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

With the knowing being an the same level of intimacy attaching to the knowing as knowing ones wife involves. Not simply knowing about it in a detached way, but knowing it in an intimate way, a way that generates deep seated responses.

It's that deep seated response to evil (and good) which produce such dramatic results in the world.

Introducing "knowing" in the biblical sense of sexuality will only muddy the waters of this discussion.

Xcellor

janeeen wrote: »

I think a person who believes that the Geneses account is only fiction, can not actually call them selfs a true Christen.
Jesus came to this earth to make amends for the sin of Adam,if the account in Geneses is only a story what was the point of Jesus been crucified?

As far as Jesus was concerned Adam and Eve were real people. As far as the bible is concerned I don't see how it cannot be taken literally because of the points I raised in my previous post.

Since the lineage is tied from Adam all the way through the nation of Israel, King David all the way through to Jesus Christ.

If you discount one character as being part of this "story" then the bible as a whole can be nothing more than a story.i.e If Adam is story... then his sons must be stories too... Abel/Cain/Seth... If they are stories their sons/daughters (who were related to Noah). So that means Noah is also a story... Ok but didn't Noah and his family have kids... Yep... leading further onto Abraham.... etc.

Could a Christian who believes Adam and Eve are makey up please explain this.

God who was the father of Adam, who was the father of Seth, who was the father of Enos, who was the father of Cainan, who was the father of Mahalalel, who was the father of Jared, who was the father of Enoch, who was the father of Methuselah, who was the father of Lamech, who was the father of Noah, who was the father of Shem, who was the father of Arpachshad, who was the father of Cainan, who was the father of Shelah, who was the father of Eder, who was the father of Peleg, who was the father of Reu, who was the father of Serug, who was the father of Nahor, who was the father of Terah, who was the father of Abraham.

Abraham begot Isaac; and Isaac begot Jacob; and Jacob begot Judah and his brethren; and Judah begot Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begot Hezron; and Hezron begot Ram; and Ram begot Ammin'adab; and Amminadab begot Nahshon; and Nahshon begot Salmon; and Salmon begot Boaz of Rahab; and Boaz begot Obed of Ruth; and Obed begot Jesse; and Jesse begot David, the king; and David, the king, begot Solomon of her that had been the wife of Uriah; and Solomon begot Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begot Abijah; and Abijah begot Asa; and Asa begot Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begot Joram; and Joram begot Uzziah; and Uzziah begot Jotham; and Jotham begot Ahaz; and Ahaz begot Hezekiah; and Hezekiah begot Manasseh; and Manasseh begot Amon; and Amon begot Josiah; and Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon and after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconiah begot Shealtiel; and Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel; and Zerubbabel begot Abiud; and Abiud begot Eliakim; and Eliakim begot Azor; and Azor begot Sadoc; and Sadoc begot Achim; and Achim begot Eliud; and Eliud begot Eleazar and Eleazar begot Matthan; and Matthan begot Jacob; and Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

Possibly. Some people do not subscribe to religious descriptions.

I was attempting to suggest that since the forbidden fruit contained a knowledge of both good and evil it would be erroneous to suggest that..

There was only ever one restriction on the pursuit of knowledge and that was the knowledge of evil.

..it would appear that a knowledge of good was also forbidden.

Lack of a moral component might lead them to inventing mechanical torture devices. Lack of knowledge of evil would lead them to invent devices for good only.

Without the fruit of The Fruit, there would be no sin within and no motivation to torture. Why would someone invent something they had no motivation to invent?

I would disagree that children inherently know what evil is. They do seem to know inherently what good is.

Yet you don't have to teach a child to lie, nor do you have to teach them how to pull a guilty face if queried on that lie?

If children have a knowledge of evil why would Jesus say what He did in Matthew 18?

Exegetically? He appears to tell us himself

3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.'

Become like.

It's assuming the lowly position of a child that seems to be the characteristic desired by Jesus. There is no reference to a knowledge or lack regarding good and evil. Besides, I'm not sure how one would unknow their knowledge of evil in order to become like a child (assuming, which I don't, that a child has no knowledge of it)

Unfortuanately to protect our children we must teach them what evil is and as parents we have to decide when is the best time and how best to go about it.

"Now Jonny, share your sweeties with Billy...." is as oft a heard parental encouragement.

Introducing "knowing" in the biblical sense of sexuality will only muddy the waters of this discussion.

Intimacy was the thing I had in mind - not sexuality.

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

..it would appear that a knowledge of good was also forbidden.

How do you figure that?

Fanny Cradock

recedite wrote: »

I don't think they really chose to turn away, but they disobeyed that one order so that they would acquire more wisdom;at that stage they were not allowed too much awareness.

That is a singularly heterodox interpretation. One that I don't think very many Christians would accept. Bearing in mind my last post, I don't think it accurate to say that Adam and Eve were being barred from wisdom. They were being barred from knowledge of evil. To claim that evil is necessary for wisdom is not something that fits with the Judeo-Christian traditions. Indeed, in both Judaism and Christianity it is precisely that evil that separates us from God and makes us less human.

And God did tell a little porky pie, he said they would die if they ate the fruit. The snake was correct when he predicted that they would not die. Unless of course we are talking about the death of "the less aware state of the proto human being".

That is also an unusual interpretation. Broadly speaking, creationists would say that God and man were separated the moment A&E partook of the fruit. And that disobedience was the point when death entered into the world.

Evolutionists like myself would say that the death has been written into the fabric of creation since existence began. We would say that the death mentioned in Genesis was therefore a spiritual death - meaning a spiritual separation from God - and not a physical one. In either case, God is not seen to be telling a lie.

Xcellor wrote: »

Just a question. Given that there are two camps of Christian belief.

1) Believe Adam and Eve were real people.
2) Believe its a story.

At what point in the bible did the characters become real? Since the lineage of many characters can be traced back to Adam. Even Jesus.

How do Christians who are part of camp 2 know who is makey uppy and who is real?

Also if the creation account is just a story what exactly are humans being punished for? A makey uppy sin?

X

The same way you can tell that Animal Farm is a work of fiction - one that has a deeper allegorical meaning that retells the history of the Soviet Union during the early to mid 1900's. If the meaning isn't blindingly obvious - not always surprising given the generational, historical and cultural divides - biblical scholars (not all of them are believers, btw) employ various hermeneutical and exegetical methods to determine what the authors intended.

It might be tempting to believe that anyone born in some dusty backwater land however many thousands of years ago was mental midget incapable of understanding complex literary formats such as poetry and elevated prose or tools such as allegory and metaphor. But I don't think this is true.

Fanny Cradock

janeeen wrote: »

I think a person who believes that the Geneses account is only fiction, can not actually call them selfs a true Christen.
Jesus came to this earth to make amends for the sin of Adam,if the account in Geneses is only a story what was the point of Jesus been crucified?

You are familiar with metaphor, right? Instead of making blanked assertions based upon your ignorance of other interpretations of Genesis, perhaps you should actually try to educate yourself.

Thankfully, though, it isn't up to you to decide who is and who isn't a Christian.