Adam and Eve and the Apple

God told Adam and Eve not to eat the apple that contained the knowledge of good and evil, correct?

Then how would Adam and Eve know to follow the word of god if they did not yet have knowledge of good and evil? They did not know what they did was wrong, so how could god possibly expect them to follow his words?

I saw this quote somewhere and it makes a good point, but I am an atheist and I have never read the Bible. Perhaps some SouthPerrian could offer a different perspective on this?

Religion threads have a bad habit of going down the drain. If we really try, I think we can prevent that.

Falls into religion.

At that moment, the only things they knew were God and what God created. How could they know anything else? Not to mention that He created them as well.

It's the same thing as with the argument "After they were exiled, how did the human race propogate if Cain killed Abel and was then exiled into the wastes where he met other humans, how did they get there if up until then it was just adam, eve, and their kids?" and "how did Noah manage to build an arc as massive as to be able to carry a male and female of every living species of animal on the planet?" and a slew of other paradoxes that require a leap of faith.

Don't question the Bible you'll just end up with a bigger headache then you started with. Also the post above me makes a very great point. What did Adam and Eve just start mass producing like hamsters?

"In having been Created and sharing a personal relationship of the nature they did with their Creator they should have been Unquestioning in His Authority. There was no need for knowledge of Right and Wrong because Obedience to His Will was supposed to have been their only concern." To have disobeyed God is the fundamental principle of sin, whether it was God's command to not taste the fruit, or to hop on one foot while clucking like a chicken.

Really though if that is the best flaw one can find in the Bible someone's not trying very hard.
You're attempting to look for a refutation of the logic we're being given by a third person about a second hand retelling of a story that's thousands of years old and been transliterated from it's original language by at least three levels of abstraction.

What did Adam and Eve just start mass producing like hamsters?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=NKJV

"In having been Created and sharing a personal relationship of the nature they did with their Creator they should have been Unquestioning in His Authority. There was no need for knowledge of Right and Wrong because Obedience to His Will was supposed to have been their only concern." To have disobeyed God is the fundamental principle of sin, whether it was God's command to not taste the fruit, or to hop on one foot while clucking like a chicken.

Really though if that is the best flaw one can find in the Bible someone's not trying very hard.
You're attempting to look for a refutation of the logic we're being given by a third person about a second hand retelling of a story that's thousands of years old and been transliterated from it's original language by at least three levels of abstraction.



http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=NKJV

tl;dr? god can be challenged.

God is all powerful: Is He capable of making an immovable object? If yes, he is not all powerful as he will be unable to move it; if no, then He is not all powerful as he cannot create anything he desires. just for example.

There's entire websites devoted solely to this sort of topic.

As a Non-Religious Faith Based Christian Spiritualist it is more or less this...

Good and evil in the minds of Adam and Eve pre-Apple were basic such as asking someone a yes or no question. God gave them a choice of following God to the letter or gaining knowledge through curiosity's trial and error method.

In short it was either man be God's willful servant without question and limit themselves to only what God could provide, or gain knowledge through trial and error and learn from mistakes, experimentation, and intellectualism yet show God their potential equally.

In all, I think the eating of the Apple wasn't an evil act as some might agree upon. Remember also from the story of Job that Lucifer was still more or less God's go-to guy for testing humanities will and limits of restraint. To them it might have been disobedient, but to God it could have also been a test of mankind's potential to be independent, potentialed, and he probably had it planned that way from the start.

Remember, good and evil aren't always as clear cut and well defined as some religions and people want them to be, sometimes there's a huge shade of grey that much of both fall into.

And as always, who's to know the mind of God and and what he thinks?

*walks in, see's what this thread is about , lols *

silly people , religion is for kids ... yeah,.. i'm being an pimento I know.

The bible is not supposed to be taken literally, it's some kind of metaphore (yay for not knowing how to write it) So, technically it's just to let people understand it would be wrong.

Adam and Eve of course are just a story.

it's some kind of metaphore (yay for not knowing how to write it)

The word you're looking for is Parable, but different branches of Abrahamic religions have different opinions on which portions of their Bible are literal and which are figurative.

Essentially God in himself is to remain unquestionable.

Most apologist would argue: It falls under "might makes right". Basically god can blink you out of existence so what he says goes.

Though i do understand where you're coming from: How could Adam and Eve know what "wrong" is without having knowledge of right and wrong.

Look at a toddler for instance, it doesn't know right from wrong so why would it know what it's doing is bad? About the only thing it has to go on is the authority of his/her parents. It's the same as this story, Adam and Eve are really just a couple of no-brained toddlers living in a play pin with no knowledge of anything, daddy God comes along and says do not eat this and about the only thing they have to go on of weather or not to obey is simply "well he is daddy God". God sees his toddlers acting up and disobeying and he punishes them (goes a little over bored in my opinion but we're trying to keep this thread open so I'll ignore that).

A more realistic question would be to ask why put the tree in the garden in the first place...

My view:

Evolution theory is proved-> Christians: well, don't take bible too literally
Birth of Jesus was calculated wrong-> Christians: well, don't take bible too literally
It was proved that Caesar Augustus didn't live during the time Jesus lived-> Christians: well, don't take bible too literally
Noah's ark-> Christians: well, don't take bible too literally

and so on...

In my opinion, what Christians call "little details" are major part of bible and already drop the base off from the fairytale in Bible. So no thanks, I can live without someone "higher person" manipulating me and telling me what I can and can not do.

I can live without someone "higher person" manipulating me and telling me what I can and can not do.

That happens anyway in the manner any true higher power would express it's rules - Physics.

meh, the dualism of Christian ontology was proposed hundreds of years prior to "Christ" in the accounts of Socrates, by Plato, just before his death.

As for the question of knowledge of right and wrong as it pertains to the Adam and Eve tale, they knew of obedience. It falls into two separate categories; obedience and knowledge, in which right and wrong knowledge is the knowledge to think for oneself what they should and shouldn't do. Obedience does not necessarily require the independent knowledge of right and wrong, they simply must listen. The example used earlier in this discussion was of a baby listening to the parent, this specific epistemology doesn't assume any existence of knowledge at birth, and so when the baby is told to do something they do it, right or wrong, unknowing of that detail. It is only later that the development of, "ok listening to my parents is right/wrong," is instilled, whether that is actually the case or not.

Mmm messed up bible stories xD

The first hypocrisy I've ever learned about in my ignorant days was the killing of the first born sons from Exodus.

Falls into religion.

Theology. A notable difference.

Theology. A notable difference.

Theology is the discussion of religion, so no.

The apple in the bible story of adam and eve contained knowledge. That knowledge meant that they could survive without the aid of god, and could make their own food and do things within their own reach.

The snake is the power of reason and temptation combined into a form of curiosity which pushed Adam and Eve to develope the power of choice.

Upon biting the apple they both concluded they were independant, and developed "Pride" which is a deadly sin, and as a result they were exiled.

^ This story foreshadows humanity's failiure to tell right from wrong and to push forbidden limits that are too large scale for their own good.

Such as taboo scientific discoveries regarding cloning, or stemcell research.
Gay marrage
And anything that has to do with people in power being able to control others in such a way such as communism.

All forms of Pride are a reference to this story.

Okay, arguing from a theist perspective here:

I completely disagree with R_O. The apple did not "contain" knowledge. It was a simple apple, and there is no theological basis that the apple contained anything. The tree itself was "Of Good and Evil", but that does not signify anything for the fruit. From good fruit comes good, and bad fruit comes bad (Luke 13:6-9), but both can come from the same tree as man is both good and bad and does good and bad. Furthermore, continuing to call it an apple further shows your own ignorance. It's only by tradition that it is an apple and again the fruit being an apple has no theological basis. Viewing this passage as simply "sin" is myopic, as the entire passage deals with man's relationship with God.

In Genesis 2, God gives A&E a reason not to eat of the fruit, "For you shall surely die" (Gen 2:15). Man was created of God. Just as a baby comes from the mother's womb, so man came from God. There is an intrinsic nature of being between man and God. As a child knows his mother, so does Man know God. Eating of the fruit destroys the divine bond between man and God. Notice that after the woman ate of the fruit, neither of their eyes were open. It was only after the man ate of it as well that the bond was broken. God has a special relationship with man, because man is of God. The woman was created from Man. It was only when the man ate of the fruit that the entire bond was broken. The action of breaking the bond (Adam eating the fruit) meant that they were aware of the fact that it was possible to break the bond with God, and it was at this time that they felt the need to cover themselves, showing fear (Gen 3:7-10). Breaking this bond causes spiritual death for Man, as he then becomes aware of his spiritual destitution as a widow feels for her husband.

Although this piece of scripture does talk about sin, it is not the most encompassing detail. The main idea behind this scripture is that sin breaks man's bond with God, and breaking this bond leads to not only eternal damnation (Gen 3:14-24) but also a desire for man to regain this bond with God through Jesus (John 10:30).

So, in short, because man was born with the ability of choice, man had the ability to break their bond with God. Upon breaking this bond they feel shame and fear and blame others and must repair the bond through belief.

Theology is the discussion of religion, so no.

the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth.

The way i see it is the way very similiar to the way hacks are allowed to be discussed.

It's the same as any other ology. Only the subject changes it doesnt at any point have to actually be associated with belief or structured religion. It in many ways is identical to philosophy. And thank you fiel for ninjaing me before i finished a post along the same vein as yours. I really didn't want to write it. The tree was all about choice. Without choice man by nature was not what the creator wanted them to be. Given, the choice man made was not obviously not what he wanted, but surrendering that control is what marks the significance of the whole deal.