The Tree of Knowledge

[ChristineES]

Do you think they (Adam and Eve) remain innocent, even if they didn't eat the fruit?

Would they lose their innocence in other way?

Fruit is symbolic. They wouldn't have lost their innocence over night, it would have been a gradual thing as they began to learn more.

 

[Willamena]

Fruit is symbolic. They wouldn't have lost their innocence over night, it would have been a gradual thing as they began to learn more.

Or an immediate thing, as the loss of innocence was realized.

 

[ChristineES]

Or an immediate thing, as the loss of innocence was realized.

Could be. There are many things that would make a child lose his/her innocence rather quickly.

 

[Falvlun]

Fruit is symbolic. They wouldn't have lost their innocence over night, it would have been a gradual thing as they began to learn more.

Learn what sort of things?

 

[ChristineES]

Learn what sort of things?

I don't know, I wasn't there.

 

[idea]

Learn what sort of things?

learn about everything...

good and evil are relative terms, most things are. - I don't think good exists without evil. theory of relativity, some things do not exist without something else to compare it to. Law of opposition...

11 For it must needs be, that there is an aopposition in all things. If not so, my first–born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no apurpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the bjustice of God.
13 And if ye shall say there is ano law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not bthere is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.
14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and alearning; for there is a God, and he hath bcreated all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be cacted upon.
15 And to bring about his eternal apurposes in the end of man, after he had bcreated our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the cfowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the dforbidden efruit in fopposition to the gtree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.
16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should aact for himself. Wherefore, man could not bact for himself save it should be that he was centiced by the one or the other.
(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 2:11 - 16)

 

[Falvlun]

I don't know, I wasn't there.

learn about everything...

good and evil are relative terms, most things are. - I don't think good exists without evil. theory of relativity, some things do not exist without something else to compare it to. Law of opposition...

I only asked because I'm still disatisfied with the general trend of interpreting "knowledge of good and evil" as "knowledge of everything".

FYI, idea, I'm not an expert, but I don't think that's what the theory of relativity means.

 

[zenzero]

Friend falvlun,

Since these questions have been raised by your mind; please let us go slowly and one at a time. Kindly respond to the questions in red and then shall take up from there.

Ah. Here is the leap that I don't think is substantiated. Why does loss of innocence automatically equal thinking?

I have heard it argued how starting to understand the difference between good and evil equals loss of innocence, but understanding and thinking are two different things,

Here how does understanding differentiate between any thing? Who says this is good and this is bad?

Love & rgds

 

[Sisterariana]

From the very beginning, God wanted His children to choose Him. He had to present Adam & Eve with a choice to either obey Him by not eating of the tree of knowledge or to do things their own way. By eating of the fruit of selfishness they allowed sin and self-righteousness to enter into their hearts and they justified their actions.

 

[Cordoba]

Technically, in the Bible it is described as the "tree of knowledge of good and evil". I really don't understand why the rest of the descriptor is continually chopped off.

What is the prohibited tree called in the Qur'an?

In The Qur'an, the tree has no name. The only description given to it is by Satan when tempting Adam to eat from it (the tree of immortality and power)

The Qur'an does not mention what sort of tree that was forbidden to Adam because knowing the type of the tree will not add to our knowledge any substantial element. Adam was misled by Satan but he soon repented and his repentance was accepted by Allah.

As for the knowledge of good and evil, it is never cursed, but quite the opposite, it is a must in order to remain on the Straight Path

God tought Adam what is good in order to do it, and what is evil in order to avoid it

And God warned Adam about Satan and made it clear that Satan is his worst enemy and the enemy of his offspring

God told Adam that he and his wife were free to eat from all trees in heaven except that one tree, which is a training for them when they were later to go and live on earth as there are plenty of lawful aspects in life which a believer should do, and few unlawful aspects of life which a believer should avoid

As for knowledge, it is an important key to faith and to live a good life, and not be tempted

 

[ChristineES]

Is something evil if we don't know it is evil?

 

[gnostic]

Fruit is symbolic. They wouldn't have lost their innocence over night, it would have been a gradual thing as they began to learn more.

Adam and Eve were punished for eating the fruit (eg. the expulsion from Eden), right?

Were they punished for their loss of innocence? Or were they punished for their disobedience?

And more importantly, do you equate "obedience" with "innocence"?

To me, they are 2 different things.

 

[ChristineES]

Adam and Eve were punished for eating the fruit (eg. the expulsion from Eden), right?

Were they punished for their loss of innocence? Or were they punished for their disobedience?

And more importantly, do you equate "obedience" with "innocence"?

To me, they are 2 different things.

If a 4 year old watches a movie he isn't supposed to watch, let's say, a porno, maybe: He wouldn't be punished for what he saw but for watching the movie he was told not to in the first place.

 

[ChristineES]

Or I just thought of something- maybe getting thrown out of the Garden of Eden wasn't a punishment, yet a consequence.

 

[Cordoba]

Were they punished for their loss of innocence? Or were they punished for their disobedience?

Disobedience

God made all trees lawful for them, except for one tree

Satan tempted them to eat from that one tree, and Adam forgot God's Command

 

[michel]

Disobedience

God made all trees lawful for them, except for one tree

Satan tempted them to eat from that one tree, and Adam forgot God's Command

Did he forget, and no choose to ignore (i.e defy God's command - wherin the "original sin" lies?).

Eve's behaviour was excusable: -http://www.holybible.com/resources/KJV_DFND/notes.php?did=72

Some of the animals may have originally been able to communicate on an elementary level with their human masters, an ability later removed by the Curse. More likely, God allowed Satan to use the serpent's throat (as He later allowed Balaam's *** to speak--Numbers 22:28) and Eve was, in her innocence, not yet aware of the strangeness of it.​

Source:

KJV Defenders Study Bible, by Dr. Henry Morris, Ph.D.
Publisher: Thomas Nelson
Language: English
DEF 10 ISBN 0-529-10444-x
DEF 10-1 ISBN 0-529-10445-8

she was approached by a serpent - one of the few animals that she had probably not come across, for snakes usually stay well away from humans.

She could have been excused not knowing that snakes do not talk.

 

[Ozzie]

[/quote]Is the knowledge referred to perhaps science, as we know it to be now? why, or why not?[/quote]Not necessarily, though we have all witnessed knowledge supercede "life".​

 

[Cordoba]

Did he forget, and no choose to ignore (i.e defy God's command - wherin the "original sin" lies?).

Hello Michel

The Qur'an says that Adam forgot his promise:

"And We had already taken a promise from Adam before, but he forgot; and We found not in him determination" (20:115)

Adam forgot, but it was still a sin

God taught him how to repent, which he did, and God forgave him

He is a Merciful and Forgiving God

 

[michel]

Hello Michel

The Qur'an says that Adam forgot his promise:

"And We had already taken a promise from Adam before, but he forgot; and We found not in him determination" (20:115)

Adam forgot, but it was still a sin

God taught him how to repent, which he did, and God forgave him

He is a Merciful and Forgiving God

That's interesting; thank you for your input ; I have checked, and this post by a lady called Sharona is my understanding - we have a subtle difference between the Bible and the Qur'an in this respect: -

St Pixels: Adam's apple


http://www.stpixels.com/view_page.cgi?from=-1&page=discuss-debate-bible-adamsapple#190292

Adam knew what tree was forbidden. In fact, he knew it better than Eve, according to Genesis 2.

And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."


This was told to Adam before Eve was created.

Now, if you look at Genesis 3, you will see that the serpent deceives Eve into eating the fruit.

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.


but.........and here's the rub.

The serpent did not deceive Adam. In fact,

She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.


According to this, he was with her, and she gave him the fruit and he ate it.

So, I don't know how to answer the question. As I see it, Adam knew the tree was forbidden from the beginning. Eve was deceived into eating the fruit, but Adam was not. He just did it anyway.

Maybe he couldn't tell her no. But in God's punishment to him, it says

To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it...'


So God blames Adam for listening to Eve over listening to Him. I don't think he would have done that if Adam were truly innocent.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"He is a Merciful and Forgiving God"

Of course he is. Rape, genocide, slavery, murder, all in a days work. Northing to be concerned about.

And just to be sure he killed off most of us a fit of peak.

He just loves us SO MUCH he couldn't help himself!