Why the forbidden fruit?

[Brian2]

So eve actually did what God wanted, but just did it too soon?

No I think God could have taught good and evil without Adam and Eve actually doing what was evil.

 

[DNB]

There is no way they could progress spiritually without developing a moral conscience. So why was it forbidden. It makes no sense to me.

The knowledge of good and evil may require a proper definition, or a Biblical one.
Meaning, I understand how you equate having a moral capacity with having the knowledge of good and evil, but, again, I imagine that God did not want them to make that determination, but instead, to simply trust in His judgment. But, I'm not 100% with that explanation, because, ultimately, we did gain the knowledge of good and evil, and by doing so, lead to the necessity of a Messianic saviour, which was God's will from the beginning of time.

I may theorize that they were not to acquire the knowledge in the manner that they did i.e. without the wisdom to make the right decision when confronted with wicked allurements.
God may have been willing to show them righteousness, goodness, love and so forth (knowledge of good) in a progressive manner simply by His solicitude and providence alone. And, therefore, felt it entirely unnecessary, and, of course, detrimental, to introduce iniquity into the equation?

 

[dybmh]

Not flawed. But their consciousness lacked teh moral dimension. They were on par with the other animals. So why did God want that?

God didn't want that. Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:19.

26 And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth."

19 And the Lord God formed from the earth every beast of the field and every fowl of the heavens, and He brought [it] to man to see what he would call it, and whatever the man called each living thing, that was its name.
​

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no way they could progress spiritually without developing a moral conscience. So why was it forbidden. It makes no sense to me.

In other words, what you're saying is that in order for them to know right from wrong, they have to experiment? Again, if you're going down a road and don't know the way, most people have a gps these days, right? They need help to get them to the right destination. Adam and Eve did it in two different ways. She was deceived. She believed the serpent over God, her Maker. Adam was not deceived. He ate deliberately. They were both nonetheless guilty. Now we face death, right? We go to doctors, etc, to try to live longer. But we still die. Do we generally blame it on God? No. There's a reason for that.

 

[dybmh]

That would be correct. The Bible does not say what fruit it was, but it was not the fruit that poisoned them. It was their disregard of God's admonition and blatant disrespect.

So, in your view what role did the serpent play?

 

[dybmh]

They were both nonetheless guilty.

Did God ever command Eve not to eat from the Tree?

 

[YoursTrue]

So, in your view what role did the serpent play?

The serpent was used by the devil to induce Eve to rebel against her creator because the one using the serpent was on a rebellious course. God did not send him. He went against God of his own will and desire.

 

[YoursTrue]

Did God ever command Eve not to eat from the Tree?

Good question.
She knew she should not. Adam must have told her what God told him.

 

[YoursTrue]

Good night.

 

[dybmh]

The serpent was used by the devil to induce Eve to rebel against her creator because the one using the serpent was on a rebellious course. God did not send him. He went against God of his own will and desire.

So what did eating the fruit do? Nothing?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No I think God could have taught good and evil without Adam and Eve actually doing what was evil.

But that is no the way the story is laid out. The knowledge of good and evil is contained within the rruit from that tree. If God wanted them to have a conscience, he would have allowed them to eat from that tree. I'm not the one who designed the story. I'm just reminding you how it worked.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The knowledge of good and evil may require a proper definition, or a Biblical one.
Meaning, I understand how you equate having a moral capacity with having the knowledge of good and evil, but, again, I imagine that God did not want them to make that determination, but instead, to simply trust in His judgment. But, I'm not 100% with that explanation, because, ultimately, we did gain the knowledge of good and evil, and by doing so, lead to the necessity of a Messianic saviour, which was God's will from the beginning of time.

I may theorize that they were not to acquire the knowledge in the manner that they did i.e. without the wisdom to make the right decision when confronted with wicked allurements.
God may have been willing to show them righteousness, goodness, love and so forth (knowledge of good) in a progressive manner simply by His solicitude and providence alone. And, therefore, felt it entirely unnecessary, and, of course, detrimental, to introduce iniquity into the equation?

Well now you are spilling over from answering my question to advocating your chrsitian understandingn of the story. For us Jews, there is no need of any messianic savior to die for our sins. The messiah means something totally different to us than to you. But at any rate, that discussion is for another thread, so please lets not bring it in here.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

God didn't want that. Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:19.

26 And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth."

19 And the Lord God formed from the earth every beast of the field and every fowl of the heavens, and He brought [it] to man to see what he would call it, and whatever the man called each living thing, that was its name.
​

Genesis 1 is a completely separate creation story and has no bearing on the conversation.

I don't think your Genesis 2:18 quote means what you think. Being at the top of the animal heirarchy doesn't mean you are qualitatively different. Genesis 2:18 does not say that God wanted mankind to be morally sentient.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

In other words, what you're saying is that in order for them to know right from wrong, they have to experiment? Again, if you're going down a road and don't know the way, most people have a gps these days, right? They need help to get them to the right destination. Adam and Eve did it in two different ways. She was deceived. She believed the serpent over God, her Maker. Adam was not deceived. He ate deliberately. They were both nonetheless guilty. Now we face death, right? We go to doctors, etc, to try to live longer. But we still die. Do we generally blame it on God? No. There's a reason for that.

What I said was that in order for them to know right from wrong, they had to eat from the tree. With or without God's permission. That is the way the story is set up.

 

[Colt]

I find in the Bible that biblical Adam and Eve did Not come from heaven.
Rather, God fashioned or God formed Adam from earth's dust of the ground - Genesis 2:7
Eve was formed or fashioned from Adam's rib and Not heaven.
The death sentence was ' returning ' to where one started - Genesis 2:17
A person can Not 'return' to a place he never was before. They 'returned back' to the dust of the earth.

The 'previous administration' (of the crafty beast aka Satan) was Not yet fallen as per Ezekiel 28:13-17.
Satan later turned himself into Satan the Devil - James 1:13-15

The crafty beast was working against Gods will when he was working on fooling Eve. Therefore he was already fallen, sin was already on the earth.

Cain feared people out in the world when he was preparing to leave his family. The world was already populated.

 

[rational experiences]

Philosophy says I tell a story so now you think. Show me if you are wise. Until you could advise me you were not allowed to join my group. Wisest men.

A man thinking says a tree grows in the body earth. Rooted beneath ground in ground.

I'm a theist scientist. I said God the first energy body mass of all things created the nature garden from its body.

Passed by the correct review. Thoughtful thinking.

The tree is wood as a spirit.

Okay. What was earths rock first creation not bound to the earth body?

It's spirit....gases immaculately conceived in space. Set free released arose...not the garden.

Are those two types comparable?

No says a wise man.

Does a thesis exist?

No.

A true Wise man.

As only the Wise men witnessed the holiness of heavens rebirth. Knowledge...the star wandered past earth. Witnessed.

As it went past earth they realised the heavens remained stable. A nuclear event above waylaid. Ice the saviour allowed to balance the oncoming new life of the next year. Stable. Not a nuclear cross...UFO ark.

Rebirth by spring. The growth of food to eat and live and survive by nature's abundance. Garden supports biologies existence don't change ground state of earths mass.

As where it is already bare naked the garden had been evicted already. Loss of food starvation terms.

Warning to mans space womb themed theories as man's thought evil. Only GOD above in heavens cooling term was GOOD.

Theism about planets earth magnetosphere....is apple shaped.

Going in at each core pole.

Told don't theory about it. As your life depends on Gods angel cloud cooling function. Not about the fruit of evil.

Basic life survival.

If you changed the fruit then you'll die as earth plates body flesh of God entombed as earth mass will get eaten. It will collapse by causes man's sin K sun hole copying history.

Nuclear unstable causes.

Man's female science secrets nothing space his theory a converting moment. Core heat. Heating the core converting mass.

 

[wellwisher]

Humans have will and choice. To practice will and choice you need to have more than one option. If we had only one option, there is no need for will and choice, since all things default to the one. If there is only vanilla ice cream, there is no need for will and choice. When it is time for dessert, all you can have is vanilla ice cream. The choice is made for you, unless you have more than one option. This is still good and better than no desert.

Say we now have the choices of different foods. This can be used to develop will and choice, allowing you to pick one or the other for some personal reason; your tastes. There is no right or wrong, on a group scale, since all the options are there since all are healthy and good. Your choice of the chocolate ice cream is subjective and not impact my choice for strawberry, if we both are happy since both are good. This is Adam and Eve before the fall practicing positive will and choice with the bounty of nature and the acceptance of the choices of others, in terms of nature's bounty. We are all happy with our choices from the bounty.

The problem started with the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Unlike choices of ice cream or choices all the various fruits on the many seasonable fruit trees, which are all good, knowledge of good and evil implied that only one way was good, and the other was bad or evil.

Unlike the the flavors ice cream or the styles of food preparation, which can all make you feel good, when law appears only the good option can make you feel good or else, and only the bad can make you feel bad, or else, by one size fits all definition.

This messed up the natural human mind, since rather than choices be based on levels of positive satisfaction, half of the available choices became disconnected from positive valence. This set up repressive dams in the natural brain, that added brain potential, increasing impulsive behavior to release the potential. This led to social problems, and more and more law, which made it worse.

If you were a natural wandering forager, any food you may encounter will be felt as good, since you need to eat and all food is good since the body feels good after eating. But once law appears, not all food will be defined as good. Some may be defines as evil and taboo. You must avoid what could sustain you, in favor of being hungry so you can feel good/safe in the group. This was unnatural so repression begins. Will and choice get more and more confusing, which compounds the problems of law.

 

[dybmh]

Genesis 1 is a completely separate creation story and has no bearing on the conversation.

I don't think your Genesis 2:18 quote means what you think. Being at the top of the animal heirarchy doesn't mean you are qualitatively different. Genesis 2:18 does not say that God wanted mankind to be morally sentient.

Hmmmmm.... completely different.... so Adam and Eve aren't made in the likeness of an image of God? That's pretty interesting. And Adam and Eve aren't "seen" by God as "very good"? Also interesting. And they weren't commanded to reproduce? And Eve isn't the mother of the human race? OK! I can work with that.

If they're completely different creation stories. HOW does God create in this completely different creation story? Y--H Elokim describes God creating with mercy and justice.

Why this change in God’s name? The Midrash explains that a fundamental shift took place during the process of creation:

“Initially, God intended to create it with the attribute of Justice. But then He saw that the world cannot exist [with only Justice], so He gave priority to the attribute of Mercy, and joined it with the attribute of Justice.” (Pesikta Rabbati 40)

The combination of two opposing traits, Mercy and Justice, is the foundation for the middle path that enables the universe to exist.

Berei****: Creation of the Universe - Twice
​

Hmmmmm, the middle path....

Reading the story through the lens of strict justice is therefore one sided and incomplete. This creation story contains both mercy and justice, and according to the midrash, mercy is dominant and that is required else creation would not endure.

So, is it correct to read the story and conclude: God made a rule, he didn't want his creations to learn and advance? That is through the lens of strict justice. But this story is not about strict justice, it's a story about justice contained and subjegated to mercy.

How can God be merciful if his children do not fail?

Zooming out, if the story is a myth, what's the moral lesson? What's the most important first lesson a parent needs to teach their children when they begin to learn about morality? Everybody makes mistakes, nobody's perfect. I make mistakes, you make mistakes. As a child you'll make lots of mistakes, but I ( the parent ) am here to help you, to guide you, and to forgive you. The important thing is to be honest. When you make a mistake, admit it, you'll feel bad for a while, but it's OK, in the end those mistakes if you learn from them become virtues.

All of those lessons are in the story if a person looks at it through a more nuanced percpective, not through black and white binaries (aka strict justice). But none of those lessons are taught unless Adam and Eve fail, confess honestly, and are forgiven. Forgiven but with consequences.

The other HUGE benefit to this failure, is that now in retrospect, we have knowledge of HOW the serpent fooled eve. That comes from the forbidden fruit. It couldn't be just any fruit. It had to be knowledge of good and evil. The evil inclination is now trapped, and we have been told that we have the power to crush it. These lessons aren't taught unless Adam and Eve fail.

So there's many more reasons to understand the story as God wanted his children to advance compared to the one reason to understand the story as God wanting to inhibit his children.

 

[DNB]

Well now you are spilling over from answering my question to advocating your chrsitian understandingn of the story. For us Jews, there is no need of any messianic savior to die for our sins. The messiah means something totally different to us than to you. But at any rate, that discussion is for another thread, so please lets not bring it in here.

But, either way, if one offers an explanation as to why something occurred, or not, the fact remains the same that it was God's sovereign will that we ultimately gain the knowledge of good and evil, because we did.
So, to remark that why does He want to suppress that information from us in regard to our spiritual growth, doesn't harmonize the entire facts. And, again, the subsequent results alone should partially answer your question - man ended up behaving in a manner that cause the destruction of 99.9% of the world's population (deluge).

Do we instruct children under 16 yrs about sex, drugs, drunkenness, murder, rape, suicide, etc...? No, for such an awareness can only lead to a naive handling of the information - is it not a ubiquitous cliché 'I wish that I knew then, what I know now', in regard to those lamenting their former behaviour?

I believe that you are being rather reckless with the Scriptures by ascribing allegory to such a profound concept, that is clearly evidenced by man's behaviour ever since the fall.
What would be the purpose of such a fallacious tale, it may as well just be eliminated all together from the Bible. For, to explain a symptom with falsified facts, does not help circumvent the negative results. I've learnt, from taking the story literally, that either too much knowledge or inappropriate knowledge, depending on the maturity and wisdom of the person, can do more damage than good.

But, again, I do believe that a more accurate understanding of 'the knowledge of good and evil' needs to be clarified more. And, what knowledge were Adam and Eve actually endowed with prior to eating the fruit - they clearly understood the prohibition and the consequence (death).

 

[dybmh]

Cain feared people out in the world when he was preparing to leave his family. The world was already populated.

People? Could be. Or... he was afraid of the beasts of the field and the creepy crawlies of the earth... in common language demons.