Contradiction in Adam and Eve?

[Jack89]

You're misquoting the passage. Adam and Eve can tell the difference between obedience (doing what God says) and not. That's what we call 'right and wrong'. The fruit gives them the knowledge of good (God) and evil (not God). They had no concept of evil before then. That's what we call shame: understanding the consequences of our actions. They KNEW what they were doing was wrong, but only understood the consequences afterwards, like when a child touches a hot plate.

Correct

 

[Dislekseyuh]

You're misquoting the passage. Adam and Eve can tell the difference between obedience (doing what God says) and not. That's what we call 'right and wrong'. The fruit gives them the knowledge of good (God) and evil (not God). They had no concept of evil before then. That's what we call shame: understanding the consequences of our actions. They KNEW what they were doing was wrong, but only understood the consequences afterwards, like when a child touches a hot plate.

But obedience is not necessarily a good thing. What you obey should be questioned as to why you should obey it. Obedience does not equal right and wrong at all.

Why is the knowledge of good and evil a bad thing? Wouldn't God want us to know of him?

They had no concept of the consequences, but it should've been God's duty to explain to them the consequences. If a child is about to touch the hot plate, the parent would explain WHY the child shouldn't touch it, and not simply that the child shouldn't. The parent would explain the consequences to the child before they touch it.

It would be like me putting a motion sensitive bomb in the middle of a crowded room, then simply telling everyone not to go towards the middle of the room with out them knowing why they shouldn't, nor telling them why they shouldn't.

 

[Katzpur]

In the Christian religion it is said that we, as people, pay for the sins of Adam and Eve. However, I do not even understand why God punished them, because the circumstance in which Adam and Eve ate the fruit is rather contradictory.

First of all, God told them that they may eat any fruit, except one special fruit-- I forget it's name. So therefore, we can conclude that eating the special fruit is wrong. Yet, the one who ate that fruit was given the knowledge of what was right and what was wrong, and seeing as how they had not eaten the fruit, they did not know that it was wrong to do so, but God told them not to eat it when they had no capacity to recognize that it was wrong.

Why?

How could God have overlooked this? Can Adam and Eve be blamed? And why do we have to pay for their sins when they didn't even know what they were commiting was a sin?

To me it makes absolutely no sense. If I am wrong in my judgement, because I do not throughly know the Bible or the story of Adam and Eve, please call me out and provide a passage.

I just think that an omniscient being could see the problem here.

Well, from the LDS perspective, Adam and Eve didn't actually "sin" when they ate the forbidden fruit. Since "sin" is the voluntary transgression of a moral law or religious principle, and since the fruit they were not supposed to eat came from the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil," it would -- as you have pointed out -- hardly have been fair of God to consider their disobedience sinful. He had told them not to eat the fruit, and He had told them what the consequences of disobedience would be: death. They disobeyed and they were made to pay the consequences.

We believe, though, that the Fall was not an unforseen glitch in God's Plan. He knew it was going to happen, and He knew it needed to happen in order that Adam and Eve -- and all of their posterity -- be able to experience mortality. It is only with a knowledge of both good and evil that we are able to make informed decisions and progress to become better individuals. The Fall was actually a great blessing.

 

[Katzpur]

This theological nonsense.

You don't mince words, do you? How about, "I disagree."

God would not command them to do something that they would need to sin in order to accomplish.

They didn't sin. They didn't know the difference between good and evil until they ate the forbidden fruit. They disobeyed God, and this was wrong, but they didn't realize that disobedience was wrong until they ate the fruit. Once they'd eaten the fruit, they had the necessary knowledge to be able to choose between right and wrong. Any future disobedience would have been sinful.

 

[Katzpur]

Wait, are you saying that God "wanted" Adam and Eve to become imperfect?

He wanted them to progress. In order to do so, they had to learn to distinguish between good and evil, and to choose good. Prior to eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they had no such knowledge.

 

[Katzpur]

Are you suggesting that they would not have sex because they didn't know about good and evil?

Well, they didn't even realize that they were naked until after they ate the forbidden fruit. They would have had to come to be sexually aware before they'd have even had any interest in having sex.

 

[Sola'lor]

This theological nonsense. God commanded them to be fruitful and multiply before they ate the fruit.

2 Nephi 2:22-25 (emphasis added)

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

He also told them not to eat of the fruit after He told them to be fruitful and multiply. God would not command them to do something that they would need to sin in order to accomplish.

The commandment to multiply was independent of the commandment not to eat the fruit. God commanded them to multiply because that was the whole point of their creation. He wouldn't commandthem to eat the fruit because that would change their bodies to a mortal form. Such a commandment would not be the behaviour of a loving God. So He commanded them not to. It seems like a condradition but it they only way that Adam and Eve could fulfill the first commandment and God remain a loving God.

 

[gnostic]

They KNEW what they were doing was wrong, but only understood the consequences afterwards, like when a child touches a hot plate.

Still using this tiresome child-and-hot-plate scenario I see.

You're misquoting the passage. Adam and Eve can tell the difference between obedience (doing what God says) and not. That's what we call 'right and wrong'. The fruit gives them the knowledge of good (God) and evil (not God). They had no concept of evil before then. That's what we call shame: understanding the consequences of our actions.

How can they understand the consequences, if you don't understand what is right or wrong? And the dumb thing about the whole Eden thing, is that they can't know the consequence.

Sure, God said that they would die if they ate it (ie. the consequence). But what is death?

They are innocent, with no concept of good or evil. They have never seen death before, and not until Cain had murdered Abel. How can they possibly understand what death is, when nothing have die before?

You said they can tell the difference between obedience, but that's a whole load of crap, because they still don't know the difference between right and wrong...and they still can't do so until they eat the fruit. That's a "catch-22" situation.

Second of all, knowing right from wrong - or if you like, good from evil - is required to understand the deception. Clearly, Eve didn't understand if God was telling the truth about the fruit or the serpent was telling the truth. So she can't do so until she eat the fruit. Another "catch-22" situation.

If you expect obedience from Adam and Eve, then they need to eat the fruit, to understand if the serpent was lying. If God wanted them to be obedient, then God need to give them more than just forbidding them from eating, because they didn't truly understand what death is.

A God who don't properly inform Adam and Eve of consequence is useless as the mother who don't properly inform the child of the consequence of touching a hot plate. Obedience don't mean crap, if don't have the proper information and not able to judge right from wrong.

Just because Adam have knowledge of naming the animals, don't mean he know crap about wisdom. Wisdom require judgment about right and wrong, and it would seem that God don't want them to have wisdom.

So it is God's fault that they fail test....if that was a test. And if it was a test, it was unfair one. Everything was stacked against Adam and Eve.

 

[rheff78]

He wanted them to progress. In order to do so, they had to learn to distinguish between good and evil, and to choose good. Prior to eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they had no such knowledge.

Still doesn't work. Since when is progressing synonomous with becoming imperfect? God may have known what they were going to do, but he still gave them a chance to not do it.

 

[nutshell]

Still doesn't work. Since when is progressing synonomous with becoming imperfect? God may have known what they were going to do, but he still gave them a chance to not do it.

The same way a child is imperfect, yet learns and grows from her mistakes.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Are you familiar with the LDS interpretation of this story?

I'm not.

 

[rheff78]

The same way a child is imperfect, yet learns and grows from her mistakes.

All children were born after the fall of man. So that still doesn't work.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Don't know. I just know they couldn't bear children. (It's in the Book of Mormon, so you're likely to reject it, being from another faith. I understand.)

How do you justify that God commanded them do do something that they would have to sin in order to accomplish?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You don't mince words, do you? How about, "I disagree."

I disagree with theological nonsense.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Well, they didn't even realize that they were naked until after they ate the forbidden fruit. They would have had to come to be sexually aware before they'd have even had any interest in having sex.

You are equating being naked with being sexually aware (I'm biting my tongue here)?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

2 Nephi 2:22-25 The commandment to multiply was independent of the commandment not to eat the fruit. God commanded them to multiply because that was the whole point of their creation. He wouldn't commandthem to eat the fruit because that would change their bodies to a mortal form. Such a commandment would not be the behaviour of a loving God. So He commanded them not to. It seems like a condradition but it they only way that Adam and Eve could fulfill the first commandment and God remain a loving God.

This is completely screwy. God made a Tree of Life that Adam and Eve could eat of, but was unnecessary because you say they were immortal. When the opportunity arose for them to need it (after gaining the knowledge of good and evil) they were forbidden to eat of it. Either something is lacking in your explaination or it's just plain screwy and certainly not concordant with Genesis.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

How can they understand the consequences, if you don't understand what is right or wrong?

They were told the consequences; death. What Adam and Eve did was reckless.

 

[Starfish]

Since this is the General Religious Debate section, why is it all about our defence of the LDS version of the Adam and Eve story?
How about the rest of you sharing your version? And please do it in a simple, non-vague way. I, for one, promise to be respectful.

 

[Jack89]

But obedience is not necessarily a good thing. What you obey should be questioned as to why you should obey it. Obedience does not equal right and wrong at all.

Why is the knowledge of good and evil a bad thing? Wouldn't God want us to know of him?

They had no concept of the consequences, but it should've been God's duty to explain to them the consequences. If a child is about to touch the hot plate, the parent would explain WHY the child shouldn't touch it, and not simply that the child shouldn't. The parent would explain the consequences to the child before they touch it.

It would be like me putting a motion sensitive bomb in the middle of a crowded room, then simply telling everyone not to go towards the middle of the room with out them knowing why they shouldn't, nor telling them why they shouldn't.

They should obey God as his will is perfect, so there is no need to question it.
The reason God would not want use to know wrong from right is to keep our innocent eg they did not relise that they were naked before right and wrong entered the world. If we had kept innocent we would not be judged against the 10 commandments!
God did tell them the consequences he says they will die if they eat of the tree, seems a big conseqence to me, n i think they would have got the point.

 

[nutshell]

They were told the consequences; death. What Adam and Eve did was reckless.

There is a difference between being told the consequences and being able to appreciate the consequences.