She who is without Sin

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't know your motives, so I won't speak for "we". I am looking for a coherent definition of sin that accounts for punishment for immoral action upon a person who was depicted by the story as being without moral comprehension. It makes no sense to call someone immoral when they have no comprehension of morality.

Would you mind briefly reviewing the point you're seeking to discuss? Thanks.

 

[ppp]

Would you mind briefly reviewing the point you're seeking to discuss? Thanks/

I am not sure what more to say other than what was in the post to which you are replying -- which includes what I put in the OP. Tell me what is missing, and I will try to fill the gap.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Did Eve have the knowledge of good and evil before eating of the fruit of Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?

If so, what is the difference between the good and evil she had knowledge of before eating, and the Good and Evil she had knowledge of immediately after?

If she did not understand good and evil, how could she sin without that capacity for moral evaluation?

Nahum Sarna, in the JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, writes:

... It will not do to take "good and bad" as the human capacity for moral discernment. Aside from the difficulty of understanding why God should choose to oppose this, there is the additional argument that a divine prohibition would be meaningless if man did not already possess this facility. Indeed, from 3:3 it is clear that the woman knows the meaning of disobedience; that is, she is already alert to the difference between right and wrong, which can have no other meaning than obedience or otherwise.

It is more satisfactory, however, to understand "good and bad" as undifferentiated parts of a totality, a merism meaning "everything." True, man and woman do not become endowed with omniscience after partaking of the fruit, but the text does seem to imply that their intellectual horizons are immediately expanded. Passages like 2 Samuel 14:17, 20 lend support to this interpretation. It should also be noted that "good and bad," exactly in the Hebrew form used here (tov va-ra`), occurs again only in Deuteronomy 1:39: "Moreover, your little ones who you said would be carried off, your children who do not yet know good from bad ..." There the context leaves no doubt that not to know good and bad means to be innocent, not to have attained the age of responsibility. In the present passage, then, it is best to understand "knowledge of good and bad" as the capacity to make independent judgements concerning human welfare."​

Genesis 2-3 is rich in symbolist and etiological lore. There is much to be appreciated.

 

[ppp]

It will not do to take "good and bad" as the human capacity for moral discernment. Aside from the difficulty of understanding why God should choose to oppose this, there is the additional argument that a divine prohibition would be meaningless if man did not already possess this facility. Indeed, from 3:3 it is clear that the woman knows the meaning of disobedience; that is, she is already alert to the difference between right and wrong, which can have no other meaning than obedience or otherwise.

He does not have an adequate basis for coming to that conclusion. It is clear that the woman knows the meaning of the instruction. But it is not clear that she has an internal ought behind following that instruction. No 'I follow the instructions of God because I ought to do so.' In Gen 3 there is no indicator that disobeying creates any actual conflict in Eve. Indeed, as social beings, we humans often follow instructions simply because it is easy and there is no conflict against our own will.

It is more satisfactory, however, to understand "good and bad" as undifferentiated parts of a totality, a merism meaning "everything." True, man and woman do not become endowed with omniscience after partaking of the fruit, but the text does seem to imply that their intellectual horizons are immediately expanded. Passages like 2 Samuel 14:17, 20 lend support to this interpretation. It should also be noted that "good and bad," exactly in the Hebrew form used here (tov va-ra`), occurs again only in Deuteronomy 1:39: "Moreover, your little ones who you said would be carried off, your children who do not yet know good from bad ..." There the context leaves no doubt that not to know good and bad means to be innocent, not to have attained the age of responsibility. In the present passage, then, it is best to understand "knowledge of good and bad" as the capacity to make independent judgements concerning human welfare."

I think I am unclear on what he is saying here. He seems to be in conflict with himself. Does he think that the human capacity for moral discernment is different in substance from the capacity to make independent judgements concerning human welfare? I don't see how he can support that.

It will not do to take "good and bad" as the human capacity for moral discernment.

There the context leaves no doubt that not to know good and bad means to be innocent, not to have attained the age of responsibility. In the present passage, then, it is best to understand "knowledge of good and bad" as the capacity to make independent judgements concerning human welfare.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

He does not have an adequate basis for coming to that conclusion.

Sorry I wasted out time. It won't happen again.

 

[ppp]

Sorry I wasted out time. It won't happen again.

That reaction to disagreement is a little melodramatic. But okay.

 

[DKH]

This seems to contradict what you just said. It clearly says that Eve has gained the ability to know good from evil. Which is all the moral evaluation is. And since God says "become like one of us, knowing good from evil" I assume that God does not have a secular morality. No?

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." --Gen 3:22

I'm glad that you stated "seems to" in your response, because the sentences referenced, do not in any way suggest that Eve had gained the ability to know the difference between good from evil, because she only "personally" experienced separation from God and embarrassment. This is all that's referenced. Therefore, the only way she could have learned more about evil was by experiencing or observing it! Which, is exactly how the Hebrew word for "know" is defined (to experience/learn). It is also obvious that the term "knowledge" is defined in about the same way. Hence, it is clear that Genesis 3:22 is actually a figurative statement and not one which really means Adam/Eve knew all the good or evil that they might eventually come to understand.

Also, the authorized version of the bible does not use the word "knowing" in Genesis 3:22, it uses the words "to know." This may appear to be minor, but it isn't. There is a big difference between: to know something and knowing something. The changing of the words by some modern translations appears to show a lack of understandings related to the story and the ways of God. Hence, it should be understood that Adam/Eve would have learned about evil from the actions of their children, grandchildren's and maybe their own future actions. Where, they (descendants) would be the ones mostly affected (by evil) as time passed. But, the heart-ache they (Adam/Eve) would have suffered is overlooked by most. And, yes they probably suffered, as well, "knowing" that their actions (related to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) was the beginning of disobedience for the human race.

So, the reality of what's was going on here can be illustrated by the two trees in the midst of the garden. In Genesis 3:22-24, it is stated that God would need to block access to the tree of life. Because, if Adam/Eve were allowed to continue eating from this tree, they would live forever…This same concept is applied to the tree of knowledge of good (good actions) and evil (bad actions). Since, Adam/Eve only took from this tree once, the bad actions they would now know was limited (hiding and being afraid of their Creator and embarrassment). This is supported by Genesis 3:7-11. Here, God ties their embarrassment of being naked to the tree of knowledge. This is known as cause and effect. So, not being able to take from either tree again, Adam/Eve and their descendants would die and be unable to discern (properly) between all of what is good and what isn't…Thus, the humankind would need to be told (by God) what was good and what wasn't. Where, disobedience to these instructions would result in consequences. Thus, moral evaluations would not be needed and would be counter-productive without the proper guidance and understandings of what Godly morals are verses the morals of the ones choosing their own definitions.

I think you are confusing ought with is. Knowing that you were commanded to do a thing is not the same as the knowledge that you ought to follow that command. Ought derive from imperatives of an internal goal, such as morality. Without morality as an internal goal - a moral compass, if you will -- Eve could not have a moral imperative to obedience. The Eden story strongly implies that she had no such moral compass - no understanding that of north (good) or south (evil) existed until she ate the fruit.

Sorry, but I'm not the one confused. Adam and Eve experienced many (not all) of the "good" that God created before taking from the forbidden tree. Yet, the most amazing was access to the tree of life! Where, if one would review Genesis chapters 1-3, the word "good" is referenced many times. Yet, in the same chapters, the word "evil" is used 4 times: two related to the tree in the midst of the garden, one related to "eyes being opened" and one "to know" good and evil. So, to suggest that Adam/Eve were oblivious to the terms good and evil doesn't fit the narrative of the records.

When, God created Adam/Eve, free-will or choice was afforded to them. They could: obey God's commands and reap the benefits or disobey and suffer the consequences…It really is that simple. Yet, the counter approach presented: to reason or speculate psychologically (psychologize) is not part of the story or God's will…I see no reason at all to interject such a modern concept into this ancient event.

So, there really is a reason for obedience, which is to avoid the consequences for not doing so. Therefore, anything beyond this is just unproductive and useless.


Note: Even though I have used bible verses for support, this posting is my personal opinion and should only be understood in that context.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't know your motives, so I won't speak for "we". I am looking for a coherent definition of sin that accounts for punishment for immoral action upon a person who was depicted by the story as being without moral comprehension. It makes no sense to call someone immoral when they have no comprehension of morality.


I am fine with any outcome. If you aren't, then you go do whatever you need to do.

Where in the story were Adam and Eve depicted as without moral comprehension?

They were depicted as GOOD before the devil appeared. [To be good, one must know what good is.] They were sinless, yes--they hadn't yet sinned.

Satan lied to them about their godhood status if they ate, but . . . let's not build doctrine from a liar's statements.

 

[ppp]

Where in the story were Adam and Eve depicted as without moral comprehension?

In the OP, I asked whomever responded to respond based on their position on whether Eve had moral comprehension prior to eating of the fruit.

In your particular take on the Fall in Eden, assuming that you have one:
Did Eve have the knowledge of good and evil before eating of the fruit of Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?

If so, what is the difference between the good and evil she had knowledge of before eating, and the Good and Evil she had knowledge of immediately after?

If she did not understand good and evil, how could she sin without that capacity for moral evaluation?

Pick one. Or roll your own.

They were depicted as GOOD before the devil appeared. [To be good, one must know what good is.] They were sinless, yes--they hadn't yet sinned.

Isn't your definition of morally good merely obedience? My horse is "good" by that definition. Does he actually know what "good" is in the same what that you know things?

Satan lied to them about their godhood status if they ate...

The Serpent was truthful.

In Gen 3:4

The serpent said, "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."​

God confirmed this in Gen 3:22:

And the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil."​

 

[BilliardsBall]

In the OP, I asked whomever responded to respond based on their position on whether Eve had moral comprehension prior to eating of the fruit.


Pick one. Or roll your own.


Isn't your definition of morally good merely obedience? My horse is "good" by that definition. Does he actually know what "good" is in the same what that you know things?


The Serpent was truthful.

In Gen 3:4

The serpent said, "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."​

God confirmed this in Gen 3:22:

And the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil."​

Before proceeding, what makes you think the serpent told the truth? He is "a liar and the father of them", said Jesus!

 

[ppp]

In Gen 3:4
The serpent said, "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."God confirmed this in Gen 3:22:
And the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil."

Before proceeding, what makes you think the serpent told the truth? He is "a liar and the father of them", said Jesus!

The Bible depicts God and the serpent as making the same claim. What makes you think that God lied?

 

[MNoBody]

In your particular take on the Fall in Eden, assuming that you have one:
Did Eve have the knowledge of good and evil before eating of the fruit of Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?

If so, what is the difference between the good and evil she had knowledge of before eating, and the Good and Evil she had knowledge of immediately after?

If she did not understand good and evil, how could she sin without that capacity for moral evaluation?

the tree -of the Realization- of the knowledge- of good and evil, kinds of says it quite plainly.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

In your particular take on the Fall in Eden, assuming that you have one:
Did Eve have the knowledge of good and evil before eating of the fruit of Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?

If so, what is the difference between the good and evil she had knowledge of before eating, and the Good and Evil she had knowledge of immediately after?

If she did not understand good and evil, how could she sin without that capacity for moral evaluation?

My take is that Adam and Eve were in a state of ignorance and dependence upon Yahweh, which he seems keen on keeping us in according to most mainstream Abrahamic theologies, prior to eating the forbidden fruit. Eve is the real hero of the narrative, imo. She instigated humanity's will to mature and decide our own fate.

 

[ppp]

the tree -of the Realization- of the knowledge- of good and evil, kinds of says it quite plainly.

There is no "of the Realization" to be found in the text.

 

[MNoBody]

not obviously, but the commercially available editions are what exactly again? infallible translations perhaps lol

 

[ppp]

My take is that Adam and Eve were in a state of ignorance and dependence upon Yahweh, which he seems keen on keeping us in according to most mainstream Abrahamic theologies, prior to eating the forbidden fruit. Eve is the real hero of the narrative, imo. She instigated humanity's will to mature and decide our own fate.

Do you think she had the capacity for moral decisions prior to eating the fruit in the narrative?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Do you think she had the capacity for moral decisions prior to eating the fruit in the narrative?

Perhaps not fully. They may have been in a state of blind servitude.

 

[MNoBody]

in the narrative it goes that she did not know the snake had put the bite on her until after, then the "realization" the reality of the lies and deception began to take shape in untutored child mind
realize the reality of the lies since there it lies, obvious, yet subtle, too subtle by far for most apparently

 

[ppp]

Perhaps not fully. They may have been in a state of blind servitude.

Interesting. So perhaps, being in such a state, she just followed any authoritative voice - be it God or the serpent.

But that would make the serpent the hero of the story. An arboreal Prometheus, as it were.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The Bible depicts God and the serpent as making the same claim. What makes you think that God lied?

I apologize for being a pedant. So I'll ask you, what happened? How did Eve sin in the absence of moral knowledge/awareness? How do you interpret the story?

Thanks.