Your assertion brought up a legal principal, so I'd like to bring one up also:
Ignorantia juris non excusat
gnorantia legis neminem excusat
This is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because one was unaware of its content.
Why?
If ignorance were an excuse, a person charged with criminal offenses or a subject of a civil lawsuit would merely claim that one was unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even if that person really does know what the law in question is. Thus, the law imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons within the jurisdiction no matter how transiently. Even though it would be impossible, even for someone with substantial legal training, to be aware of every law in operation in every aspect of a state's activities, this is the price paid to ensure that willful blindness cannot become the basis of
exculpation (that is, to not only exonerate, but to claim the accused should never have been charged in the first place).
The doctrine assumes that the law in question has been properly promulgated—published and distributed. That is, that the law is not a “secret law” which is no law at all. (source
Black’s Law Dictionary,
Wikipedia)
You are, in effect, arguing the “knowledge of good and evil” was a “secret law” (which of course is no law at all) that Adam and Eve couldn't possibly understand.
In Genesis the law was properly promulgated to Adam and Eve by God Himself. Neither Adam nor Eve had to experience, come in contact, or be enthralled by evil to know eating of the fruit was a violation of the law. They simply had to know the law.
With this in mind we can move on:
Say you're in a country where you don't know the language. The words "kerfuf," predudle," and "lieudodo" are meaningless. Someone tells you not to predudle or lieudodo because you would kerfuf. Now predudle and llieudodo are down right appealing, and you wonder why you shouldn't predudle or lieudodo. Then someone else comes along and tells you, "Hey predudle and lieudodo are great! That other guy who told you shouldn't do them is bonkers. Go ahead and predudle and lieudodo." So you go ahead and predudle and lieudodo. Unfortunately, the first guy was right, you kerfuf, and big time too.
Point being A&E had no idea what they had been told.
Adam and Eve are not in a garden where they don’t know the language. In fact, Adam and Eve are in a world where they created the language. Every bush, tree, and animal were marked and named by them.
Adam and Eve were not ignorant of language or what it meant not to eat of the tree. They were given dominion over every tree, bush and animal save one. There is absolutely no indication that Adam misunderstood God or His command. When God said “Do not
eat of the
tree…” I see no indication that Adam heard “Do not
liedodo of the
predudle” or anything similar.
Think A&E knew what knowledge of good and knowledge of evil (predudle, and lieudodo) were? Why should they?
They already had knowledge of good because they were made in God’s image. They didn’t need to know what evil was. All they had to know was the law…and that law stated they should not eat this particular tree’s fruit.
Your assertion implies Adam did not know “good” until he got it from the tree. That is incorrect. Adam knew good but did not know evil.
The source of good is not the tree. The source of good is God.
They had just been created moments ago. So, with absolutely no clue as to what they were told, why should they be held accountable?
And yet they had an ability to converse with God and understand His commands. :
“Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
The woman
confirmed to the serpent she understood the law, so I see no breakdown in communication or language here, so I see no basis for the assertion the law was meaningless because Adam and Eve didn’t understand it.
Let's remember Adam was not a two year old and neither was Eve. They were formed as man and woman, not boy and girl.
Your assertion would be valid had God condemned squirrels because they had eaten the fruit off the tree. I don't see that for Adam and Eve.
In criminal law uninformed consent works much the same way. If one consents to sometime but doesn't have a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications, and consequences of the action they're consenting to, they're not held liable for it. They lacked proper information.
Not
entirely correct... ignorance may help mitigate the consequences of an action but it doesn’t excuse the action. For why, see above.
And from the way the story goes in Genesis, this was the case with A&E and the apple incident.
Then we can all rest assured in the knowledge our judge and God had a mitigation plan culminating in Christ. It’s the “good news” promulgated by Christians worldwide since the 1st century. It does not require us to become automatons, but like Adam and Eve, simply requires our free will choice.
