Adam & Logic, 2nd Edition

[fhansen]

No but we need to know how to operate a car in order to drive it safely.

Adam was told he would be like God knowing Good and Evil, so this must have included the whole works of how God created the whole universe too, and not just what was a good and bad thing to live as a human should?

In that case the tree should’ve been called the Tree of Omniscience. Adam was naive to evil, as he should have been in Eden. Evil simply didn’t exist-except as a potentiality for disobedience of God’s will. Adam gained or produced his own knowledge of evil IOW by his very participation in the act, in the disobedience, that is the cause of it. Good, also, would not be identified-or known -as a separate or distinct reality unless for the knowledge of evil.

 

[fhansen]

The bottom line in all this, from Eden to the present day here on earth, is that man’s justice consists in loving God with our whole heart, soul, mind and strength and our neighbor as ourselves-that’s what God wants for us. Until we do that we haven’t yet become just , or fully just, ourselves. We can’t fulfill our obligation to God, the obligation that Adam spurned, by simply believing, or being baptized, or becoming Catholic. That’s the beginning. Our obligation is fulfilled when the greatest commandments are fulfilled. But the “problem” is that we cannot force this to happen. We cannot cause ourselves to love by simply obeying; Adam couldn’t love by simply determining to obey. Rather it works the other way around: we arrive at obedience* by coming to love. That’s the purpose of the Atonement, Christ’s sacrificial act of love. Jesus came to reconcile man with God, drawing us into a loving relationship with Him, something the Old Covenant, a covenant of strict obedience only, could not achieve, which is why it could never justify man; it could never produce the proper kind of obedience. The New Covenant is aimed at accomplishing that very thing, a process of God’s working in us from here though purgatory if necessary, of placing His law in our hearts and writing it on our minds, of justifying *us, along with Adam, who hadn’t yet learned the value of love, the value of God, in Eden.

 

[simpleas]

In human nature, the instructions about how to operate safely is called a conscience.

True. The point is that Adam would be like God, that is, his infinite “knowledge” and subsequently his power would make him equal to God. There can only be one God!
Because there can be only one God, the would-be imitator would lose.

The teacher/student relationship is not the same as the Creator/creature relationship. Unless the teacher is God. Then there is definitely the difference between God the Creator and Adam the creature.

The only way I can explain the difference which necessarily leads to obedience (submission) is to quote the CCC.
From CCC 396
**396 **God created man in His image and established him in His friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God.
:whacky:

my brain is fried…

Being older than dirt, I can’t remember where I put my brain. Probably next to my lost keys.
:whacky::whacky:



Yes and we are helped to form our conscience by other people. We learn and grow in knowledge of what is Good and what is bad, then we choose what our conscience tells us, and it isn’t always the correct choice. Sounds very familiar…

God was A&E’s only teacher. Unless of course he never, ever, needed any instruction from God, just a command not to eat of a certain tree. God is creator, Adam a creature, but not just any old creature, he has a soul, the spirit that God gave him in order for him to live, move and have being. He had no other influence from any other being only from his creator in whom, I guess he did love, trust and obey at one time.

 

[Richca]

Because goodness was the norm of God’s creation, the creation they were part of and in the midst of. They were absolutely naive to evil since God created no evil. The term “good” would have no meaning in the situation where evil is unknown; good would not be known, as in* identifiable* as a separate reality from some alternative. If they already possessed the knowledge then there’d be no reason for a tree to exist at all that bore fruit, the act of eating of which (representing man’s rebellion/disobedience) was the means of gaining the knowledge. And this is why God says in Gen 3:22 that they knew good and evil after they sinned. I’d recommend doing a search on the Hebrew term “yada” along with the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. duh moments can be alleviated.

Goodness can be known and can exist in the absence of evil for goodness is convertible with being and so it is written “God saw all he had made, and it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). There is no evil in God yet He is the supreme good and is infinite goodness and essential goodness as Jesus said " no one is good but God alone." There is no evil or sin in the good angels yet they know the difference between good and evil for they know that there are fallen angels and they know the evil that goes on in the world. Jesus and Mary are without sin yet they know the difference between good and evil.

Adam and Eve did not need to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil to discern the difference between good and evil or right and wrong. Human beings are naturally created with a moral conscience and the first precept of the natural law is to do and pursue good and avoid evil. Nor could it be said that God justly punished Adam and Eve for their transgression unless Adam and Eve were fully aware that their act of eating the forbidden fruit would be wrong or evil for God gave them the command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil before they actually ate of it.

Eve was deceived by the words of the devil, the father of all lies, and after eating of the forbidden fruit both Adam and Eve’s eyes were opened not to wisdom but to shame. By eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve sinned by wanting to decide for themselves what was good and evil, a claim of complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognize his status as a created being, and thus usurping the perogative of God.

The sin of Adam and Eve did not make them better as is evident from the text of Genesis. By eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve learned by experience what they already knew before eating of the forbidden fruit, i.e., disobedience to God is evil and wrong.

 

[simpleas]

In that case the tree should’ve been called the Tree of Omniscience. Adam was naive to evil, as he should have been in Eden. Evil simply didn’t exist-except as a potentiality for disobedience of God’s will. Adam gained or produced his own knowledge of evil IOW by his very participation in the act, in the disobedience, that is the cause of it. Good, also, would not be identified-or known -as a separate or distinct reality unless for the knowledge of evil.

It was because the ickle snake told Eve she wouldn’t die, that she would be like God, and to be like God I’ll assume would mean to be Omniscient. Yes no evil in the garden only Good. The act of disobedience makes them realise what is Good and what is Evil. But we can also say that they would be aware of what is Good (knowing of God in friendship) and what is evil…death…separation from God. If God didn’t give them some knowledge of what death would mean, then he could never have held them accountable, and the whole story would never exist. We would just be known as children of God, who developed a conscience given by God and reason to live in his will, love him and each other, die and enter heaven or do the complete opposite.

By the way do you have a link to a site with details on Yada?

 

[fhansen]

Goodness can be known and can exist in the absence of evil for goodness is convertible with being and so it is written “God saw all he had made, and it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). There is no evil in God yet He is the supreme good and is infinite goodness and essential goodness as Jesus said " no one is good but God alone." There is no evil or sin in the good angels yet they know the difference between good and evil for they know that there are fallen angels and they know the evil that goes on in the world. Jesus and Mary are without sin yet they know the difference between good and evil.

Adam & Eve existed in the midst of goodness. Everything was good so they didn’t need to distinguish it from evil. God, OTOH, did know the difference, so He could say that everything He created was good, and, also, that nothing outside His will could be good.

Adam and Eve did not need to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil to discern the difference between good and evil or right and wrong. Human beings are naturally created with a moral conscience and the first precept of the natural law is to do and pursue good and avoid evil. Nor could it be said that God justly punished Adam and Eve for their transgression unless Adam and Eve were fully aware that their act of eating the forbidden fruit would be wrong or evil for God gave them the command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil before they actually ate of it.

Yes, Adam & Eve had the law written in their hearts. They just hadn’t experienced the reason for it yet; they hadn’t known evil on a one-to-one basis.

Eve was deceived by the words of the devil, the father of all lies, and after eating of the forbidden fruit both Adam and Eve’s eyes were opened not to wisdom but to shame. By eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve sinned by wanting to decide for themselves what was good and evil, a claim of complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognize his status as a created being, and thus usurping the perogative of God.

True

The sin of Adam and Eve did not make them better as is evident from the text of Genesis.

True

By eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve learned by experience what they already knew before eating of the forbidden fruit, i.e., disobedience to God is evil and wrong.

Why would they have to learn what they already knew? Wasn’t God’s instruction good enough? As I’ve said before, Adam and Eve were given a conscience; a moral code, an objective morality, created by God. But that is not what the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil represented. They did *not *gain a conscience by eating of the tree. After eating of the tree they gained the experience you speak of, the experience of evil, that ultimately, presumably, helped guide them back to God and the appreciation of His wisdom like Prodigals back to the Father. God uses evil to bring about an even greater good.

 

[fhansen]

It was because the ickle snake told Eve she wouldn’t die, that she would be like God, and to be like God I’ll assume would mean to be Omniscient. Yes no evil in the garden only Good. The act of disobedience makes them realise what is Good and what is Evil. But we can also say that they would be aware of what is Good (knowing of God in friendship) and what is evil…death…separation from God. If God didn’t give them some knowledge of what death would mean, then he could never have held them accountable, and the whole story would never exist. We would just be known as children of God, who developed a conscience given by God and reason to live in his will, love him and each other, die and enter heaven or do the complete opposite.

By the way do you have a link to a site with details on Yada?

They knew good-they couldn’t miss it- but didn’t know it as distinguished from evil which is what the name of the tree implies IMO. Death, separation from God and all that implies-that would be pretty hard for them to relate to IMO; as we said they knew only good. Adam & Eve were accountable but not so accountable that eternal death or extermination became their fate. As mentioned earlier, God had a plan of salvation for man before He created us, let alone before we fell.

 

[fhansen]

By the way do you have a link to a site with details on Yada?

theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/what-was-the-knowledge-of-good-and-evil-adam-and-eve-gained-after-the-fall/
ancient-hebrew.org/40_exodus2.html

 

[Richca]

Originally Posted by Richca
By eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve learned by experience what they already knew before eating of the forbidden fruit, i.e., disobedience to God is evil and wrong.

Why would they have to learn what they already knew? Wasn’t God’s instruction good enough? As I’ve said before, Adam and Eve were given a conscience; a moral code, an objective morality, created by God. But that is not what the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil represented. They did *not *gain a conscience by eating of the tree. After eating of the tree they gained the experience you speak of, the experience of evil, that ultimately, presumably, helped guide them back to God and the appreciation of His wisdom like Prodigals back to the Father. God uses evil to bring about an even greater good.

I did not say Adam and Eve had to sin in order to know that it is wrong just as it is not necessary to wallow in the mud to know its dirty. All I said was that after sinning, Adam and Eve learned by experience what they already knew to be wrong and evil according to the knowledge and moral conscience God created them with. Adam and Eve were not ignorant that God created them and the rest of creation, nor were they ignorant that disobeying God’s command to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil would be wrong. Adam and Eve were created without a fallen nature and its consequences as we enter the world which is probably why their sin had such tragic consequences for themselves and the rest of humanity.
However, because of God’s love and mercy for his creatures and especially for human beings, the fall of Adam and Eve as well as our falls are not the end of the story.

 

[fhansen]

I did not say Adam and Eve had to sin in order to know that it is wrong just as it is not necessary to wallow in the mud to know its dirty. All I said was that after sinning, Adam and Eve learned by experience what they already knew to be wrong and evil according to the knowledge and moral conscience God created them with.

So do you think there could’ve been be any benefit from what they by learned by experience even if the nobler and better path would’ve been to shun the tree? As a model, perhaps, the Prodigal returned home after wallowing in the mud for awhile.

 

[wmw]

I’m liking what Richca is saying, #181 is well said!

Yes, the serpent lied to Eve about the apple making them “like God”, but are the words of the serpent written literally as what the serpent said? I think they are more symbolic of the root of all sin in thinking ourselves our own masters rather than letting God be our Lord, King, and Teacher.

CCC 1850 Sin is an offense against God: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight.”122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. **Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods,”123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus “love of oneself even to contempt of God.”**124 In this proud self-exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125 (1440, 397, 615)

 

[grannymh]

Granny, how does the tree symbolically evoke the insurmountable limits…?

Creatures are limited. God is not limited.

Can creatures be unlimited in the same manner as God? If yes, then there are not insurmountable limits for the creature Adam because Adam would then be a God. Does the Catholic Church teach or even hint that at the dawn of human history it was possible to have two Gods existing side by side?

Did you look up the term “yada” yet?

As I expected, Google led me to the Seinfeld TV series where yada, yada, yada was often used .

Do you think Adam could’ve grown in wisdom in Eden?

Since I believe that Adam had a human nature complete with rational tools, then of course he was capable of growing in wisdom. Farming would have taught a lot to Adam. And then there is the relationship with God Himself in Genesis, chapters 2 and 3. Is there anything in those chapters which indicated that Adam is another God?

Important basic question.

Does the Catholic Church teach or even hint that at the dawn of human history it was possible to have two Gods existing side by side? God and Adam equal with each other? Does St. Thomas Aquinas teach that it is possible that there are really two Gods?

You have an excellent mind. I look forward to discussions regarding Adam’s unlimited power to be a God. Maybe there is an insurmountable degree of power necessary to be a Creator God.

Remember that we are talking about insurmountable limits symbolized by the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Were there insurmountable limits which would prevent a human from being an all powerful Creator God? Did Satan present a tool for achieving Godhood? Is it possible for Satan to change a human into God?

 

[fhansen]

Creatures are limited. God is not limited.

Can creatures be unlimited in the same manner as God? If yes, then there are not insurmountable limits for the creature Adam because Adam would then be a God. Does the Catholic Church teach or even hint that at the dawn of human history it was possible to have two Gods existing side by side?

As I expected, Google led me to the Seinfeld TV series where yada, yada, yada was often used .

Since the last time I looked google still listed numerous results for searches, I’ll have to take that as an I’d-rather-not-be-confused-by-inconvenient-facts response.

Since I believe that Adam had a human nature complete with rational tools, then of course he was capable of growing in wisdom. Farming would have taught a lot to Adam. And then there is the relationship with God Himself in Genesis, chapters 2 and 3. Is there anything in those chapters which indicated that Adam is another God?

Wisdom is the ability to use the knowledge one has to act in accordance with what is true and right. So could’ve Adam still needed to learn for himself of the truth behind the knowledge he’d been given by God, regarding God’s law/command?

Important basic question.

Does the Catholic Church teach or even hint that at the dawn of human history it was possible to have two Gods existing side by side? God and Adam equal with each other? Does St. Thomas Aquinas teach that it is possible that there are really two Gods?

You have an excellent mind. I look forward to discussions regarding Adam’s unlimited power to be a God. Maybe there is an insurmountable degree of power necessary to be a Creator God.

Remember that we are talking about insurmountable limits symbolized by the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Were there insurmountable limits which would prevent a human from being an all powerful Creator God? Did Satan present a tool for achieving Godhood? Is it possible for Satan to change a human into God?

So many questions-strange ones, too. Where did you get the idea that man could be God? I know you don’t believe that but your entire tack here is a non-sequitur in regards to anything I wrote. Man’s very creaturely limitations guarantee that he can’t be God-and ironically those same limitations are what gives him the ability to be wrong about that fact, about himself and God. But you seem to deny Adam that limitation when you treat him like a moral superman. Adam should not have sinned. And yet he could still gain the wisdom to reverse his decision to disobey God, to turn to God again, as we all can.

 

[grannymh]

From post 189

Creatures are limited. God is not limited.

Starting over…

The basic reason for the first three chapters of Genesis was to preserve Divine Revelation given to the Hebrew people who were living in a world filled with paganism in some form. Preserving Divine Revelation is also a responsibility of the Catholic Church as evinced in Chapter 14, Gospel of John.

Divine Revelation begins with the existence of God as the Creator. (Information source. Genesis 1:1; Genesis 1: 26-27) The universe with all its beauty and wonder pales in comparison with the unique beauty and wonder of the first human person, biblically known as Adam. This leads to the magnificence of the relationship between all humanity, in the person of Adam, and true Divinity. (Information source. Genesis, chapters 2 & 3, especially Genesis 3:15) The author of those revealing chapters was given the task of explaining humanity and divinity at the dawn of human history.

One of the important facts was the fact that there is one God Who is completely unlimited in power. Natural observation demonstrated that humans were not the same as the one God because they were limited by death. Yet, being limited by death, humans could interact with unlimited God. (Information source. Hebrew Scriptures gathered into the Old Testament; John 3: 16 often cited as the summary of the New Testament.) The explanation for the puzzle that limited humans could interact with unlimited God is given in Genesis 1: 26.

Divine Revelation was not completed in the first three chapters of Genesis. Therefore, we need to look at Catholic doctrines about human nature, including its goal to be in joy eternal in the presence of the Beatific Vision. (Information source: CCC 356; CCC 1730)

As we proceed, we find the Logic of Adam.

Links to Catholic teachings.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

 

[grannymh]

So many questions-strange ones, too. Where did you get the idea that man could be God?.

This is the comment that you are referring to.

You have an excellent mind. I look forward to discussions regarding Adam’s unlimited power to be a God. Maybe there is an insurmountable degree of power necessary to be a Creator God.

Emphasis is added.

Adam, in facing Satan’s temptation, saw himself as being capable of choosing himself over and against God. Adam, soaked in his own pride, saw himself as unlimited. I realize that Adam thinking that he was unlimited is not often given as a part of Original Sin’s puzzle. Thus, I am proposing that we look at the possibility. The following sentence is “Maybe there is an insurmountable degree of power necessary to be a Creator God.”

It could be fruitful (pun intended because of that “Tree”) to look at all of Adam’s possibilities, even ones which are discarded immediately. For example, if I propose that Adam could be a God, then one could state the Catholic belief that there is only one God. That being true, then the only way that Adam can communicate with the One God is that his human nature contains a spiritual principle aka spiritual soul. Because this soul is spiritual, the human person is in the image of God Who is totally Spirit.

Because there is only one God, then the only way a spiritual being, such as Adam and ourselves, can be in relationship with God has to be declared. This declared way is for Adam and ourselves to freely live in submission (obedience) to God. (Information source. Genesis 2: 15-17)

According to Satan, the fruit of disobedience will make a human creature like God, because the fruit is the symbol of God’s infinite power. Notice that the tree’s name is not referring to “like God” in that Adam, because of his spiritual soul, has the capability of sharing in God’s life. The tree’s name refers to God’s infinite omniscience. This circles back to the beginning point that despite what I say about Adam’s unlimited power, Adam does not have unlimited power.

Did Adam desire the unlimited power of God? Apparently, God knew that possibility and therefore He specified that Adam should not seek omniscience which only belongs to the One God.

 

[simpleas]

theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/what-was-the-knowledge-of-good-and-evil-adam-and-eve-gained-after-the-fall/
ancient-hebrew.org/40_exodus2.html

Thanks for the links

The first one is what I was trying to understand too, the tree being called both Good and Evil not just Evil.

The comments after the write up are interesting, although I’m not sure why people say that God knowing what Evil is would mean he would have had to commit evil, I would be thinking this, that satan rebelling before Man was created, was how God experienced evil, but then God is all knowing so he would already have known evil would exist, through satan, who in turn tempts man etc.

Comment 47 is a interesting view…

 

[simpleas]

This is the comment that you are referring to.

Emphasis is added.

Adam, in facing Satan’s temptation, saw himself as being capable of choosing himself over and against God. Adam, soaked in his own pride, saw himself as unlimited. I realize that Adam thinking that he was unlimited is not often given as a part of Original Sin’s puzzle. Thus, I am proposing that we look at the possibility. The following sentence is “Maybe there is an insurmountable degree of power necessary to be a Creator God.”

It could be fruitful (pun intended because of that “Tree”) to look at all of Adam’s possibilities, even ones which are discarded immediately. For example, if I propose that Adam could be a God, then one could state the Catholic belief that there is only one God. That being true, then the only way that Adam can communicate with the One God is that his human nature contains a spiritual principle aka spiritual soul. Because this soul is spiritual, the human person is in the image of God Who is totally Spirit.

Because there is only one God, then the only way a spiritual being, such as Adam and ourselves, can be in relationship with God has to be declared. This declared way is for Adam and ourselves to freely live in submission (obedience) to God. (Information source. Genesis 2: 15-17)

According to Satan, the fruit of disobedience will make a human creature like God, because the fruit is the symbol of God’s infinite power. Notice that the tree’s name is not referring to “like God” in that Adam, because of his spiritual soul, has the capability of sharing in God’s life. The tree’s name refers to God’s infinite omniscience. This circles back to the beginning point that despite what I say about Adam’s unlimited power, Adam does not have unlimited power.

Did Adam desire the unlimited power of God? Apparently, God knew that possibility and therefore He specified that Adam should not seek omniscience which only belongs to the One God.

:twocents:

What about us now as we are as humans, we are always searching, experimenting, gaining knowledge of the universe, sort of the same thing Adam may have been doing, ok he was offered it on a plate (you will be like Gods) and the knowledge was given to him, but the promise of being like God was not (because of the lie). God still allows Adam to keep experiencing Good and evil (if God wanted to he could have wiped it from his mind and Adam could have gone back to being all Good) But God allows it, because he still loves his Good creation of man, even though man from Adam to now still are searching, experimenting, and gaining knowledge of the universe.

 

[fhansen]

Thanks for the links

The first one is what I was trying to understand too, the tree being called both Good and Evil not just Evil.

The comments after the write up are interesting, although I’m not sure why people say that God knowing what Evil is would mean he would have had to commit evil, I would be thinking this, that satan rebelling before Man was created, was how God experienced evil, but then God is all knowing so he would already have known evil would exist, through satan, who in turn tempts man etc.

Comment 47 is a interesting view…

The main article in the first link provided good food for thought. I was mainly interested in the definition of the word yada, and I think the concerns at the end of the article are easy enough to resolve. Man knew good before the Fall in that there was nothing else to know before then. But he did not know good as an identifiable reality separate from anything else. The word “good” only takes on meaning-we only “know that we know it”-when it’s opposite, evil, is also known.

Yes, comment 47 was interesting-I hadn’t read it before you mentioned it. We’d probably all agree that the act of eating the fruit was itself the assertion by man that he could be God. By that act he was already determining morality for himself; he knew right from wrong better than God; man could be his own god IOW. And I’ve felt for a long time that perhaps the first human judgement, as “gods”, was in determining that their own bodies were “bad” in a sense, worthy of being ashamed of. As soon as their eyes were opened it may’ve been painfully obvious by their bodies that they were creatures, and not God, and we’ve been hiding those bodies ever since. Denial of the truth and living with contradiction became a way of life for man rather than accepting it-we weren’t/aren’t ready to accept our true status so easily. And God temporarily accommodates this new, unnatural, situation, this loss of innocence until innocence is ultimately regained, by forming clothes Himself for the man and woman. Just an opinion-one of many, I suppose-Augustine had a significantly different one.

But while eating of the tree was indeed the first act of moral self-determination for man, I no longer believe that this was what the name of the tree was intended to imply-I don’t think the tree could’ve been alternatively named something like “The Tree of the Determination of Good and Evil”, IOW. I think that the name of the tree means what it sounds like it means, and with the meaning Genesis seems to support, when we understand the term “yada” in the way the article tells us is a very common usage: to know by experience.

 

[grannymh]

The main article in the first link provided good food for thought. I was mainly interested in the definition of the word yada, and I think the concerns at the end of the article are easy enough to resolve. Man knew good before the Fall in that there was nothing else to know before then. But he did not know good as an identifiable reality separate from anything else. The word “good” only takes on meaning-we only “know that we know it”-when it’s opposite, evil, is also known.

Yes, comment 47 was interesting-I hadn’t read it before you mentioned it. We’d probably all agree that the act of eating the fruit was itself the assertion by man that he could be God. By that act he was already determining morality for himself; he knew right from wrong better than God; man could be his own god IOW. And I’ve felt for a long time that perhaps the first human judgement, as “gods”, was in determining that their own bodies were “bad” in a sense, worthy of being ashamed of. As soon as their eyes were opened it may’ve been painfully obvious by their bodies that they were creatures, and not God, and we’ve been hiding those bodies ever since. Denial of the truth and living with contradiction became a way of life for man rather than accepting it-we weren’t/aren’t ready to accept our true status so easily. And God temporarily accommodates this new, unnatural, situation, this loss of innocence until innocence is ultimately regained, by forming clothes Himself for the man and woman. Just an opinion-one of many, I suppose-Augustine had a significantly different one.

But while eating of the tree was indeed the first act of moral self-determination for man, I no longer believe that this was what the name of the tree was intended to imply-I don’t think the tree could’ve been alternatively named something like “The Tree of the Determination of Good and Evil”, IOW. I think that the name of the tree means what it sounds like it means, and with the meaning Genesis seems to support, when we understand the term “yada” in the way the article tells us is a very common usage: to know by experience.

Fhansen, please accept my apology. I have not thoroughly read your links. My search for yada did not land in the famous Garden.

My brief scan of the first link indicates that it fits in with the majority of CAF posts which look at the first three chapters of Genesis from the human angle. That is fine. However, I wonder what is God’s angle. There have been some good posts about God wanting humans to go to heaven. And there have been multiple comments about God saving humanity through the life and death of Jesus Christ. That too is fine.

What has been omitted is a really deep study of the author’s angle.

I believe it is time for me to study Adam from God’s position and how the author related that position to human readers.

 

[fhansen]

Thanks, granny. I think we’re all here trying to figure out God’s angle in Genesis. Anyway, I started responding to your post #191. Later, tho, busy today.