Adam & Logic, 2nd Edition

[grannymh]

Since Adam was a creature he obviously had limitations as he was not equal to his creator. Also, since he was placed in the garden and not in heaven, he also needed to grow in holiness. This growth would have included his unwavering obedience.

Can you see a connection between Adam’s obvious creature limitations and a symbolic name Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

This thought keeps coming back to me. Since the tree’s name can signify God’s omniscience, if Adam ate the fruit and became omniscient, then there would be two Gods which is a no-no in Thomism. Actually, there being only one God is key in the Hebrew Faith expressed in the Old Testament.

P.S. I agree that Adam had to grow in holiness – simply because Adam is human. However, it isn’t until the presence of the Beatific Vision, that growth in holiness is completed.

 

[davidv]

Can you see a connection between Adam’s obvious creature limitations and a symbolic name Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

In one of my bible studies I really liked the the thought that one of the things the tree symbolized was the ability to decide what is good and what is evil. One obvious connection for me to our limitations is that we can give in to the temptation to decide for ourselves rather than accept what God says is good and evil.

This thought keeps coming back to me. Since the tree’s name can signify God’s omniscience, if Adam ate the fruit and became omniscient, then there would be two Gods which is a no-no in Thomism. Actually, there being only one God is key in the Hebrew Faith expressed in the Old Testament.

P.S. I agree that Adam had to grow in holiness – simply because Adam is human. However, it isn’t until the presence of the Beatific Vision, that growth in holiness is completed.

 

[grannymh]

In one of my bible studies I really liked the the thought that one of the things the tree symbolized was the ability to decide what is good and what is evil.

I have heard something similar but not as crisp as your description. Maybe the better truth is that my older than dirt brain gets a bit fuzzy at times.

One obvious connection for me to our limitations is that we can give in to the temptation to decide for ourselves rather than accept what God says is good and evil.

That is true. However, it needs to be expressed in a stronger manner so as to fit the scenario of Satan’s temptation.

I am missing a detail in Genesis. Adam knew he was in the image of God because he conversed with God about naming the animals. What did the Genesis author know about being in the image of God? Maybe another clue. Adam scorned God; but God did not scorn Adam. Nor did God scorn Adam’s descendants. Still, there had to be reconciliation (salvation) between God and man. Maybe what I am looking for has been mentioned in either your posting or Ynotzap’s posting. Or maybe it is an answer to one of Simpleas questions or part of posts by old friends like Aloysium and wmw and others who pop in.

We are looking at a thousand piece puzzle. We have managed to put the border together as it is the structure built by Catholic doctrines. We can see beauty in the puzzle pieces.

 

[simpleas]

So how does this support what I called faulty claims made in your post #81?

Because I was referring to the actual writtten words in Genesis that say man had become like God, not God, just like him with knowledge of Good and Evil. Satan had told them they would be Gods, which was the lie and they only had become like Gods with their knowledge. Because as you said in a post they could then decide what was Good and what was Evil for themself, instead of trusting God.

 

[simpleas]

I don’t think the name of the tree is weird.
If we say A&E eating of the tree gained them experience of Evil, it also gained them experience of Good. They already knew what Good was, as they were in friendship with God, but they were told they could know ALL from eating of the tree, - become Gods.

They didn’t know ALL, when they ate but they knew they could decide for themselves what was Good and Evil, so become LIKE God.

But this has me thinking that by gaining this experience they then gained a conscience, because they felt guilt in having disobeyed God, and now know what Good and Evil was.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t think the name of the tree is weird.
If we say A&E eating of the tree gained them experience of Evil, it also gained them experience of Good. They already knew what Good was, as they were in friendship with God, but they were told they could know ALL from eating of the tree, - become Gods.

They didn’t know ALL, when they ate but they knew they could decide for themselves what was Good and Evil, so become LIKE God.

But this has me thinking that by gaining this experience they then gained a conscience, because they felt guilt in having disobeyed God, and now know what Good and Evil was.

The reason I think the name of the tree is weird in this century is because Original Sin is a very serious act of disobedience. In addition, the tree itself can be described as the limitation of human creatures. A thought rarely considered in this century.

Davidv in post 86 said:
“Since Adam already had intellectual knowledge of the evil of eating from the tree prior sinning, the only knowledge he gained from the sin was experiential knowledge.”
Intellectual knowledge of God is only possible because Adam had a spiritual soul. The presence of the spiritual soul includes the presence of conscience. Therefore, the only knowledge Adam gained was his experience of shame which could be considered a form of guilt. However, Adam had a conscience since the day he appeared on planet earth.

(Source of Information. Genesis 2: 15; Genesis 3: 10)

 

[ynotzap]

Thank you DavidV and Ynotzap for answering my question about human nature. The more I learn about human nature, the more sure I am that Adam was individually created. Handmade, we could say.

Sometimes, I find it hard to think of Adam as having limitations. That is why I brought up the topic of the forbidden tree’s name, not its fruits which some people refer to as good knowledge and bad knowledge. Here is *CCC *396 which demands study time.
**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. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.” The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation,and to moral laws that govern his use of freedom

When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they wanted to be like God. That is to be independent, self regulating, self-willed, not subjected to laws but free. This of course is all contrary to man’s nature, and he must recognize it. The truth is that man can be like God, and share in His divine life as God’s gift to Him, not that man has any thing of divinity in his nature. He is given grace as a gift which allows him to become like God, but he will always be a creature dependent on God in all things. Therefore man must always know that he owes his existence, and is always dependent on God, and must trust in God for all his needs By following the moral laws of God, which direct his actions, he will attain the purpose of his existence, union with God, happiness

 

[ynotzap]

The reason I think the name of the tree is weird in this century is because Original Sin is a very serious act of disobedience. In addition, the tree itself can be described as the limitation of human creatures. A thought rarely considered in this century.

Davidv in post 86 said:
“Since Adam already had intellectual knowledge of the evil of eating from the tree prior sinning, the only knowledge he gained from the sin was experiential knowledge.”
Intellectual knowledge of God is only possible because Adam had a spiritual soul. The presence of the spiritual soul includes the presence of conscience. Therefore, the only knowledge Adam gained was his experience of shame which could be considered a form of guilt. However, Adam had a conscience since the day he appeared on planet earth.

(Source of Information. Genesis 2: 15; Genesis 3: 10)

After all a conscience is none other than man’s intelligence informed with the knowledge of right and wrong, and how he chooses to apply it to his choices. Adam didn’t have knowledge of the experience of disobedience to God, and he may not have had the appreciation of what he did have. But took what he had for granted. Since the fall he experienced and knew the difference and came to appreciate the gift God gave him, and what could happen if he didn’t obey God (moral law) some thoughts.

 

[grannymh]

After all a conscience is none other than man’s intelligence informed with the knowledge of right and wrong, and how he chooses to apply it to his choices. Adam didn’t have knowledge of the experience of disobedience to God, and he may not have had the appreciation of what he did have. But took what he had for granted. Since the fall he experienced and knew the difference and came to appreciate the gift God gave him, and what could happen if he didn’t obey God (moral law) some thoughts.

As I read Genesis, Chapter 2, I find that verses 10 and 19 would naturally provide time for God/Adam discussions. Genesis 3: 1-3 includes Eve in the general discussion. Genesis 2: 15-17 could possibly be God informing Adam’s conscience. It seems to me, that chapter 1 speaks about the relationship of man to animals. Chapter 3 appears to highlight Adam’s relationship with Divinity.

 

[grannymh]

Given that the original Adam & Logic thread, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=785994,

was closed due to the 1,000 posts limit, this 2nd Edition will continue exploring some of the original propositions.

snip

Up front, I use the Catholic Church for basic truths. The source is the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. *
Links. Please read CCC, 18-22 first for the explanation of smaller print.

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

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

General information source is CCC, “The Creator” beginning with paragraph 279; CCC, “Man” beginning with paragraph 355; CCC, “The Fall” beginning with paragraph 385; CCC, 1730-1733; and related cross-references in the margins.** Additional information from other sources is appreciated.**

Please read and respect the sticky notes at the top of this Forum.

I added the bold emphasis because I thought it important.

What is currently happening is that we are exploring additional ideas beyond the original thread. This is good, thank you, because we all have our individual ways of learning. When we read what others have learned and are now contributing, we add to our own growth in knowledge. Questions are always welcomed. Obviously, all this enhances what was originally presented.

We have a joy-filled thread.

In the spirit of “additional information” about Adam, especially as to how we can approach his true existence with “logic”, there is this new article in the Homiletic & Pastoral Review Magazine on line. This publication is considered America’s leading Pastoral Magazine. http://www.hprweb.com/about/

This link http://www.hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/
is to the updated Adam & Eve information article, Time to Abandon the Genesis Story?

 

[simpleas]

The reason I think the name of the tree is weird in this century is because Original Sin is a very serious act of disobedience. In addition, the tree itself can be described as the limitation of human creatures. A thought rarely considered in this century.

Davidv in post 86 said:
“Since Adam already had intellectual knowledge of the evil of eating from the tree prior sinning, the only knowledge he gained from the sin was experiential knowledge.”
Intellectual knowledge of God is only possible because Adam had a spiritual soul. The presence of the spiritual soul includes the presence of conscience. Therefore, the only knowledge Adam gained was his experience of shame which could be considered a form of guilt. However, Adam had a conscience since the day he appeared on planet earth.

(Source of Information. Genesis 2: 15; Genesis 3: 10)

What I was trying to point out was that when we say they ate from the tree and sinned, they then knew what Evil was, through experience. But they didn’t need to experience evil because they had an understanding of it.
So did they experience Good or did they just have an understanding of Good?
If they experienced Good, then the tree would just be called the tree of Evil. But if they hadn’t experienced both, then the tree was named Good and Evil.
If we have conscience that means we already know what is Good and what is Evil, so we can hopefully choose the Good, and we don’t always need to experience Evil to know this, but we need to experience Good, so we can see what Evil can be.
We would say they experienced Good and that they just needed to trust in God and avoid the tree. But it seems the experiential knowledge of both were placed in the garden, because you can’t have one without the other.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . But it seems the experiential knowledge of both were placed in the garden, because you can’t have one without the other.

:twocents: keeping it very short and hoping not to derail the thread, how about:

The Garden describes how God created us - existing in right relation to Him in this world.
We are of and in the world, which has God as its Centre,
the Trees representing the Word: eternal life and moral order/love/judgement.

Good does not need evil to be good, but evil implies a good that it is not.
Thus, divorced from their Source,
life, beauty, righteousness, and truth
decay to death, in its various bodily manifestations, ugliness, sin and illusion.

God exists beyond and, in Christ, within the whole of creation.
He knows the joys and terrors of existence as they are in their reality.
This truth is not merely a set of ideas, moral standards or philosophical musings, but the fact that now we suffer and die.

He did wish this on us.
We wished this on ourselves,
and now we are sinful; we feel pain, physically, emotionally and spiritually, and have bodies that become ever more corrupt unto death.

We knew about right and wrong, what belonged to God and what was ours.
Now we live it. I would say this is a bit more serious than a term like “experiential knowledge” conveys.
Through sin we, like many angels before us, create evil by denying/rejecting Love.

Jesus on the cross takes it all upon Himself that we might be saved.
As we follow the Way, growing in Christ, the Word resumes His rightful place at the Centre of everything we are.
We live in hope of the resurrection.

 

[grannymh]

What I was trying to point out was that when we say they ate from the tree and sinned, they then knew what Evil was, through experience. But they didn’t need to experience evil because they had an understanding of it.
So did they experience Good or did they just have an understanding of Good?
If they experienced Good, then the tree would just be called the tree of Evil. But if they hadn’t experienced both, then the tree was named Good and Evil.
If we have conscience that means we already know what is Good and what is Evil, so we can hopefully choose the Good, and we don’t always need to experience Evil to know this, but we need to experience Good, so we can see what Evil can be.
We would say they experienced Good and that they just needed to trust in God and avoid the tree. But it seems the experiential knowledge of both were placed in the garden, because you can’t have one without the other.

To reply to post 109, we need to apply a bit of investigative journalism.

First. Is the tree named Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil real?
Second. What is the evidence for this tree being real?
Third. Why is the non-scientific author of the first three chapters of Genesis interested in this tree?

Judging by the number of posts which refer to this tree, the odds are that the tree is real. Thus, we can work on the scientific hypothesis that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is real.

The evidence for a real tree is presented in the first two chapters of Genesis beginning with the reality of Adam. If Adam is just a symbol, he would not need nourishment.

Interestingly, the non-scientific author begins Genesis with the reality of nature which is the proper authority for the scientific method. Regardless of the words, it is obvious that the ancient author had enough evidence to conclude that the universe really exists. Scientists today do not deny the ancient author’s scientific conclusion. Nor do the scientists today deny that there is an abundance of living creatures. (Genesis 1: 20) Genesis 1: 30 concludes scientifically that all living creatures such as animals and birds need food. Because of the shift to a new topic in Genesis 1: 26, the author, leaving no stone unturned, verifies that humans also need food. (Genesis 1: 29)

Regardless of why people quibble about the second story of creation, it should be apparent that the second story contains the test results for the hypothesis that real humans need real food. (Genesis 2:8-9) Genesis 2: 10-14 hints that the author’s day job was weather forecasting. With the experience of rain and no rain, the author emphasizes the uniqueness of the first garden by giving us the details of its watering system.

Next, the author appeals to authority. God says that the trees in His garden have fruit for food. (Genesis 2:16) Still, non-theist gardeners know that many kinds of trees bear fruit which can be used as human food. Using scientific language, one could say that it is probable that all trees bear good fruit, but there is a possibility that a tree bearing fruit, which would act as a “poison” for human tummies, may be in some unexplored area of planet earth.

What is really interesting about God as the authority source is that there is the “human” understanding that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is an ordinary garden tree which bears fruit that can actually be eaten. Genesis 2: 15-17 does not present a sense of symbolism, or does it?

Serious questions need serious answers.

Is this particular tree, known as the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, real or is it a symbol? Or is the tree both real and a symbol? If the tree is just a symbol, how can a real person eat its fruit? If the tree is real, is there real fruit which can physically implant knowledge in one’s brain cells without any effort on the part of the receiver besides digestion?

 

[grannymh]

Serious questions need serious answers.

Is this particular tree, known as the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, real or is it a symbol? Or is the tree both real and a symbol? If the tree is just a symbol, how can a real person eat its fruit? If the tree is real, is there real fruit which can physically implant knowledge in one’s brain cells without any effort on the part of the receiver besides digestion?

While it was fun doing the tongue in cheek post 111, the serious issue of Adam’s human
nature pre-Fall and post-Fall remains. The need for food as the main reason for the reality of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is more realistic than it appears. The reality of the tree and the reality of Adam go hand in hand. If Adam is just a symbol, he would not need nourishment.

The issue of knowledge pre-Fall and post-Fall is popular in a variety of forums. Yet, I do not recall if anyone has actually explained how a real tree can physically implant knowledge in human brain cells by using the digestive process.

If Adam depends on real food provided by a garden, then Adam is logically real.

On the other hand, it is the significance of the tree which can make it both real and symbolic at the same time.

What say you?

 

[ynotzap]

I am inclined to try to understand the inspired truth of the story and not necessarily the literal words of the story.
Adam being the first man, and Eve being the first models for all humans, made perfect models with the endowment of grace.

Like angels who were tested, so too Adam and Eve were tested. The test was the same, obedience to God, or to self will. Pride was the down fall, as it is in every sin, my will, above God’s

Not having knowledge of what disobedience to God would entail Now they possessed it, and suffered from it (Man is ultimately fallible) Completely dependent on God

The promise of a Redeemer Jesus Christ by becoming human to establish relationship with God, the Father which was lost by sin of pride, Jesus countered this sin by becoming humble like us.

The first model of man, Adam had an intelligence that was pure, contact with God, this didn’t mean that he couldn’t grow in further intelligence, reached his limits.

The reality of Satan, and angels, and what influence he had on man, proven by Jesus, for Jesus came to destroy the works of Satan, and redeem him for Satan’s reign, for without grace man is helpless to escape the stronghold Satan has on humanity.

I see some literal truth, and symbolic truth, I do believe more in the symbolic truth concerning the downfall of Adam which I think favors the inspirational quality of the Bible the inspired word of God

 

[Aloysium]

It is difficult to say what is real in a fallen world. How are we to look back and imagine Eden?

:twocents:

Eden and the tree are real as are Adam and Eve; what is unclear is the nature of its reality. We are left to interpretations to envision that primordial world.
Through scripture we discover the presence of the Word in time. Faith informs us that Genesis reveals the creation of the world and the events that led to our being where we are.

So what might have happened at the beginning, in the east from whence the sun rises?:

We are formed from the ground of the world. We are in the garden and part of the garden, existing in relation to it, as its caretakers.
The animals, presumably created before us in time, had been created from eternity to be our companions.
This was not suitable as, in the image of the Triune God, we are to be made of one body, separate to love one another.

From the Word, creation springs forth, His love nuturing us as the waters spring from the very ground of Eden, maintaining its existence, giving it life.
The Garden is an eternal generation of life, pure and bountiful, centred on the Word in the form of the two sacred trees.

As the garden was filled with every tree and every fruit, our spirit contains such gifts as music, visual art, culinary arts, philosophy, science, conversation, all those goods that our hearts desire.
Here, we are talking not about our talents as separate from the trees, that they might represent. It is something more, in that it speaks to the relationship that exists between us and the world. It is in that relationship that the talents become manifest.

Thus, in a similar way, the trees at the centre of the Garden are sacred, belonging to God, at least as the local church is the house of God, and perhaps as the eucharist is Christ.
It would be not that the fruits have some sort of hallucinogenic properties, but rather there is a relationship between them and ourselves that has been established by God.
As one might step on the eucharist, we ate of God’s fruit and the rest is the rest of history.

 

[simpleas]

:twocents: keeping it very short and hoping not to derail the thread, how about:

The Garden describes how God created us - existing in right relation to Him in this world.
We are of and in the world, which has God as its Centre,
the Trees representing the Word: eternal life and moral order/love/judgement.

Good does not need evil to be good, but evil implies a good that it is not.
Thus, divorced from their Source,
life, beauty, righteousness, and truth
decay to death, in its various bodily manifestations, ugliness, sin and illusion.

God exists beyond and, in Christ, within the whole of creation.
He knows the joys and terrors of existence as they are in their reality.
This truth is not merely a set of ideas, moral standards or philosophical musings, but the fact that now we suffer and die.

He did wish this on us.
We wished this on ourselves,
and now we are sinful; we feel pain, physically, emotionally and spiritually, and have bodies that become ever more corrupt unto death.

We knew about right and wrong, what belonged to God and what was ours.
Now we live it. I would say this is a bit more serious than a term like “experiential knowledge” conveys.
Through sin we, like many angels before us, create evil by denying/rejecting Love.

Jesus on the cross takes it all upon Himself that we might be saved.
As we follow the Way, growing in Christ, the Word resumes His rightful place at the Centre of everything we are.
We live in hope of the resurrection.

Interesting write up

I too do not wish to derail the thread, but…

We knew about right and wrong, what belonged to God and what was ours

We didn’t take anything from God? God created all for man, and man is to offer creation back to God. (not too sure on how this is done, but I’m thinking its about love and respect of all Gods creation)

Through sin we, like many angels before us, create evil by denying/rejecting Love.

Man was made in the image of God, isn’t that what makes us unique? Angels are a different being, they aren’t made in the image of God?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . We didn’t take anything from God? God created all for man, and man is to offer creation back to God. (not too sure on how this is done, but I’m thinking its about love and respect of all Gods creation) . . . Man was made in the image of God, isn’t that what makes us unique? Angels are a different being, they aren’t made in the image of God?

Thanks for the feedback - to clarify:

We were not created to suffer/die. Such knowledge/awareness, belonged to God who knew the reality of hell, as the Cause of all existence even to its end in nonbeing. We took on this knowledge through our act of disobedience, mistrust and pride, which damaged our relationship with God and thereby brought about our death. This would have been known to us through our intellect, as we know not to dive into a cesspool. For the reasons stated, we dove in anyway; and, here we are.

I see things along the same lines, that we “offer creation back to God”, by sharing in His love.

We are made in God’s image in a number of ways such as the capacity to love, reason, appreciate beauty, attributes which are synonymous with being. We are in His image because the Word was made flesh as a human being. The way in which we are in the image of God and how we are different from the angels has to do with the creation of Eve. Reflecting the Triune Reality wherein the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, Eve is of the unity that is the flesh and spirit of Adam, and they are joined in the love that proceeds from each of them, as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. We exist as self-and-other, relational beings as is God, in fullness of the Trinity.

We sin as did the angels who fell before us.

This is how it makes sense to me.

 

[grannymh]

We are made in God’s image in a number of ways such as the capacity to love, reason, appreciate beauty, attributes which are synonymous with being. We are in His image because the Word was made flesh as a human being. The way in which we are in the image of God and how we are different from the angels has to do with the creation of Eve. Reflecting the Triune Reality wherein the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, Eve is of the unity that is the flesh and spirit of Adam, and they are joined in the love that proceeds from each of them, as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. We exist as self-and-other, relational beings as is God, in fullness of the Trinity.

We sin as did the angels who fell before us.

This is how it makes sense to me.

Thank you for these in depth understandings of our amazing privilege to be in the image of God.

Because of our reflective nature, we can find so many “meanings” in Holy Scripture which lead us to a closer and closer relationship with our Maker. Baptism gives us the grace to grow in knowledge and love. Note to self: Today, ask the Holy Spirit for the graces of my own Baptism.

When searching for the reality of Adam in the first three chapters of Genesis, I try to walk a mile in the author’s moccasins. This is a saying from my childhood neighborhood. Franklin Covey must have lived in a similar neighborhood because his first books advised that when we are speaking or debating with another person, it is essential to know as much as possible about where that person is coming from. That non-scientist Genesis author was “coming from” an established nation which worshiped One Supreme Supernatural Being. It would have been natural for the Genesis author to start with the success stories of his nation. It would have been natural to honor the prophets who guided the people in their relationship with God. Natural pride would have been appropriate.

Instead, the author begins Genesis, Chapter 1 with a description of God’s power. Then in Genesis 1: 26-27, there is an intriguing shift. "Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” What follows is the essential background of all humankind. The key to understanding ourselves and our human world is that because of Adam’s real existence, all humans can share in the divine life of God, here and forever. This is our inherent goal.

 

[simpleas]

While it was fun doing the tongue in cheek post 111, the serious issue of Adam’s human
nature pre-Fall and post-Fall remains. The need for food as the main reason for the reality of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is more realistic than it appears. The reality of the tree and the reality of Adam go hand in hand. If Adam is just a symbol, he would not need nourishment.

The issue of knowledge pre-Fall and post-Fall is popular in a variety of forums. Yet, I do not recall if anyone has actually explained how a real tree can physically implant knowledge in human brain cells by using the digestive process.

If Adam depends on real food provided by a garden, then Adam is logically real.

On the other hand, it is the significance of the tree which can make it both real and symbolic at the same time.

What say you?

Thanks for providing those links. I’ve been glued for the past 1/2 hour reading :

hprweb.com/2014/07/the-problem-with-a-personal-relationship-with-jesus/#comment-156691

Not sure about the tree being a reality, we only can read what the author must have been thinking was the easiest way to describe how man must have been in relationship with God at the beginning of creation, and that he must have lost this relationship, and that is why man can be sinful. If he was writting from age old past down stories about the first parents, how much of the story would have been altered along the way. Man didn’t always read and write, so word of mouth can’t always be trusted. I wonder did he write several versions of how A&E gained knowledge of Good and Evil. The tree one being the most easiest to understand.