Did they really eat the apple?

[grannymh]

So you yourself have determined that they are destined for heaven? There is nothing whatsoever either directly or indirectly that after living for some time in Eden they will be taken to heaven.More over why they require a heaven and what is the advantage of leaving Eden for heaven? Nothing !In Eden they were under the direct presence ,care and supervision of God.Plus they could do so many interesting things in Eden which may not be possible in heaven.Your idea falls flat.

“and what is the advantage of leaving Eden for heaven? Nothing!”

“Plus they could do so many interesting things in Eden which may not be possible in heaven. Your idea falls flat.”

– Very interesting non-Catholic quotes from post 83.



“so many interesting things” – Reminds me of when I was a child and had the idea that heaven was a place where I could have all the ice cream cones I wanted.

 

[goout]

But God did not tell them they could not trust others–they would not know that. He did not give them enough information.
Therefore: misguided.

.

Because God is information?

It seems you do believe in a god then…
very interesting.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t see pride on their parts, not one bit–and I’m not the only one.

But really. What good is this so-called “Free Will” that a God so kindly bestows…if innocently eating a fruit damns all of humankind forever?

That doesn’t sound like Free Will at all.

And the punishment sure doesn’t fit the crime. A scolding, perhaps. And then they could have learned from their mistake without all of humankind having to pay the price for a very small indiscretion.

.

May I respectfully ask that one actually reads the key actions which are described in the first three chapters of Genesis. These actions depend on the existence of God as Creator.

First question to be considered. Does the God described in the first three chapters of Genesis have the power to create an earthy species whose nature is both material and spiritual? The author, by his observance, wrote yes in Genesis 1: 27. Some current humans post as if the answer is not important.

Second question. What is the relationship between the Creator and the human creature? Apparently, that description has been discarded in some geographic areas. Nonetheless, a bit of common sense, even checking out the Greek and Roman gods and the evidence that humans have a sense of the super-natural, should provide a clear answer.

Is there any point in describing the “Genesis” description of free will in Genesis 2: 15-17 if no one here actually studies what the author is saying?

This is the Sacred Scripture Forum.

There is no point in my continuing if there is no one willing to delve into Sacred Scripture.

 

[joseie]

Post 90 above.Is there any connection between what you have written and what you have quoted?

 

[grannymh]

Post 90 above.Is there any connection between what you have written and what you have quoted?

Yes.

I used Genesis 1:27 as evidence that God exists. Therefore, I can write that the Divine God created human nature. The second Scripture reference is Genesis 2:15-17 which is evidence that humans exist; but they are not divine. Therefore, I can write that it is necessary to understand the relationship between God and man which automatically includes free will. Intellective free will is what enables humans to seek a relationship with their Creator.

In Genesis 2:15-17, it is obvious that Adam is presented with a free will choice between an active life in God’s friendship relationship or a non-relationship which is accurately described as a “death”. Therefore, the actual Original Sin is Adam scorning God by his disobedience. Please note that the reasons Adam chose himself over God can be many. The important point is that “reasons” cannot deny his fully-complete human nature.

God, being a loving God, is demonstrated in Genesis 1: 27. Adam turning away from God is demonstrated in Genesis 3: 9.

Link to Bible
usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/index.cfm

 

[Vico]

I don’t see pride on their parts, not one bit–and I’m not the only one.

But really. What good is this so-called “Free Will” that a God so kindly bestows…if innocently eating a fruit damns all of humankind forever?

That doesn’t sound like Free Will at all.

And the punishment sure doesn’t fit the crime. A scolding, perhaps. And then they could have learned from their mistake without all of humankind having to pay the price for a very small indiscretion.

.

With free-will choice comes the capability of love.

By the eating of the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve became mortal, of course we inherit that.

It does not matter what the specific act of disobedience was. What was told to Adam?
Gen 2 16 And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: 17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. for in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.
And Eve?
Gen 3 2 And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; …
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote about it in Summa Theologica:
Second Part of the Second Part Question 163. The first man’s sin Article 1. Whether pride was the first man’s first sin?

Objection 1. It would seem that pride was not the first man’s first sin. For the Apostle says (Romans 5:19) that “by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners.” Now the first man’s first sin is the one by which all men were made sinners in the point of original sin. Therefore disobedience, and not pride, was the first man’s first sin.

On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 10:15): “Pride is the beginning of all sin.” Now man’s first sin is the beginning of all sin, according to Romans 5:12, “By one man sin entered into this world.” Therefore man’s first sin was pride.

Reply to Objection 1. Man’s disobedience to the Divine command was not willed by man for his own sake, for this could not happen unless one presuppose inordinateness in his will. It remains therefore that he willed it for the sake of something else. Now the first thing he coveted inordinately was his own excellence; and consequently his disobedience was the result of his pride. This agrees with the statement of Augustine, who says (Ad Oros [Dial. QQ. lxv, qu. 4) that “man puffed up with pride obeyed the serpent’s prompting, and scorned God’s commands.”

newadvent.org/summa/3163.htm

 

[truetofaith]

I don’t see pride on their parts, not one bit–and I’m not the only one.

But really. What good is this so-called “Free Will” that a God so kindly bestows…if innocently eating a fruit damns all of humankind forever?

That doesn’t sound like Free Will at all.

And the punishment sure doesn’t fit the crime. A scolding, perhaps. And then they could have learned from their mistake without all of humankind having to pay the price for a very small indiscretion.

.

A & E didn’t “innocently” eat a fruit. God commanded them not to touch the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge lest they shall die.
They knew the consequence…the snake deceived them.

 

[Richca]

What was the real historical event?

What God has chosen to reveal concerning the origins of the human race, the first couple, the command he gave them, and Adam and Eve’s disobedience, is set down by the inspired sacred writer in Genesis, and beyond this we cannot go. The only knowledge we have and which God was pleased to reveal concerning the point in question is what the sacred writer has set down in scripture. The whole biblical narrative concerning the point in question concerns profound truths and mysteries. We must keep in mind here we are dealing with the inspired word of God and divine revelation.

There is nothing preventing anyone or any catholic from believing in the literal interpretation of the biblical narrative of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden or paradise. Such a person would be in good company here. Probably most of the Israelites before Jesus, the jews at the time of Jesus, the Apostles, and many fathers, doctors, and saints of the Church believed in the literal interpretation of the garden of Eden episode.

It is not against the catholic faith, the teaching of the Church, sound reason, any certainty from science, nor against the literal text itself of Scripture to believe in the literal interpretation of Adam and Eve in the garden of paradise and what follows and such is the interpretation I follow. There are at least some truths involved here that the Church tells us are a matter of faith and that requires our assent; it’s a matter of divine revelation. Are there solely metaphorical elements involved here? Perhaps, though there is no certainty in this. (Some of the passages involved definitely have a spiritual meaning and sense but this does not entail that they don’t have a literal sense too. Scripture can have a multiplicity of senses). It may be possible that a catholic can hold the opinion that there may be some solely metaphorical elements concerning the point in question; which points exactly or which passages of Scripture involved I don’t think the Church has declared and which it may never declare. At the same time, though it may be possible for a catholic to hold to the opinion that there are some metaphorical elements involved, the truths underlying these so-called metaphorical elements must be held with catholic faith. For example, it may be possible for a catholic to hold that the command God gave to Adam and Eve to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is metaphorical. Not the command itself, but the image of the tree. That God gave Adam and Eve a command and that Adam and Eve disobeyed the command requires catholic faith; this is of divine revelation.

The fact of the matter is, is that no one can say with certainty from what has been revealed to us through the word of God, that God did not plant a garden in which he placed the first couple, Adam and Eve, or that there was not a real material tree called the Tree of Life or a real material tree called the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil (presumably a fruit tree of some kind) that God told our first parents not to eat of. Again, this whole narrative involves profound mysteries and truths.

For example, not a few fathers, doctors, and saints of the Church consider the Tree of Life as a figure of Christ. The phrase ‘tree of life’ appears in other passages of Scripture as well. In Deuteronomy 30:19, in giving the commandments from God to the Israelites Moses says “I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, a blessing and a curse”. This seems to be a hearkening back to Adam and Eve in the garden of paradise. In the midst of the garden (right before the very eyes of our first parents) was the Tree of Life and the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, i.e., life and death. At least some fathers and doctors of the Church see the manner of Christ’ death, namely, dying on the wood or tree of the cross as paying back what Adam and Eve took from a tree. In response to the question whether Christ should have suffered death on a cross, St Thomas Aquinas says:

"I answer that, It was most fitting that Christ should suffer the death of the cross… Secondly, because this kind of death was especially suitable in order to atone for the sin of our first parent, which was the plucking of the apple from the forbidden tree against God’s command. And so, to atone for that sin, it was fitting that Christ should suffer by being fastened to a tree, as if restoring what Adam had purloined; according to Psalm 68:5: “Then did I pay that which I took not away.” Hence Augustine says in a sermon on the Passion [Cf. Serm. ci De Tempore]: “Adam despised the command, plucking the apple from the tree: but all that Adam lost, Christ found upon the cross.”’ (Summa Theologica) We don’t need to take the mention about the apple literally here. Genesis does not mention what kind of fruit tree the forbidden tree was. Aquinas knows this very well. Augustine speculated that it was an apple tree but he doesn’t usually speculate without a reason and a scriptural reason at that.)

Things in the Old Testament that may be figures of realities in the New Testament or of Christ does not entail that these figures in the Old Testament were not real or not historical. On the contrary, I think we need to generally assume the historical reality of the figures if they are to be figures at all of New Testament realities. For example, the Passover supper before the Israelites left Egypt is a figure of the Eucharist and the passion of Christ. The passing through the Red Sea is a figure of baptism (St Paul in Corinthians I believe).

 

[Darryl_B]

Yes, at least if you accept the fossil record. I don’t recall what percentage increase it was during the so-called “big brain event.” But it seems to match up with the Garden of Eden story, at least to some extent.

Andre the Giant would have to be the largest brain I have ever seen among humans. Could he tell me the depths of the universe? Could he engage me in theology or philosophy? No. He could get in the Guiness Book of Records for consuming the most beer.

The scientism theory that brain mass is relative to intelligence has long been a joke. It is akin to phrenology. I accept a fossil record, I don’t accept the unscientific evaluation of it.

 

[Darryl_B]

I believe current thinking is that Adam and Eve did not literally eat the forbidden fruit, but was there some primeval act that caused original sin?

As others have said, it was not an apple. That is a Latin language result. Apple is “MEL” evil is “MAL”. Hence the fruit became an apple from the Latin word play.

Jesus Christ came to undo everything that went wrong. Eating in the beginning was the source of death. Partaking now of the Eucharist brings life. Jesus Christ, God, who was there in the beginning, is not going to undo the problem with an unrelated solution.

 

[Darryl_B]

There is no point in my continuing if there is no one willing to delve into Sacred Scripture.

No please continue. With the knowledge of good comes the knowledge of evil, and history has shown man has generally chosen evil against. “Oops sorry my bad” is not a very solid answer. Simpsons episode maybe, not real life. I will not base my theology on an episode of the Simpsons as some have done (nor the movie The Godfather for that matter).

 

[goout]

There is nothing preventing anyone or any catholic from believing in the literal interpretation of the biblical narrative of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden or paradise. Such a person would be in good company here. Probably most of the Israelites before Jesus, the jews at the time of Jesus, the Apostles, and many fathers, doctors, and saints of the Church believed in the literal interpretation of the garden of Eden episode.

Certainly a catholic is free to interpret scripture in literalist fashion.

I don’t have time to go fully into this, but thorough investigation into cultures and scripture interpretation, indicates that literalist interpretations are a relatively modern phenomenon.
By literalism, we don’t mean that every word in the literature is not important, we mean fundamentalist literalism, which demands scientific and historical rigidity from texts that were never intended that way.

The ancient Jewish culture certainly never intended literalism.
Pope Benedict launched on literalist fundamentalism here:
w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html

The fundamentalist interpretation of sacred Scripture

1. The attention we have been paying to different aspects of the theme of biblical hermeneutics now enables us to consider a subject which came up a number of times during the Synod: that of the fundamentalist interpretation of sacred Scripture.[145] The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, has laid down some important guidelines. Here I would like especially to deal with approaches which fail to respect the authenticity of the sacred text, but promote subjective and arbitrary interpretations. The “literalism” championed by the fundamentalist approach actually represents a betrayal of both the literal and the spiritual sense, and opens the way to various forms of manipulation, as, for example, by disseminating anti-ecclesial interpretations of the Scriptures. “The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human … for this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods”.[146] Christianity, on the other hand, perceives in the words the Word himself, the Logos who displays his mystery through this complexity and the reality of human history.[147] The true response to a fundamentalist approach is “the faith-filled interpretation of sacred Scripture”. This manner of interpretation, “practised from antiquity within the Church’s Tradition, seeks saving truth for the life of the individual Christian and for the Church. It recognizes the historical value of the biblical tradition. Precisely because of the tradition’s value as an historical witness, this reading seeks to discover the living meaning of the sacred Scriptures for the lives of believers today”,[148] while not ignoring the human mediation of the inspired text and its literary genres.

It’s a big topic.

 

[truetofaith]

The problem is not with the apple in the tree …but with the pair on the ground.

 

[simpleas]

I believe current thinking is that Adam and Eve did not literally eat the forbidden fruit, but was there some primeval act that caused original sin?

Since I started to look into the origins of the story of the fall, I too wondered about this question. I haven’t found a satisfactory Catholic answer, for me. Recently I came across the Nag Hammadi Library, which is Gnostic. In these scriptures is an account of creation.
It’s a long read, one which I will need to read again as some of it I couldn’t understand, but some was familiar and in parts made much more sense as an explanation to how we can understand ourselves as spiritual beings.

I’ve pulled out a few lines should you not want to read it all, but it does make for fascinating reading.

gnosis.org/naghamm/origin.html

Then, when the seven rulers came, they saw him and were greatly disturbed. They went up to him and seized him. And he (viz., the chief ruler) said to the breath within him, “Who are you? And whence did you come hither?” It answered and said, “I have come from the force of the man for the destruction of your work.” When they heard, they glorified him, since he gave them respite from the fear and the anxiety in which they found themselves. Then they called that day “Rest”, in as much as they had rested from toil. And when they saw that Adam could stand up, they were glad, and they took him and put him in Paradise. And they withdrew up to their heavens.

After the day of rest, Sophia sent her daughter Zoe, being called Eve, as an instructor, in order that she might make Adam, who had no soul, arise, so that those whom he should engender might become containers of light. When Eve saw her male counterpart prostrate, she had pity upon him, and she said, “Adam! Become alive! Arise upon the earth!” Immediately her word became accomplished fact. For Adam, having arisen, suddenly opened his eyes. When he saw her, he said, “You shall be called ‘Mother of the Living’. For it is you who have given me life.”

Now the first Adam, (Adam) of Light, is spirit-endowed and appeared on the first day. The second Adam is soul-endowed and appeared on the sixth day, which is called Aphrodite. The third Adam is a creature of the earth, that is, the man of the law, and he appeared on the eighth day …] the tranquility of poverty, which is called “The Day of the Sun” (Sunday). And the progeny of the earthly Adam became numerous and was completed, and produced within itself every kind of scientific information of the soul-endowed Adam. But all were in ignorance.

Next, let me say that once the rulers had seen him and the female creature who was with him erring ignorantly like beasts, they were very glad. When they learned that the immortal man was not going to neglect them, rather that they would even have to fear the female creature that had turned into a tree, they were disturbed, and said, “Perhaps this is the true man - this being who has brought a fog upon us and has taught us that she who was soiled is like him - and so we shall be conquered!”

Then the seven of them together laid plans. They came up to Adam and Eve timidly: they said to him, “The fruit of all the trees created for you in Paradise shall be eaten; but as for the tree of knowledge, control yourselves and do not eat from it. If you eat, you will die.” Having imparted great fear to them, they withdrew up to their authorities.

Then came the wisest of all creatures, who was called Beast. And when he saw the likeness of their mother Eve he said to her, “What did God say to you? Was it ‘Do not eat from the tree of knowledge’?” She said, “He said not only, ‘Do not eat from it’, but, ‘Do not touch it, lest you die.’” He said to her, “Do not be afraid. In death you shall not die. For he knows that when you eat from it, your intellect will become sober and you will come to be like gods, recognizing the difference that obtains between evil men and good ones. Indeed, it was in jealousy that he said this to you, so that you would not eat from it.”

Now Eve had confidence in the words of the instructor. She gazed at the tree and saw that it was beautiful and appetizing, and liked it; she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she gave some also to her husband, and he too ate it. Then their intellect became open. For when they had eaten, the light of knowledge had shone upon them. When they clothed themselves with shame, they knew that they were naked of knowledge. When they became sober, they saw that they were naked and became enamored of one another. When they saw that the ones who had modelled them had the form of beasts, they loathed them: they were very aware.

Then when the rulers knew that they had broken their commandments, they entered Paradise and came to Adam and Eve with earthquake and great threatening, to see the effect of the aid. Then Adam and Eve trembled greatly and hid under the trees in Paradise. Then the rulers did not know where they were and said, “Adam, where are you?” He said, “I am here, for through fear of you I hid, being ashamed.” And they said to him ignorantly, “Who told you about the shame with which you clothed yourself? - unless you have eaten from that tree!” He said, “The woman whom you gave me - it is she that gave to me and I ate.” Then they said to the latter, “What is this that you have done?” She answered and said, “It is the instructor who urged me on, and I ate.”

Then the rulers came up to the instructor. Their eyes became misty because of him, and they could not do anything to him. They cursed him, since they were powerless. Afterwards, they came up to the woman and cursed her and her offspring. After the woman, they cursed Adam, and the land because of him, and the crops; and all things they had created, they cursed. They have no blessing. Good cannot result from evil.

 

[goout]

That’s the point.
They did not know the consequences.

First of all, God only told them they would die…

Please help us find the continuity of thought above.

he did not tell them that the consequences would be the fall of all of humanity.

Human beings live in a community of life and love. We were created to live in a perfect community of life and love. God create human beings to know one another.
The good of one is the good of all, the harm of one is the harm of all. If you don’t accept that premise, then none of this can make sense, and we are trapped in the slavery of self.
So they knew one another.
When God tells them “you will die”, that’s all they need to know in regards to harming each other. That’s all we need to know. To harm one, or to harm our selves, harms all.
Mankind was not created in a state of ignorance, we chose ignorance.

Second, as you say, the snake deceived them…and told them of *new *consequences–that they would be wise people who could tell the difference between good and evil if they ate the fruit. These are good consequences.

Third…they were trusting, so they believed the snake.

And they ate the fruit thinking they were doing a good thing.

If they can’t know the snake is evil…how are they to know not to trust him? Why didn’t God warn them that bad entities would try to fool them?

They were innocent.

They did not know evil. Why would God tell them about evil?
This is the risk of allowing people to be free. Totalitarians reject this notion, preferring to manage freedom and consequences, and the result, oddly enough, is slavery.

God is not a dictator, and he is not an overprotective parent (which is the same thing as a dictator, wrapped in a fuzzy blanket).

 

[grannymh]

This is the point I was making when I said they were misguided by God. They were not told that the rest of humanity would be punished.

" This is the point I was making when I said they were misguided by God. They were not told that the rest of humanity would be punished."

This is a good example as to why it is important to connect the dots in the first three chapters of Genesis. It is why it is important to reread each verse in each chapter.

Genesis, chapter 1

27
God created mankind in his image;
in the image of God he created them;
male and female* he created them.
28
God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.* Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that crawl on the earth.
​

Sidebar: Every time I read living things that crawl on the earth, I wonder if those things are the ancestors to the centipedes which occasionally visit my house.

Genesis 1: 27 can lead to a variety of applications. Because Eve and Adam are in the image (not the same as) of the Pure Spirit Creator they have a rational spiritual soul which gives them the capability to understand good and evil. Some folks will call this capability “conscience.” Others may say that it is “natural law.” Regardless, Adam could figure out the difference between obeying his God or not.

In Genesis 1: 28, God specifically tells Eve and Adam that eventually they will fill the earth with their descendants. Too often, we focus on that and consequently miss the part where God first blesses them. This blessing is one of the meanings to Genesis 1: 27 where it is evident that Eve and Adam are a new different creation. Notice the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26-27 The result is that they understand that the word “multiply” means that they will transmit their nature to their descendants. Thus, Adam knew that his obedience or disobedience would affect humanity’s relationship with their Divine Creator. When Adam freely shattered his relationship with his Creator, his descendants would then be deprived of [Adam’s] State of Original Holiness and Justice. (CCC 404-405)

 

[goout]

Aside from religious arguments…
When a relationship is formed, the two beloveds are in communion with one another. They desire each other, for the sake of the other, not for the sake of merely preserving themselves or hoarding their own goods.
You do not base a relationship on the avoidance of harm. A relationship is not an insurance policy against being hurt or deprived.
When a person knows a particular act is harmful, he knows that act will also hurt his beloved, because his beloved wills his good.

The chosen act destroys the communion they have with one another. Now the relationship is lacking, there is a void. It’s almost as if the relationship is a third person.
Both (all) are harmed by this void in the relationship (evil is a void or lack in the good).
This should be intuitive aside from religious arguments or scriptural arguments.

 

[Vico]

Well…this is a *good *thing, do you agree? We like to be mortal and alive.

This is the point I was making when I said they were misguided by God. They were not told that the rest of humanity would be punished. They were merely told they shouldn’t eat it because it would kill them. But then, they were told it was good to eat. So that was new information for them.
Their orders and the information they were given was vague and incomplete. Had they known more, they may have not eaten it. Had they not been innocent and trusting, they would have not listened to the snake.
They were put in a situation that would most likely doom them, and anyone.

One of them says it was pride, one of them says it was disobedience.
It looks like neither to me.
I’ve re-read it over and over, and they seem trusting and misguided–as if they were trying to make the best decision with the information they had and they did not know they could be lied to.

I don’t think they were “coveting their own excellence”.
According to the scripture about it, the snake told Eve it would make her wise…and help her know the difference between good and evil:

God knows that when you eat fruit from that tree, you will know things you have never known before. Like God, you will be able to tell the difference between good and evil.”
6 The woman saw that the tree’s fruit was good to eat and pleasing to look at. She also saw that it would make a person wise.

Are these not good qualities?
To be wise and to know the difference between good and evil?
Isn’t a big part of the religious teachings of Christianity to try to make wise decisions and detect the difference between good and evil?
These would, of course, seem to be admirable qualities to Eve–as they do to all of us. Instead of thinking she was “coveting her own excellence” IMO she was just trying to be a better person.

Ironically…had God already made Eve wise and able to see the difference between good and evil, she would have known the snake was evil and would not have trusted it.

.

God did not say it was good to eat of the fruit of that tree, but not to, so that was not mis-guidance but good guidance.

Covet is “to yearn to possess or have”. The reason it was own excellence was to be like God, going against what was commanded to achieve his own excellence.

Eve, coveting being like God too, that is her own excellence.

 

[truetofaith]

That’s the point.
They did not know the consequences.

First of all, God only told them they would die…he did not tell them that the consequences would be the fall of all of humanity.
That little bit of information would have been helpful.

Second, as you say, the snake deceived them…and told them of *new *consequences–that they would be wise people who could tell the difference between good and evil if they ate the fruit. These are good consequences.

Third…they were trusting, so they believed the snake.

And they ate the fruit thinking they were doing a good thing.

If they can’t know the snake is evil…how are they to know not to trust him? Why didn’t God warn them that bad entities would try to fool them?

They were innocent.

.

I always learned that the Catholic Church taught that Adam & Eve knew that whatever they did would affect all of humanity.

 

[fhansen]

That’s the point.
They did not know the consequences.

First of all, God only told them they would die…he did not tell them that the consequences would be the fall of all of humanity.
That little bit of information would have been helpful.

Second, as you say, the snake deceived them…and told them of *new *consequences–that they would be wise people who could tell the difference between good and evil if they ate the fruit. These are good consequences.

Third…they were trusting, so they believed the snake.

And they ate the fruit thinking they were doing a good thing.

If they can’t know the snake is evil…how are they to know not to trust him? Why didn’t God warn them that bad entities would try to fool them?

They were innocent.

.

To look at this story in its broadest and most general terms, it tells us that 1) God exists and is the creator of all, 2) God is worthy to be obeyed as no other voice in the universe is and, 3) to the extent that creation-man-fails to listen to and heed God, we break communion with Truth/Reality/The Universal Logos and we can only lose while injustice and disharmony and disorder will reign within us and without to one degree or another.