Interpreting Genesis - did Eve really sin?

[CosmicMuse]

I was discussing Genesis with a friend, and I came across a dilemma I had never encountered before. I’ve really been struggling to overcome it.
My problem is this - Adam and Eve were created pure, sinless and without knowledge of Good and Evil. Therefore, when Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, she was entirely unaware that she was sinning (no ‘mens rea’), and therefore couldn’t have understood the importance of God’s command to not to eat the fruit (i.e. how could she know it was bad/a sin to disobey god?).

The thing is, the Catholic Church admits that those who are unaware that they are sinning are legitimately free from blame (infallibly ignorant), and the common understanding of natural law (granted by eating from the tree of knowledge) which makes sins such as murder irredeemable, simply did not exist at this time. I honestly can’t think of one sin which occurs without the wilful knowledge of the person committing it (apart from our inherited, original sin - and in light of this, I don’t see how it makes sense).

So, how could Eve sin if she was completely unaware that what she was doing was bad? Isn’t a guilty conscience a requirement for sin? Your help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[ricmat]

I was discussing Genesis with a friend, and I came across a dilemma I had never encountered before. I’ve really been struggling to overcome it.
My problem is this - Adam and Eve were created pure, sinless and without knowledge of Good and Evil. Therefore, when Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, she was entirely unaware that she was sinning (no ‘mens rea’), and therefore couldn’t have understood the importance of God’s command to not to eat the fruit (i.e. how could she know it was bad/a sin to disobey god?).

The thing is, the Catholic Church admits that those who are unaware that they are sinning are legitimately free from blame (infallibly ignorant), and the common understanding of natural law (granted by eating from the tree of knowledge) which makes sins such as murder irredeemable, simply did not exist at this time. I honestly can’t think of one sin which occurs without the wilful knowledge of the person committing it (apart from our inherited, original sin - and in light of this, I don’t see how it makes sense).

So, how could Eve sin if she was completely unaware that what she was doing was bad? Isn’t a guilty conscience a requirement for sin? Your help would be greatly appreciated.

Adam and Eve disobeyed God. By definition, that’s a sin.

They had no concept of evil, because God created everything “good.” There was no evil available to experience. Only by disobeying God is it possible for evil to exist.

 

[CosmicMuse]

Adam and Eve disobeyed God. By definition, that’s a sin.

They had no concept of evil, because God created everything “good.” There was no evil available to experience. Only by disobeying God is it possible for evil to exist.

You are correct, it is an objectively sinful action, but knowledge of the sin is necessary for someone ‘to sin’. But Adam and Eve had no more comprehension of what is right and wrong than animals. Please forgive the metaphor, but when you order your dog not to maul strangers, he does it not because he realises its a sin to disobey you, but because he wants to please you/receive a treat, etc. Following on from this metaphor, one couldn’t call a dog who mauls a stranger and thus disobeys his master a sinner, simply because he doesn’t realise what he’s doing.

And, as stated, the Catholic Church recognises this - its why uncontacted peoples and babies can go to heaven, as long as they don’t contravene natural law (which, as I said, was not understood by Adam and Eve).

 

[Rence]

Adam and Eve disobeyed God. By definition, that’s a sin.

They had no concept of evil, because God created everything “good.” There was no evil available to experience. Only by disobeying God is it possible for evil to exist.

But, Satan’s temptation is evil, therefore it was available for Eve to experience, and in all fairness (from a human’s perspective) without any preparation from God. Adam and Eve were not prepared for Satan’s temptation. The children we send to school have more preparation than Adam and Eve had…

 

[LilyM]

But, Satan’s temptation is evil, therefore it was available for Eve to experience, and in all fairness (from a human’s perspective) without any preparation from God. Adam and Eve were not prepared for Satan’s temptation. The children we send to school have more preparation than Adam and Eve had…

You think God was either incapable of preparing Adam and Eve properly or unwilling to do so? Of course He was not only willing and able but DID prepare them well enough - by telling them what the consequence would be among other things - that they were culpable for what they did. Perfect knowledge is not what is required for guilt, just sufficient knowledge.

 

[ricmat]

You are correct, it is an objectively sinful action, but knowledge of the sin is necessary for someone ‘to sin’. But Adam and Eve had no more comprehension of what is right and wrong than animals.

They understood God’s command not to eat the fruit. Eating the fruit was wrong only because God said not to do it.

And, as stated, the Catholic Church recognises this - its why uncontacted peoples and babies can go to heaven, as long as they don’t contravene natural law (which, as I said, was not understood by Adam and Eve).

Whether or not Adam and Eve understood natural law is irrelevant. They understood God’s direct command and disobeyed anyway.

But yes, for those of us who do have a conscience (as in natural law) and do not contravene it can go to heaven.

 

[CosmicMuse]

You think God was either incapable of preparing Adam and Eve properly or unwilling to do so? Of course He was not only willing and able but DID prepare them well enough - by telling them what the consequence would be among other things - that they were culpable for what they did. Perfect knowledge is not what is required for guilt, just sufficient knowledge.

Hmm…I’ve thought a while on this. Genesis 2:17 does say:
'But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

But nonetheless, the fact that they understood the consequences does not necessarily mean that they knew what they were doing, and therefore knew that they were sinning. An animal can understand whether or not the consequences are bad (not beneficial), without knowing whether the action is bad (morally corrupt/a sin). Not only did they not have sufficient knowledge of sin, they had no knowledge of it at all…hence I cannot understand how they can be culpable.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I was discussing Genesis with a friend, and I came across a dilemma I had never encountered before. I’ve really been struggling to overcome it.
My problem is this - Adam and Eve were created pure, sinless and without knowledge of Good and Evil. Therefore, when Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, she was entirely unaware that she was sinning (no ‘mens rea’), and therefore couldn’t have understood the importance of God’s command to not to eat the fruit (i.e. how could she know it was bad/a sin to disobey god?).

The thing is, the Catholic Church admits that those who are unaware that they are sinning are legitimately free from blame (infallibly ignorant), and the common understanding of natural law (granted by eating from the tree of knowledge) which makes sins such as murder irredeemable, simply did not exist at this time. I honestly can’t think of one sin which occurs without the wilful knowledge of the person committing it (apart from our inherited, original sin - and in light of this, I don’t see how it makes sense).

So, how could Eve sin if she was completely unaware that what she was doing was bad? Isn’t a guilty conscience a requirement for sin? Your help would be greatly appreciated.

As for today’s interpretation of the Bible, Adam and Eve are “Geschichten”, tales with an morale, the hebrews call it “midrash”, like the parables of Jesus Christ.

 

[ricmat]

But nonetheless, the fact that they understood the consequences does not necessarily mean that they knew what they were doing, and therefore knew that they were sinning. An animal can understand whether or not the consequences are bad (not beneficial), without knowing whether the action is bad (morally corrupt/a sin). Not only did they not have sufficient knowledge of sin, they had no knowledge of it at all…hence I cannot understand how they can be culpable.

You are trying to separate God’s commands from the definition of sin. “Sin” does not exist independently of God. They walked with God, they talked with God, they had direct involvement with God.

1. They knew that God said “Don’t do it.”
2. Disobedience of God is, by definition, a sin. They might not have had that word (sin) at their disposal. But they knew and understood what God said not to do. There was only one defined sin at the time (“Don’t eat of the tree…”).
3. So yes, they were culpable. They didn’t “accidentally” disobey God.

 

[CosmicMuse]

As for today’s interpretation of the Bible, Adam and Eve are “Geschichten”, tales with an morale, the hebrews call it “midrash”, like the parables of Jesus Christ.

Hmm, yes I know, and I know that the Catholic Church is happy to take Genesis as a metaphor or symbolic tale. I guess I just don’t understand how…I know the Catholic Church firmly believes that all of humanity is descended from two people, but I’m not sure how this ties in. Nor do I know how this story can be separated from the basic framework, which is:

1. People are pure/sinless.
2. People disobey God.
3. They learn of Good and Evil as a result.
4. Are punished for their disobedience.
5. Original sin is spread to all descendants.
   And of course, the Bible is undoubtedly correct in all spiritual matters. I’d love someone to give an alternate interpretation of Genesis?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

… but knowledge of the sin is necessary for someone 'to sin

The only knowledge that is required is the knowledge that the action is contrary to God’s will. Since God literally said “don’t do this,” they had that knowledge.

Knowledge is more complicated these days because few of us have direct conversations with God, and a lot of people are understandably confused about what’s actually true. But in the garden it was pretty simple.

 

[CosmicMuse]

You are trying to separate God’s commands from the definition of sin. “Sin” does not exist independently of God. They walked with God, they talked with God, they had direct involvement with God.

1. They knew that God said “Don’t do it.”
2. Disobedience of God is, by definition, a sin. They might not have had that word (sin) at their disposal. But they knew and understood what God said not to do. There was only one defined sin at the time (“Don’t eat of the tree…”).
3. So yes, they were culpable. They didn’t “accidentally” disobey God.

This question isn’t about definitions. The question is, did they know that disobeying God was morally incorrect/a sin (No), and does this ignorance mean that they cannot be culpable for their actions?
Essentially I am asking, can someone be guilty of sin without knowledge of their sin (or in Adam and Eve’s case, Morality at all?) The Church accepts the fact that people who sin without knowledge of their actions are not guilty of sin - they do not have to confess, or repent. Guilty is the key word here. I cannot see how this is different.

 

[karebear92]

Hmm…I’ve thought a while on this. Genesis 2:17 does say:
'But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

But nonetheless, the fact that they understood the consequences does not necessarily mean that they knew what they were doing, and therefore knew that they were sinning. An animal can understand whether or not the consequences are bad (not beneficial), without knowing whether the action is bad (morally corrupt/a sin). Not only did they not have sufficient knowledge of sin, they had no knowledge of it at all…hence I cannot understand how they can be culpable.

What is a sin? It is an act against what God commands. They did not need to know what good and evil was. All that they needed to know was what God commanded. Do you even know why all sins are morally wrong? I don’t, but because God commanded me not to do them I mustn’t do them.To be culpable, all I need to know that God commanded me not to do them. I do not have to know the reason why.

 

[ricmat]

Hmm, yes I know, and I know that the Catholic Church is happy to take Genesis as a metaphor or symbolic tale. I guess I just don’t understand how…I know the Catholic Church firmly believes that all of humanity is descended from two people, but I’m not sure how this ties in. Nor do I know how this story can be separated from the basic framework, which is:

1. People are pure/sinless.

We inherited concupiscence from Adam and Eve. So we have a built-in tendency to sin.

1. People disobey God.

We choose to disobey God.

1. They learn of Good and Evil as a result.

No, we know good and evil already (natural law). We learn the consequences, if that’s what you mean.

1. Are punished for their disobedience.

Yup.

1. Original sin is spread to all descendants.

Yes.

And of course, the Bible is undoubtedly correct in all spiritual matters. I’d love someone to give an alternate interpretation of Genesis?

But all is not hopeless, if that’s what you’re getting at. I’d say that the thing you missed in your analysis above is the importance of God’s mercy. We cannot begin to be holy without God’s help. And we can’t go to heaven unless we are holy. Both of these items follow from the fact that we are NOT God, we are creatures that he created, and therefore less than God.

God knows we will sin (and we do sin), but we are also offered God’s mercy, the mechanism being “repentance.”

Repentance can be though of as the following:

1. Admit that you sinned.
2. Be sorry that you sinned - to the point deciding that you absolutely will not do it again.
3. Beg, beg, beg for forgiveness from God, and those we hurt.
4. Make restitution to the extent possible for those who have been hurt by your sins.

As an aside, the reason that Pride is so dangerous is that it prevents many of us from accomplishing any or all of the above 4 items. We put ourselves above God (or deny the necessity of God) - and therefore, define that what we did was not actually a sin. Or we know it’s a sin but we aren’r sorry for it, and / or plan to do it again. Or we refuse to beg for forgiveness. Or we refuse to make restitution.

One of Adam’s sins, in the Genesis account, is that his spouse was threatened by a dragon. And he sat there and did nothing. Perhaps he was frightened. Perhaps he didn’t know how to deal with a dragon. He did nothing. But he could have called on God for help, and he didn’t. That is also our common failing. We fail to ask God for help (out of Pride, perhaps).

 

[ricmat]

This question isn’t about definitions. The question is, did they know that disobeying God was morally incorrect/a sin (No), and does this ignorance mean that they cannot be culpable for their actions?

“Sin” has no meaning outside of God’s commands. Immorality has no meaning outside of God’s commands. All sin somehow involves disobeying God’s commands. Did they know they should obey God? Yes.

 

[PattiDay]

This question isn’t about definitions. The question is, did they know that disobeying God was morally incorrect/a sin (No), and does this ignorance mean that they cannot be culpable for their actions?

God was very specific in telling Adam and Eve that they might eat of everything in the garden, except that they might not eat of the certain tree. He told them that the consequence of eating of the tree is death. So, yes, they did know the commandment, and they did know the result would be death. Eve even explained this commandment and consequence to the serpent when he came to tempt her.

Essentially I am asking, can someone be guilty of sin without knowledge of their sin (or in Adam and Eve’s case, Morality at all?) The Church accepts the fact that people who sin without knowledge of their actions are not guilty of sin - they do not have to confess, or repent. Guilty is the key word here. I cannot see how this is different.

They were guilty of sin because in their free will, they chose to disobey that one commandment. They are like us. We have free will. We have been told what we may not do. If we disobey and do it anyway, we have sinned. We cannot thereafter say that it wasn’t really sin because we didn’t understand in detail all the ramifications of what was meant by death .

 

[CosmicMuse]

The only knowledge that is required is the knowledge that the action is contrary to God’s will. Since God literally said “don’t do this,” they had that knowledge.

Knowledge is more complicated these days because few of us have direct conversations with God, and a lot of people are understandably confused about what’s actually true. But in the garden it was pretty simple.

Hmmmmm…this is food for thought - the fact that they did speak with God could change things. If, essentially, all there is to sin is the knowledge that you are disobeying God, as opposed to the knowledge that you are doing something bad. But is that all there is to sin?

This would mean that everything favoured by God is good, and what he forbids is evil, instead of the other way around - God favours intrinsically good things and forbids evil things. So all one would need to know to sin is knowledge of God’s will, as opposed to what is good and evil, all our ethical frameworks do is inform us of God’s will.

But this brings up all sorts of problems…what is the knowledge of what is Good and Bad - is it understanding some sort of objective morality, or not? Are God’s judgements arbitrary? Isn’t it logical that Eve would disobey at some time, considering the fact that she didnt have the reason to make an informed judgement? Is it just for God to condemn people who don’t know why they are being punished, apart from the fact God decreed it? Is it just for him to tempt them?

The problem is, then, how could Eve know how to avoid sin, without reason to guide her? The only way she could make judgements was by choosing the course of action which was most beneficial for her, and she was literally deceived by the Serpent into believing that not following God would be better for her. How could she avoid this judgement, if she didn’t have the knowledge of Good or Bad to tell her what to do?
I suppose I understand why it is can be sin now, but I don’t see how such sin can be anything short of inevitable.

 

[CosmicMuse]

But all is not hopeless, if that’s what you’re getting at. I’d say that the thing you missed in your analysis above is the importance of God’s mercy. We cannot begin to be holy without God’s help. And we can’t go to heaven unless we are holy. Both of these items follow from the fact that we are NOT God, we are creatures that he created, and therefore less than God.

God knows we will sin (and we do sin), but we are also offered God’s mercy, the mechanism being “repentance.”

Repentance can be though of as the following:

1. Admit that you sinned.
2. Be sorry that you sinned - to the point deciding that you absolutely will not do it again.
3. Beg, beg, beg for forgiveness from God, and those we hurt.
4. Make restitution to the extent possible for those who have been hurt by your sins.

As an aside, the reason that Pride is so dangerous is that it prevents many of us from accomplishing any or all of the above 4 items. We put ourselves above God (or deny the necessity of God) - and therefore, define that what we did was not actually a sin. Or we know it’s a sin but we aren’r sorry for it, and / or plan to do it again. Or we refuse to beg for forgiveness. Or we refuse to make restitution.

One of Adam’s sins, in the Genesis account, is that his spouse was threatened by a dragon. And he sat there and did nothing. Perhaps he was frightened. Perhaps he didn’t know how to deal with a dragon. He did nothing. But he could have called on God for help, and he didn’t. That is also our common failing. We fail to ask God for help (out of Pride, perhaps).

Ricmat, what I meant with my 5 points was merely a brief summary of what happened in Genesis, knowledge of natural law/sin and the like came after the fall. Otherwise, I agree with you entirely =).

 

[CosmicMuse]

“Sin” has no meaning outside of God’s commands. Immorality has no meaning outside of God’s commands. All sin somehow involves disobeying God’s commands. Did they know they should obey God? Yes.

How did they know they ‘should’ do something is they didn’t know following him was Good? All they had was the knowledge of what was beneficial for them, as stated.

Btw, What worries me is that your quote in your signature seems entirely opposed to your belief that God is a dictator who acts for our own good, and is not justified by objective morality. I’ve always been of the opinion that God’s actions were justified by certain unalienable principles, I’m afraid.

 

[meltzerboy]

I was discussing Genesis with a friend, and I came across a dilemma I had never encountered before. I’ve really been struggling to overcome it.
My problem is this - Adam and Eve were created pure, sinless and without knowledge of Good and Evil. Therefore, when Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, she was entirely unaware that she was sinning (no ‘mens rea’), and therefore couldn’t have understood the importance of God’s command to not to eat the fruit (i.e. how could she know it was bad/a sin to disobey god?).

The thing is, the Catholic Church admits that those who are unaware that they are sinning are legitimately free from blame (infallibly ignorant), and the common understanding of natural law (granted by eating from the tree of knowledge) which makes sins such as murder irredeemable, simply did not exist at this time. I honestly can’t think of one sin which occurs without the wilful knowledge of the person committing it (apart from our inherited, original sin - and in light of this, I don’t see how it makes sense).

So, how could Eve sin if she was completely unaware that what she was doing was bad? Isn’t a guilty conscience a requirement for sin? Your help would be greatly appreciated.

The major Jewish interpretation regarding the sin committed by Adam and Eve is that they were both created WITHOUT an “evil inclination,” as purely spiritual beings. In fact, the only description of their physical nature was that they were naked, which would seem to suggest that their physical body was designed merely to house their spiritual nature. (Not all Jewish interpretations agree: some state that they WERE born with an “evil inclination,” but only on the spiritual level, not on the physical level.) The only evil that existed, therefore, was external to Adam and Eve, in the form of the tempter, Satan. Adam and Eve did not have any internal spiritual conflict yet between their desire to obey G-d and their desire to disobey. So, the first question–before whether or not they sinned–is, if they had NO evil inclination, how were they tempted by Satan in the first place? That is why some rabbis believe they must have had an evil inclination from birth, in order to not only have been tempted but to have given in to the temptation of Satan. Genesis states they are promised godlike powers if they eat of the Tree of Knowledge; but again, why would spiritual creatures who have no internal evil impulse want to rival G-d? (Judaism does not view Lucifer as rebelling against G-d: I’ve explained the Jewish perspective of Satan on other threads.) There are numerous explanations given for this, NONE of which I am totally satisfied with.