Looking for Adam

[grannymh]

Why remain in the mud of questions which need no answers in order to love our Creator God?

In other words, can we assume that every human chooses to love our loving Creator God even when there is the mud of unanswered why or why questions which could diminish or remove responsibility for Adam’s mortal sin.

Note: the why or why questions, if answered in a manner that Adam did not have enough knowledge to understand mortal sin before he sinned – is a basic implication or notation that Adam was dumb. Dumb because, as some, not all, people claim – Adam had to experience evil before he could know what it is.

The other side of that coin is this question – Is it possible for humans to turn away from a loving Creator God?

When we find the real Adam, we discover that it is possible for a living human to commit a real Mortal Sin which is basically turning away from a loving Creator God. This is known as rejecting God to the point that a human freely and deliberately chooses the State of Mortal Sin over the State of Sanctifying Grace, aka Adam’s original State of Original Holiness. Eating forbidden fruit is an example. (Genesis, chapters 2 & 3)

The goal of being free from the consequence of Mortal Sin is one of the motivations to get rid of Original Sin by denying the real existence of Adam. Perhaps it is time to face the facts of what is really happening with the denial of a real true first human being biblically known as Adam. If someone does not like the reality of Mortal Sin, then get rid of the evidence that it is possible for a human to choose Mortal Sin.

 

[fhansen]

In other words, can we assume that every human chooses to love our loving Creator God even when there is the mud of unanswered why or why questions which could diminish or remove responsibility for Adam’s mortal sin.

Note: the why or why questions, if answered in a manner that Adam did not have enough knowledge to understand mortal sin before he sinned – is a basic implication or notation that Adam was dumb. Dumb because, as some, not all, people claim – Adam had to experience evil before he could know what it is.

The other side of that coin is this question – Is it possible for humans to turn away from a loving Creator God?

When we find the real Adam, we discover that it is possible for a living human to commit a real Mortal Sin which is basically turning away from a loving Creator God. This is known as rejecting God to the point that a human freely and deliberately chooses the State of Mortal Sin over the State of Sanctifying Grace, aka Adam’s original State of Original Holiness. Eating forbidden fruit is an example. (Genesis, chapters 2 & 3)

The goal of being free from the consequence of Mortal Sin is one of the motivations to get rid of Original Sin by denying the real existence of Adam. Perhaps it is time to face the facts of what is really happening with the denial of a real true first human being biblically known as Adam. If someone does not like the reality of Mortal Sin, then get rid of the evidence that it is possible for a human to choose Mortal Sin.

Not a particularly enlightened perspective. Adam was dumb, and even the angels are dumb, compared to God, even as they can be supremely intelligent. Adam, Eve, and a number of angels failed in any case to recognize that very distinction, among others, that gulf between themselves and Him. God allowed man time to gain his senses and come to recognize that distinction. This occurs as we gain and grow in the knowledge of God. To know why Adam was wrong is to know why we should avoid his error.

And to say that Adam knew good and evil beforehand in the same way that he knew them after sinning is to twist the plain words of Genesis into some preconceived model of ones own; the knowledge came with the eating. To say that Adam understood the consequences of his actions the way he must understand them now is to say that Adam’s exile from Eden could do no good. Why should he have a change of heart? Why should his pride be broken? To say that Adam fully understood the consequences of his actions means that he fully knew what it meant to die, and wanted to, rather than meaning to gain even more life, more good, as we know is the misguided intent behind all sin. To assert that Adam knew full well the result of his actions means he couldn’t learn, he couldn’t change for the better now. As it is, God had already planned to bring an even greater good out of the evil that Adam’s abuse of free will resulted in, and out of the evil that Adam would come to know. Adam was being further educated as part of his being perfected. Presumably having come to know what he knows now, and knowing Who God is as he does now, Adam can no longer help but to trust and love God.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by Richca

Though Adam and Eve before their Fall did not experience concupiscence, this does not mean I think that they could not desire some sensual pleasure inordinately. By the very fact that their lower sensual desires were subject to their reason and will, they could freely turn their will and desire to desire some sensual pleasure inordinately. And so we find it written “the woman [Eve] saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes” (Gen. 3: 6). Eve here is allowing herself to desire a sensual good inordinately, a temptation to gluttony, beyond the order and will of God. I think we need to keep in mind that Adam and Eve were human beings like us, composed of body and spirit (not angels), and that they had natural desires to eat and drink without which they could not survive in the body. So, even though our first parents were created in original holiness and justice and their lowers powers of soul and appetites were subject to their reason and will, their bodies were in harmony with their soul, they were not robots. Before the Fall, it was easy for Adam and Eve to use food and drink in moderation. However, I don’t think this necessarily implies that they could not turn their wills to use food and drink immoderately if they so willed to do so. They were given an intellect by God to use food and drink in accord with reason and virtue but I don’t think this means that they could use food and drink not in accord with reason and virtue as we find in the case of Eve who desired the forbidden fruit inordinately. Human beings can freely choose to act virtuously or against virtue. We experience this within ourselves.

Ok they may not have experienced concupiscence in the same way we do, but they had a lower appetite.

If as we read it as written *“the woman [Eve] saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes” (Gen. 3: 6). * She was acting on a desire within that could be good, but in this case would be bad, she willed it for herself. It was her freewill to eat from the forbidden tree or not. A will that was given by God. I don’t mean to be argumentative nor do I mean that God created evil or badness, but he did create a being (humans) with a lower appetite, or why else would they have needed Graces to remain in control of their bodies?

So I agree they could turn their wills which ever way they pleased, like you said they were not robots. Their will should have been God’s will, but God gave them a freewill, and they acted upon it, even when there was sufficient Grace to do other wise.

 

[grannymh]

Not a particularly enlightened perspective. Adam was dumb, and even the angels are dumb, compared to God, even as they can be supremely intelligent. Adam, Eve, and a number of angels failed in any case to recognize that very distinction, among others, that gulf between themselves and Him. God allowed man time to gain his senses and come to recognize that distinction. This occurs as we gain and grow in the knowledge of God. To know why Adam was wrong is to know why we should avoid his error.

And to say that Adam knew good and evil beforehand in the same way that he knew them after sinning is to twist the plain words of Genesis into some preconceived model of ones own; the knowledge came with the eating. To say that Adam understood the consequences of his actions the way he must understand them now is to say that Adam’s exile from Eden could do no good. Why should he have a change of heart? Why should his pride be broken? To say that Adam fully understood the consequences of his actions means that he fully knew what it meant to die, and wanted to, rather than meaning to gain even more life, more good, as we know is the misguided intent behind all sin. To assert that Adam knew full well the result of his actions means he couldn’t learn, he couldn’t change for the better now. As it is, God had already planned to bring an even greater good out of the evil that Adam’s abuse of free will resulted in, and out of the evil that Adam would come to know. Adam was being further educated as part of his being perfected. Presumably having come to know what he knows now, and knowing Who God is as he does now, Adam can no longer help but to trust and love God.

I do have some legitimate doubts about this comment.

“To say that Adam fully understood the consequences of his actions means that he fully knew what it meant to die, and wanted to, rather than meaning to gain even more life, more good, as we know is the misguided intent behind all sin.”
Of course, Adam knew what it meant to die. Please give him some credit for actually using his rational tools. God referred to that in Genesis 2: 15-17. Eating from the designated trees in the Garden would give Adam life. Eating forbidden food would not have the same life result. That is why this particular tree was named so that it would stand out as a source of direct disobedience to God. Dying is the opposite of life.

This question just popped into my head – What is your explanation of "*more *life, more good? "

I am only looking at Adam per se. My guess is that Adam did not need more life because he was created as a fully-complete human person. Before his choice of Mortal Sin (the nature of Original Sin), Adam was in the State of Sanctifying Grace which automatically allows entrance to the Beatific Vision. Naturally, there is the possibility of a pit stop in Purgatory. Knowing that his Creator is solely Divine, (only one God walked in the Garden), Adam also knew that in order to maintain a friendship relationship with his God, he had to live in submission (obedience) to his God. There cannot be two equal Divine Gods.

Back to the comment in post 122, where Adam “fully knew what it meant to die, and wanted to” – Please refer to Genesis 3: 4-6. The given proposal was the beneficial proposition (Genesis 3: 4) that Adam would not have to die in order to have all wisdom just like his Maker. In choosing the option of not dying, that effectively ruled out the option of dying either physically or spiritually. Choosing the option of not dying clearly meant that Adam would have to eat the forbidden fruit thereby directly disobeying his God. He did do that.

We need to go back to Genesis 3: 1 and Genesis 3: 4-5 and give a name to that most cunning external voice.

Hint. Try out the name Satan.

 

[fhansen]

I do have some legitimate doubts about this comment.

“To say that Adam fully understood the consequences of his actions means that he fully knew what it meant to die, and wanted to, rather than meaning to gain even more life, more good, as we know is the misguided intent behind all sin.”

Of course, Adam knew what it meant to die. Please give him some credit for actually using his rational tools. God referred to that in Genesis 2: 15-17. Eating from the designated trees in the Garden would give Adam life. Eating forbidden food would not have the same life result. That is why this particular tree was named so that it would stand out as a source of direct disobedience to God. Dying is the opposite of life.

So Adam chose- to die? Then as it turns out Adam actually believed God and not the devil, and yet chose to suffer all the consequences anyway-for no good reason? The entire story of the creation and fall of man points to just the opposite: Adam did not trust God; man must learn to do so, for his own sake, for justice’s sake, for the sake of all that is right and good. Death has a deep meaning, of complete finality-of separation from existence, of separation of man from his Creator. Something like that can probably* never *be known unless experienced-and we experience the elements of this death now in our bodies and in our spirits in this world daily. Adam would probably have no such knowledge of death in Eden.

This question just popped into my head – What is your explanation of "*more *life, more good? "

I am only looking at Adam per se. My guess is that Adam did not need more life because he was created as a fully-complete human person. Before his choice of Mortal Sin (the nature of Original Sin), Adam was in the State of Sanctifying Grace which automatically allows entrance to the Beatific Vision. Naturally, there is the possibility of a pit stop in Purgatory. Knowing that his Creator is solely Divine, (only one God walked in the Garden), Adam also knew that in order to maintain a friendship relationship with his God, he had to live in submission (obedience) to his God. There cannot be two equal Divine Gods.

The difference between possessing the BV and not possessing it is vast. No, it’s* infinite*. Adam did not know God in that way. If he did, he could never have turned away from Him. The* promise* of the BV OTOH, if Adam knew of it, is another story; it’s not much different from our knowing of it. Until the promise is fulfilled we can’t know what we might be missing. Adam wanted more than whatever he had in any case, or he would never have acted as he did, committing the sin of disobedience as he did.

We all desire maximum happiness; God designed us that way according to Church teaching. The problem is in looking for that happiness in mutable goods, outside of God. Adam decided that he could forgo God, so to speak, and achieve a greater level of perfection apart from Him on his own, the created scorning the Creator. He was reaching beyond his own grasp. But what he wanted was good. All sin is done in the name of and for the purpose of obtaining some perceived good. All sin is committed with the intention of gaining something, not losing something. And we know what he wanted; he wanted to be like God, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”. For all practical purposes he elected to be God, because a God worthy of disobedience is no God at all, in the mind of the rebel. Adam, the creature, became his own “god”.

But to be God is good, isn’t it? It’s the Ultimate Good, in fact, the ultimate level of perfection that a being could possess. This is the sin of pride, the “inordinate desire of one’s own excellence”, as Aquinas put it. Excellence is good, but to desire it beyond our capabilities, viewing a “supra-excellence” as our own when it is not, is to live a lie, to take a walk into non-reality, a daily occurrence in one way or another in this life, the world that Adam obtained or realized for mankind where man’s will effectively reigns, not always at all aligned with truth.

 

[fhansen]

Back to the comment in post 122, where Adam “fully knew what it meant to die, and wanted to” – Please refer to Genesis 3: 4-6. The given proposal was the beneficial proposition (Genesis 3: 4) that Adam would not have to die in order to have all wisdom just like his Maker. In choosing the option of not dying, that effectively ruled out the option of dying either physically or spiritually. Choosing the option of not dying clearly meant that Adam would have to eat the forbidden fruit thereby directly disobeying his God. He did do that.
​

Yes, he believed a lie, that he would not die, and he died anyway. He did not believe he would die even though that truth had been given him by God.

We need to go back to Genesis 3: 1 and Genesis 3: 4-5 and give a name to that most cunning external voice.

Hint. Try out the name Satan.
​

The external voice that seduced Adam was a minor league player in the game, relatively speaking. He didn’t have so much to do; Adam took it from there. As James says, and I’m sure this applied equally in Eden, “but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed”. In the end we can’t say that ‘God made me do it’ or ‘the devil made me do it’. Satan only nudges. And this is why Adam is held accountable; this is why the catechism teaches that Adam, personally, wanted to be like God, that *Adam *scorned God by his act, that *Adam *preferred himself to God. Adam’s inordinate desire caused his foolish move; he preferred a lie, he preferred darkness, to the truth because the truth stood in his way.​

 

[simpleas]

Evil is the absence of Good according to Augustine.

What good was Adam and Eve lacking when they chose their wills above God’s will?

God created all and said it was Good (free from evil?) yet one little voice was in the garden that wanted the fall of man and got it.

 

[grannymh]

Evil is the absence of Good according to Augustine.

What good was Adam and Eve lacking when they chose their wills above God’s will?

God created all and said it was Good (free from evil?) yet one little voice was in the garden that wanted the fall of man and got it.

Please, someone correct me if I am wrong about Augustine. Thank you.

It is my understanding that Augustine did not teach that true human nature is naturally evil. Therefore, Adam and Eve’s true human nature would naturally be good. It seems to me that Augustine recognized the evil of disobeying God. Disobeying God is a free action which is possible for Adam because Adam has a true naturally good human nature given him by his Creator.

I am uncomfortable with the possibility that after God created a good human nature, He changed His mind and chose to remove some of the good of Adam’s human nature. This possibility results in this question: “What good was Adam and Eve lacking when they chose their wills above God’s will?”

 

[fhansen]

Please, someone correct me if I am wrong about Augustine. Thank you.

It is my understanding that Augustine did not teach that true human nature is naturally evil. Therefore, Adam and Eve’s true human nature would naturally be good. It seems to me that Augustine recognized the evil of disobeying God. Disobeying God is a free action which is possible for Adam because Adam has a true naturally good human nature given him by his Creator.

I am uncomfortable with the possibility that after God created a good human nature, He changed His mind and chose to remove some of the good of Adam’s human nature. This possibility results in this question: “What good was Adam and Eve lacking when they chose their wills above God’s will?”

Yes they lacked nothing-that they needed.
The only thing better than themselves was God. The only thing better than being themselves was to be God. This was all they could covet-and they did. In that act they separated themselves from God, and thereby became divided within themselves as the Catechism teaches. Because they were already of God to begin with-and as such they were already heirs to all He wanted them to have. Instead they came to conceive a distorted image of Him; He became their competitor, rather than their friend, rather than their God. And so in this they broke friendship even with themselves. The truth of *who man is *-and Who God is-no longer reigned in their hearts. We see these facts played out in our world now everyday.

In A & E’s act of original sin, their desire had become their need, in their minds, as happens with all concupiscence that followed from that act. In truth, they already had everything they needed.

 

[simpleas]

So they were immature spiritual beings who didn’t have a clue who God is.

I just can’t put together that they had everything they needed, knowledge, sufficient grace, ordered desire and yet they willed their own way above God’s.

 

[fhansen]

So they were immature spiritual beings who didn’t have a clue who God is.

I just can’t put together that they had everything they needed, knowledge, sufficient grace, ordered desire and yet they willed their own way above God’s.

They had everything they needed in order to will rightly, in order to obey God, in order to pursue the right path of drawing even nearer to Him. They definitely were not yet bound to Him; they had not experienced the Beatific Vision. They were being asked to remain with Him, and draw nearer yet, to be subjugated to Him, aligned with His will. That’s the meaning of the choice they were given. They were accountable for their choice because they had sufficient knowledge. They were not yet perfected at that point, because their perfection hinged on their own choice, whether or not they would decide to remain obedient, in which case God would do the perfecting as they entered union with Him where they would be divinized, or to disobey, in which case they’d pursue their “perfection”, without Him. We’re here still facing the same choice, life or death, good or evil, God or no God. The difference is that here, along with good, we know the “absence of good”, the absence of God; we taste evil: pain, suffering, death, sin, to help turn us back around to Him, the “absence of evil”, to put it one way.

 

[Vico]

So they were immature spiritual beings who didn’t have a clue who God is.

I just can’t put together that they had everything they needed, knowledge, sufficient grace, ordered desire and yet they willed their own way above God’s.

They did not have unlimited knowledge.

 

[simpleas]

Yes they lacked nothing-that they needed.
The only thing better than themselves was God. The only thing better than being themselves was to be God. This was all they could covet-and they did. In that act they separated themselves from God, and thereby became divided within themselves as the Catechism teaches. Because they were already of God to begin with-and as such they were already heirs to all He wanted them to have. Instead they came to conceive a distorted image of Him; He became their competitor, rather than their friend, rather than their God. And so in this they broke friendship even with themselves. The truth of *who man is *-and Who God is-no longer reigned in their hearts. We see these facts played out in our world now everyday.

In A & E’s act of original sin, their desire had become their need, in their minds, as happens with all concupiscence that followed from that act. In truth, they already had everything they needed.

Originally Posted by fhansen

Instead they came to conceive a distorted image of Him; He became their competitor, rather than their friend, rather than their God. And so in this they broke friendship even with themselves.

This was a result of their sin. Before they were in friendship with God and so in a peaceful harmony with all creation.

In A & E’s act of original sin, their desire had become their need,

Yes, their own desire, not God’s. But their desire was not totally bad, because they were not created with any inordered desire, so how was their desire a wrong desire? It wasn’t to them I’m assuming as that desire was pleasing and must have felt right, that this forbidden knowledge was actually a good thing, and for some reason God had lied to them.
For some reason they trusted their own will, they didn’t make a double take, check with God first, their own will was stronger than God’s will within them.

 

[simpleas]

They did not have unlimited knowledge.

I wonder if they did have unlimited knowledge would they have made the same choice.

There must have been something they didn’t know for them to make such a wrong decision.

 

[fhansen]

This was a result of their sin. Before they were in friendship with God and so in a peaceful harmony with all creation.
Yes, that’s what was meant.

Yes, their own desire, not God’s. But their desire was not totally bad, because they were not created with any inordered desire, so how was their desire a wrong desire? It wasn’t to them I’m assuming as that desire was pleasing and must have felt right, that this forbidden knowledge was actually a good thing, and for some reason God had lied to them.
For some reason they trusted their own will, they didn’t make a double take, check with God first, their own will was stronger than God’s will within them.

They simply didn’t know yet how perfect in wisdom, how good and trustworthy, how infinitely valuable their God was. They didn’t yet know God as they most probably do now. But it’s still fine. Wrong as it is to disbelieve God simply because, He’s, well, God, doesn’t mean that God’s plan for them to ultimately know, believe in, and most importantly, love Him, wasn’t on course.

In any case we’re expected to believe this point: that God expects and demands that we begin to come to know and trust in and love Him in this life without benefit of the full knowledge that is an inherent aspect of the Beatific Vision. He’s asking, as a matter of our justice and righteousness, that we will rightly, in favor of Him, before our wills are captivated by His immediate presence, before we meet Him “face to face”.

And if we might tend to think that this belief, with all that it entails, should be an easy task, of simply doing the right thing, its not. As the catechism teaches, doing the right thing is difficult, and comes at a great cost. Look how disfavored simple faith in God, by itself, is looked upon in this world, especially in the more affluent and “educated” areas but even in less advantaged places among common people. Wisdom and courage are required, and I think the same held true in Eden. God is asking and drawing us to participate in those virtues, in that justice, by valuing, seeking, and embracing it as we find it.

 

[grannymh]

I wonder if they did have unlimited knowledge would they have made the same choice.

There must have been something they didn’t know for them to make such a wrong decision.

My first idea of the forbidden tree was that the name meant knowing everything there is to know because there is no knowledge beyond good and evil. Thus, the forbidden tree would mean the “unlimited knowledge” of the Creator of the tree.

The tree could be seen as the Creator’s knowledge in that God knows that the evil of mortal sin will destroy the State of Sanctifying Grace. God did not create mortal sin. God knows the evil of disobedience because the creature could attempt to create the impossible second equally supreme Creator and therefore would lose the status of being in God’s friendship.

Again, it is the human problem that a human has to experience his own death before he can tell the difference between a dead cow and a live cow.

Satan’s temptation of Adam – to lose trust in God, Genesis 3: 4-5 – continues to work in this century. We cannot trust God because we do not know everything. We need to find our own tree of “unlimited knowledge” of good and evil and then life will be perfect. We will finally know the difference between a dead cow and a live cow.

Could Adam freely choose to live in obedience to God without the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? (CCC 396–note words “freely recognize and respect with trust”)

Obviously, this post has only a toe in the water of knowledge and unlimited knowledge. While we are looking for Adam, why should we ignore the capacity of Adam’s mind?

 

[fhansen]

My first idea of the forbidden tree was that the name meant knowing everything there is to know because there is no knowledge beyond good and evil. Thus, the forbidden tree would mean the “unlimited knowledge” of the Creator of the tree.

The tree could be seen as the Creator’s knowledge in that God knows that the evil of mortal sin will destroy the State of Sanctifying Grace. God did not create mortal sin. God knows the evil of disobedience because the creature could attempt to create the impossible second equally supreme Creator and therefore would lose the status of being in God’s friendship.

Again, it is the human problem that a human has to experience his own death before he can tell the difference between a dead cow and a live cow.

Satan’s temptation of Adam – to lose trust in God, Genesis 3: 4-5 – continues to work in this century. We cannot trust God because we do not know everything. We need to find our own tree of “unlimited knowledge” of good and evil and then life will be perfect. We will finally know the difference between a dead cow and a live cow.

Could Adam freely choose to live in obedience to God without the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? (CCC 396–note words “freely recognize and respect with trust”)

Obviously, this post has only a toe in the water of knowledge and unlimited knowledge. While we are looking for Adam, why should we ignore the capacity of Adam’s mind?

And yet that capacity, whatever it was, failed to direct Adam to the right course of action.

And a cow’s death wouldn’t necessarily have carried the same weight or meaning as “my death”. I’m dealing with a rich brat kid now suffering to some extent with “affluenza”. people rich in money or pride often don’t believe bad things can happen to them; they’re above the law and accountability. Adam knows better now. We simply have to acknowledge that our justice is connected to our willingness to choose it-and Adam didn’t. Something, aside from God simply forcing Adam to “be good”, had to occur. Adam had to change. His personal pov needed major adjustment.

 

[fhansen]

Knowledge doesn’t guarantee wisdom. Wisdom, in God’s plan apparently, must be wanted, sought after, cultivated. And we do know that wisdom can come with experience.

 

[grannymh]

From the challenge in post 136

My first idea of the forbidden tree was that the name meant knowing everything there is to know because there is no knowledge beyond good and evil. Thus, the forbidden tree would mean the “unlimited knowledge” of the Creator of the tree.

The tree could be seen as the Creator’s knowledge in that God knows that the evil of mortal sin will destroy the State of Sanctifying Grace. God did not create mortal sin. God knows the evil of disobedience because the creature could attempt to create the impossible second equally supreme Creator and therefore would lose the status of being in God’s friendship.

My hope is that people will seriously address the meanings (plural intended) of Genesis 2: 15-17 which has the basic info about the forbidden tree’s Original Sin fruit.

Hopefully, people will search out the possible reasons why this particular tree is so important. One basic reason would be that other civilizations had multiple gods. Obviously, the descriptive words which start with “The Lord God” signal that this passage contains Divine Revelation not only about God but also some simple facts about human nature per se.

In simple hope, I am trusting that people will delve into possible meanings which are a part of that famous tree. It is my personal observation that the verses in the first three chapters of Genesis need to be studied in relationship with other verses. If we skip the tree itself, I am thinking that we are losing some of the affirmation of Original Sin.

When we look for Adam, we have to be ready to find him looking up at this forbidden tree.

 

[fhansen]

Adam didn’t have unlimited knowledge; Adam wasn’t God.

A problem, however, seems to present itself: If Adam didn’t have at least *sufficient *knowledge to make the right choice, then Adam shouldn’t have been held accountable for his actions. And one thing we know for sure in any case is that Adam didn’t make the right choice. If, OTOH, Adam had all knowledge, complete or unlimited or perfect knowledge, then it should’ve been impossible for him to sin. But he did sin. But this is only a problem if we insist that Adam’s knowledge was perfect.

Adam didn’t possess all knowledge, if he even had the capacity for it, either before or after he ate of the fruit. We know he certainly didn’t possess the Beatific Vision, aka the immediate knowledge of God. He* did* gain the knowledge of good and evil, apparently, which God possessed as revealed in Gen 3:22.