Original Sin

[catholic1seeks]

For you. :flowers:

Oh, thank you. For you: :yeah_me:

However, the existence of a spiritual soul is where the evolving population model deviates from Catholic doctrine.

But it only deviates–of course–if one were to say that all humans descend from a population and not from an original pair. For all you need is two members of this population to be given souls; and then all humans would descend from this pair.

 

[kompaz]

When God created the universe, He declared that everything was “very good” (Genesis 1:31), which also would include the tree “of knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2:17). Adam and Eve’s sin, then, did not come from their eating fruit; rather, Adam and Eve’s sin came from their ignoring God’s love for them, disbelieving that God had their best interest at heart, and falling for all of Satan’s lies; for example, believing that they could be like God, that God’s Sovereignty could be questioned without side effects, and that God was unworthy of their trust.

Not so fast.

Genesis was written about 1500BC. The claim that serpent and Satan are one is only in Revelation, which dates to 95AD. So not only 1600 years after Genesis, but also 60 or so years after Christ. You see the problem, don’t you?

If you read Genesis 3 by itself it is remarkable that the serpent does not lie. He says that by eating the fruit, humans will know good and evil and be like God, and this is exactly what happens. God does not approve of that, and hastily kicks the humans out of Eden, so they don’t eat from the tree of life. In fact, the text is explicit that the reason for kicking humans out of Eden is barring them access to the tree of life.

Now, that tree of life is an interesting thing. Because if you look at Gen 2:15-17, then you see that there was originally no prohibition against eating from the tree of life. So it logically follows, that humans could, and likely did eat from the tree of life – i.e., they were immortal. So God takes their immortality away for what they have done.

Or, rather, not for what they have done, but what they have become. Recall 3:22 “The man has now become like one of us …]”. That comment would make no sense, if God was punishing humans for a simple disobedience. But it makes a lot of sense, if human was originally not supposed to know good and evil. Yet humans learned good and evil, and that made an irreversible change in them.

So the original sin is a misnomer. It is not a sin, it is our nature. We know good and evil.

Question is, why were humans not supposed to know good and evil?

Question is, why did God react so violently to the prospect of humans “becoming like one of us”?

 

[catholic1seeks]

Question is, why were humans not supposed to know good and evil?

Question is, why did God react so violently to the prospect of humans “becoming like one of us”?

Pope John Paul II said the following on original sin. I selected some passages that refer to the tree of knowledge. Please read these carefully to see a Catholic understanding of it.

The Pope’s full comments can be found here.

1. In Genesis, this test is described as the prohibition to eat of the fruit “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” This means that from the very beginning the Creator reveals him self to a rational and free being as the God of the Covenant and hence of friendship and joy but also as the source of good and therefore, of the distinction between good and evil in the moral sense.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil recalls symbolically the absolute limit which man as a creature must recognize and respect. Man depends on the Creator and is subject to the laws by which the Creator has established the order of the world which he created, the essential order of existence (ordo rerum); therefore man is also subject to the moral norms which regulate the use of freedom. The primordial test is, therefore, aimed at the person’s free will, at his freedom. Will man confirm the fundamental order of creation in his conduct and recognize the truth that he himself is created—the truth of the dignity that belongs to him as the image of God but also the truth of his creaturely limitation?

Unfortunately, we know the results of the test: man failed. Revelation tells us this but it sets this sad news within the context of the truth of Redemption so that we can look with confidence to our merciful Creator and Lord.

II

1. In the context of creation and of the bestowal of gifts by which God constitutes man in the state of holiness and of original justice, the description of the first sin which we find in the third chapter of Genesis, acquires a greater clarity. It is obvious that this description which hinges on the transgression of the divine command not to eat “of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” is to be interpreted by taking into account the character of the ancient text and especially its literary form. However, while bearing in mind this scientific requirement in the study of the first book of Sacred Scripture, it cannot be denied that one sure element emerges from the detailed account of the sin: that it describes a primordial event, that it is a fact, which according to Revelation took place at the beginning of human history. For this very reason, it presents as well another certain element, namely the fundamental and decisive implication of that event for man’s relationship with God and consequently for the interior “situation” of man himself for the reciprocal relationships between people and in general for man’s relationship with the world.
2. The fact underlying the descriptive forms that really matters is of a moral nature and is imprinted in the very roots of the human spirit. It gives rise to a fundamental change in the human condition. Man is driven forth from the state of original justice and finds himself in a state of sinfulness—status naturae lapsae.

It is a state in which sin exists and is marked by an inclination to sin. From that moment the whole history of humanity will be burdened by this state. In fact, the first human being (man and woman) received sanctifying grace from God not only for himself but as the founder of the human family for all his descendants. Therefore, through sin which set man in conflict with God, he forfeited grace (he fell into disgrace) even in regard to the inheritance for his descendants.

According to the Church’s teaching, based on Revelation, the essence of original sin as the heritage of our progenitors consists in this privation of grace added to nature.

1. The human sin at the beginning of history, the primordial sin, of which we read in Genesis 3, occurred under the influence of this being (the devil).
2. It is not difficult to discern in this text (Gen 3:1-5) the essential problems of human life hidden under an apparently simple form. To eat or not to eat the fruit of a certain tree may itself seem irrelevant. However, the tree “of the knowledge of good and evil” denotes the first principle of human life to which is linked a fundamental problem. The tree signifies the insurmountable limit for man and for any creature however perfect. The creature, in fact, is always merely a creature and not God. Certainly he cannot claim to be like God, “to know good and evil” like God. God alone is the source of all being, God alone is absolute Truth and Goodness according to which good and evil are measured and from which they receive their distinction. God alone is the eternal Legislator from whom every law in the created world derives and in particular the law of human nature. Man as a rational creature knows this law and should let himself be guided by it in his own conduct. He cannot himself pretend to establish the moral law, to decide himself what is good and what is bad, independently of the Creator, even against the Creator. Neither man nor any other creature can set himself in the place of God, claiming for himself the mastery of the moral order, contrary to creation’s own ontological constitution.

Please note that the understanding of Original Sin is not based on a single passage from the Bible–no doctrine is. There are other biblical passages that comment on Adam’s sin (and they precisely understand it to be a sin) and its consequences.

Another thing is to note the genre of the narrative of the Fall. It is not history in the way we understand it today. I recommend the following:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?worknum=216&chapNum=12

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The fact that the spiritual principle of human nature cannot evolve or emerge from decomposing material/physical anatomies of any kind

Unsubstantiated claim.

The observed phenomenon of self-organization in neural networks – both biological and artificial – hints that mind/soul may arise by itself once the underlying neural network (brain) is complex enough.

scholarpedia.org/article/Self-organization_of_brain_function

Researching how the brain works is a benefit for humanity, especially in the critical area of awake brain surgery.

The existence of a spiritual principle, commonly called a spiritual soul, is substantiated by human rational processes such as analysis, self reflection, logical evaluation, analytical and creative conceptions and so on. If these processes grew out of a material anatomy, then there would be every reason that our chimp cousins would have the same powers. They do not.

 

[grannymh]

Pope John Paul II said the following on original sin. I selected some passages that refer to the tree of knowledge. Please read these carefully to see a Catholic understanding of it.

The Pope’s full comments can be found here.

Please note that the understanding of Original Sin is not based on a single passage from the Bible–no doctrine is. There are other biblical passages that comment on Adam’s sin (and they precisely understand it to be a sin) and its consequences.

Another thing is to note the genre of the narrative of the Fall. It is not history in the way we understand it today. I recommend the following:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?worknum=216&chapNum=12

Actually, Adam, himself, begins human history as we understand it today. Pope John Paul II, in point 4 of quotes in post 63, says: "The human sin at the beginning of history…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Kompaz,

You are correct - no one can prove a negative. But, it does not end there - and no one is required to have a PhD in any science to appreciate this.

It must be initially identified that science is incapable of proving or disproving any religious truth. At best it can identify data that agrees with such a truth - but this is not proof.

If I understand you correctly you are saying there is no evidence for a single set of First Parents, but evidence that multiple sets existed is greater. There are many classic examples of when the main body of scientific wisdom identified a particular reality as being such, only to later have it refuted by other scientists with another hypothesis. Here is a link that identifies 10 such disproven scientific ideas: toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

The real issue is that God identified a particular Way for our salvation. Giving us Free Will was just the beginning. Our First Parents abused the Gifts God had given to them - and this is what we are calling Original Sin. Do not base your religious beliefs or disbeliefs on a discipline that can not even begin to understand religion. This is like trying to work on a Swiss watch with a carpenter’s hammer. Such a hammer is a fine tool for building a house - and the tools for working on the watch would be useless in building the house. To complain about one set of tools for another purpose would be senseless.

God bless

kompaz:

You cannot prove a negative.

I can claim that scientists have not proven that there are no invisible pink unicorns. However, scientists have found nothing which would be consistent with the presence of invisible pink unicorns, and in fact, current understanding of the world precludes their existence.

Likewise, scientists have found nothing which would be consistent with a single progenitor pair, and in fact, current understanding of population genetics precludes a single progenitor pair.

Do you have a PhD in molecular genetics?

 

[catholic1seeks]

Actually, Adam, himself, begins human history as we understand it today. Pope John Paul II, in point 4 of quotes in post 63, says: "The human sin at the beginning of history…

I was referring to the genre of Genesis not being written in the same manner as history would be today. Genesis, being in a more mythic form (myth does not mean untrue), uses figurative language as the Catechism says.

 

[fhansen]

I was referring to the genre of Genesis not being written in the same manner as history would be today. Genesis, being in a more mythic form (myth does not mean untrue), uses figurative language as the Catechism says.

Say, c1s, thanks for those links-I really enjoyed both! It’s reassuring to know we have some fresh and original thinkers, staying within-or working within-the bounds set by the Church and Revelation- and our recent popes have been exemaplry examples of this IMO.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Say, c1s, thanks for those links-I really enjoyed both! It’s reassuring to know we have some fresh and original thinkers, staying within-or working within-the bounds set by the Church and Revelation- and our recent popes have been exemaplry examples of this IMO.

Sure! I know, the Church is pretty smart in her age… and our Papas are pretty great, too!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Kompaz,

Hold on yourself, buddy - what kind of slight of hand are you trying to pull!

Let’s take a good look at what is actually deceitful in the Devil’s temptation - and the serious omission in your statement. Did Genesis 3:4 slip by you? Let’s take a look:

1Now the snake was the most cunning* of all the wild animals that the LORD God had made. He asked the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You shall not eat from any of the trees in the garden’?” 2The woman answered the snake: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; 3a it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, or else you will die.’” 4But the snake said to the woman: “You certainly will not die!

Here is the link so you can read the whole chapter: usccb.org/bible/genesis/3#01003004-b

The take home message is that every temptation the devil gives us - starting with this very first one - has, at its very heart, a terrible lie - and then it is wrapped up in some elements of truth. St. Anslem tells us that we can’t accept evil as evil - we must focus on the partial truth or partial good contained in the temptation. This can create its own blinding light! And, then after the sin - just like our First Parents - we realize what we have just done is evil although we freely chose to just concentrate on what we wante to believe was a ‘good’.

Please read carefully what you told us to read in Genesis 2:15-17

15The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.h 16The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the gardeni 17except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.

You have totally misidentified this very verse - “…YOU SHAL NOT EAT…” And, yes, our First Parents did eat - and they surely did die, and all of their offspring followed as they inheried the effects of Original Sin in addition to having this sin on their soul from conception. It looks to me like you want to simply interepret this scripture they way you want - and the heck with the clear and obvious meaning. What are you trying to do, besides trying to confuse and mislead?

If you read Genesis 3 by itself it is remarkable that the serpent does not

lie. He says that by eating the fruit, humans will know good and evil and be like God, and this is exactly what happens. God does not approve of that, and hastily kicks the humans out of Eden, so they don’t eat from the tree of life. In fact, the text is explicit that the reason for kicking humans out of Eden is barring them access to the tree of life.

Now, that tree of life is an interesting thing. Because if you look at Gen 2:15-17, then you see that there was originally no prohibition against eating from the tree of life. So it logically follows, that humans could, and likely did eat from the tree of life – i.e., they were immortal. So God takes their immortality away for what they have done.

Truly, before any of your questions can be answered, you need to demonstrate that you can present quoted material correctly - and that you are not trying to deceive anyone.

God bless

 

[grannymh]

I was referring to the genre of Genesis not being written in the same manner as history would be today. Genesis, being in a more mythic form (myth does not mean untrue), uses figurative language as the Catechism says.

Because of the Catholic status of the first three chapters of Genesis, one cannot always lump them together with the other 47 chapters in the Book of Genesis.

 

[grannymh]

http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2011/09/adam-and-eve-and-ted-and-alice.html

I have not finished this link. I am discouraged because so far the link

1. makes fun of the author of the first three chapters of Genesis,
2. has no clue how the visible Catholic Church operates on earth when it comes to Catholic doctrines,
3. is apparently unaware that the first man, Adam, instantly had the same rational tools (self-reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought and so on) that humans have today. I say apparently because I am having trouble with the link’s idea of Adam sitting around the campfire… with his fire-mates,
4. again apparently, does not realize that Eve is an immediate spouse with the same human nature as Adam in order to found the human race, which by the way, received God’s blessing. However, maybe I am not getting the link’s sense of humor,
5. has half an explanation of Original Sin. However, maybe the link gets back on track in a section I have not yet studied.
6. includes this sentence which sounds like Cartesian [extreme] dualism and not Catholic teaching. “But Adam is different. Having a rational human form in addition to his sensitive animal form, he is capable of knowing the good.” Or maybe I am using a different definition for “form”? In any case, the words “in addition” miss the mark of the Catholic teaching on the human’s single nature.

And finally 7. question – What Catholic doctrine is the Conclusion affirming?

I admit that my bias for Catholic doctrines on human nature does influence how I read serious writing. So now I am wondering why this link omitted St. Thomas Aquinas’s key statement regarding original sin. (De Malo 4, 1) cited in CCC 404. Or did I miss this affirmation of monogenism in the link?

Certainly, people will not have the same difficulties I have. Nonetheless, I still would like to know the Catholic points of this link in regard to the Catholic doctrines about the real Adam who committed a real sin which shattered his relationship with his Creator.

 

[kompaz]

You have totally misidentified this very verse - “…YOU SHAL NOT EAT…” And, yes, our First Parents did eat - and they surely did die,

In Gen 2:17 God says “From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.” That means death results from the eating of the fruit. In other words, the fruit is poisonous; you eat it and you die.

In Gen 3:4 serpent says “You certainly will not die!” This turns out to be right; they eat the fruit, and they don’t drop dead.

In Gen 3:5 serpent says “God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, who know* good and evil.”. This also turns out to be right; they eat the fruit, they eyes open, and they see that they are naked.

Then in Gen 3:22 we have God saying “See! The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?” Couple this with 3:24 “He expelled the man, stationing the cherubim and the fiery revolving sword east of the garden of Eden, to guard the way to the tree of life.” So in 3:22 God provides rationale for his decision to throw humans out of Eden: for some reason, he now wants to deny humans access to the tree of life – i.e., make them mortal. But this is God’s sovereign decision. Humans are banished from Eden (and, consequently, die) because the God decides to do so, not because death is an automatic consequence of eating the fruit (as 2:17 would suggest).

The God of Genesis is not merciful; a merciful God one forgive them their trespass and keep them in Eden.

 

[grannymh]

In Gen 2:17 God says “From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.” That means death results from the eating of the fruit. In other words, the fruit is poisonous; you eat it and you die.

In Gen 3:4 serpent says “You certainly will not die!” This turns out to be right; they eat the fruit, and they don’t drop dead.

In Gen 3:5 serpent says “God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, who know* good and evil.”. This also turns out to be right; they eat the fruit, they eyes open, and they see that they are naked.

Then in Gen 3:22 we have God saying “See! The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?” Couple this with 3:24 “He expelled the man, stationing the cherubim and the fiery revolving sword east of the garden of Eden, to guard the way to the tree of life.” So in 3:22 God provides rationale for his decision to throw humans out of Eden: for some reason, he now wants to deny humans access to the tree of life – i.e., make them mortal. But this is God’s sovereign decision. Humans are banished from Eden (and, consequently, die) because the God decides to do so, not because death is an automatic consequence of eating the fruit (as 2:17 would suggest).

The God of Genesis is not merciful; a merciful God one forgive them their trespass and keep them in Eden.

In the first three chapters of Genesis, Adam scorned his Creator and shattered their friendship. But God did not abandon Adam. God promises salvation. However, that is the Catholic teaching, which makes sense to me.

 

[kompaz]

If these processes grew out of a material anatomy, then there would be every reason that our chimp cousins would have the same powers. They do not.

Neither do human children.

If these processes were the product of soul given at conception, intellectual capabilities of a newborn and an adult would be the same. This is obviously not the case. Even worse (for you), a child brain operates differently than an adult brain: phys.org/news4064.html

Did you know that chimps exhibit altruism? plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050184

 

[kompaz]

[post made redundant by grannymh’s edit, removed]

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Neither do human children.

If these processes were the product of soul given at conception, intellectual capabilities of a newborn and an adult would be the same. This is obviously not the case. Even worse (for you), a child brain operates differently than an adult brain: phys.org/news4064.html

Did you know that chimps exhibit altruism? plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050184

What’s interesting is that even Noam Chomsky, one of the most ultra-liberal philosophers you’ll ever find and certainly no religious nut, disagrees with you:

chomsky.info/interviews/2007----.htm

**CUCCHIARO: You’ve been quoted as saying, ‘It’s about as likely that an ape will prove to have a language ability as there is an island somewhere with a species of flightless birds waiting for humans to teach them to fly.’ The book, Nim Chimpsky, remarks at the fact that Apes have been able to sign probably about as well as children first learning; the implication being that if we call what children do, ‘language,’ then why not have the same standard for apes and call what they do, ‘language’?

CHOMSKY: That’s about like saying that Olympic high jumpers fly better than young birds who’ve just come out of the egg – or than most chickens. These are not serious comparisons. For whatever reason, the study of human higher mental faculties is pervaded by a curious form of irrationality, foreign to the sciences. **

 

[grannymh]

Neither do human children.

If these processes were the product of soul given at conception, intellectual capabilities of a newborn and an adult would be the same. This is obviously not the case. Even worse (for you), a child brain operates differently than an adult brain: phys.org/news4064.html

Human children do have rational powers; however, they need to be expressed through their neural system. In reverse, the neural system can influence thinking. Often this is referred to as part of the mind/body problem.

As far as I can tell, Adam had a working brain and was fully conscious at the time of Original Sin.

 

[shoe]

Not so fast.

Genesis was written about 1500BC. The claim that serpent and Satan are one is only in Revelation, which dates to 95AD. So not only 1600 years after Genesis, but also 60 or so years after Christ. You see the problem, don’t you?

If you read Genesis 3 by itself it is remarkable that the serpent does not lie. He says that by eating the fruit, humans will know good and evil and be like God, and this is exactly what happens. God does not approve of that, and hastily kicks the humans out of Eden, so they don’t eat from the tree of life. In fact, the text is explicit that the reason for kicking humans out of Eden is barring them access to the tree of life.

Now, that tree of life is an interesting thing. Because if you look at Gen 2:15-17, then you see that there was originally no prohibition against eating from the tree of life. So it logically follows, that humans could, and likely did eat from the tree of life – i.e., they were immortal. So God takes their immortality away for what they have done.

Or, rather, not for what they have done, but what they have become. Recall 3:22 “The man has now become like one of us …]”. That comment would make no sense, if God was punishing humans for a simple disobedience. But it makes a lot of sense, if human was originally not supposed to know good and evil. Yet humans learned good and evil, and that made an irreversible change in them.

So the original sin is a misnomer. It is not a sin, it is our nature. We know good and evil.

Question is, why were humans not supposed to know good and evil?

Question is, why did God react so violently to the prospect of humans “becoming like one of us”?

The concepts of the New Testament were not invented out of whole cloth as Amos 3:7 indicate, “For the Lord God doth nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets.” And Saint Augustine explains the coherence of Biblical revelation by saying that “The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed. The New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.”

John reveals to mankind in the Book of Revelation that the Serpent in the Garden was Satan: “And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him” (Revelation 12:9). The New Testament not only reveals the existence of Satan as the serpent in the garden but also reveals his deceptive methods of drawing mankind’s thoughts away from God and directing them toward himself.

I believe that Adam and Eve knew the definition of good and evil, but they didn’t know about good and evil experientially until they fell prey to Satan’s deception. God says in the Genesis 2:17 “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.” Adam and Eve knew the definition of the word “death,” but since physical death never happened, they could not have comprehended or understood the sorrow that humans feel over the loss of a loved one. And this goes for spiritual death and separation from God as well.

I think that God was grieved, not angered, when Adam and Eve openly rebelled against His love, but the loving Father says this in Jeremiah 29:11: “For I know the thoughts that I think towards you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of affliction, to give you an end and patience.” God reserved His anger for Satan.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Kompaz,

Thank you for supplying your meaning to what Gen 2:17 says. I provided a link for a reason - it has a commentary that addresses your limited view of the meaning. Here is a section for your review, but the entire commentary is recommended for a better understanding.

“The death of the soul, and become obnoxious to that of the body; thou shalt become a mortal and lose all the privileges of innocence. Though Adam lived 930 years after this, he was dying daily; he carried along with him the seeds of death, as we do, from our very conception. He had leave to eat of any fruit in this delicious garden, one only excepted, and this one prohibition makes him more eager to taste of that tree than of all the rest. So we struggle constantly to attain what is forbidden, and covet what is denied, cupimusque negata. God laid this easy command upon Adam, to give him an opportunity of shewing his ready obedience, and to assert his own absolute dominion over him. Eve was already formed, and was apprised of this positive command, (C. iii. 3.) and therefore, transgressing, is justly punished with her husband.”

For ease of access, here is the original link: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Genesis_2

Note, to say that “…surely die…” means that the fruit contains something like arsenic or cyanide or some other earthly ‘poison’ producing rapid death is not accurate. If you were to think in terms of a human relationship (like that of a husband and wife) and of doing something that will kill a relationship (e.g., marital infidelity). this may be a more accurate analogy. Man freely chose to disobey God - and he did this with the knowledge that there were consequences.

To claim that the Devil really did not lie because man did not experience sudden death - brings me to wonder - just what are you saying? Is the Devil really an honest but misunderstood angel that has really not been treated fairly in the Bible?

So, let me recommend you look at the link I provied and tell me where you are going with this idea of an ‘honest Devil’.

God bless

In Gen 2:17 God says “From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.” That means death results from the eating of the fruit. In other words, the fruit is poisonous; you eat it and you die.

In Gen 3:4 serpent says “You certainly will not die!” This turns out to be right; they eat the fruit, and they don’t drop dead.

In Gen 3:5 serpent says “God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, who know* good and evil.”. This also turns out to be right; they eat the fruit, they eyes open, and they see that they are naked.

Then in Gen 3:22 we have God saying “See! The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?” Couple this with 3:24 “He expelled the man, stationing the cherubim and the fiery revolving sword east of the garden of Eden, to guard the way to the tree of life.” So in 3:22 God provides rationale for his decision to throw humans out of Eden: for some reason, he now wants to deny humans access to the tree of life – i.e., make them mortal. But this is God’s sovereign decision. Humans are banished from Eden (and, consequently, die) because the God decides to do so, not because death is an automatic consequence of eating the fruit (as 2:17 would suggest).

The God of Genesis is not merciful; a merciful God one forgive them their trespass and keep them in Eden.