I wonder what work has been done to identify and describe the exact types of “fruit” common at the time and place of the most likely writers of the book of Genesis. It certainly wasn’t an “apple” as we picture apples now.
I think the idea is that if you don’t know that what you are doing is wrong, then it isn’t wrong. Therefore Adam and Eve are free to do anything else they want without consequences. After all, Eden was supposed to be perfect, and what can be more perfect than getting to do almost anything you want without suffering any consequences?
My point is that God could have given them any command if it’s just about testing if they’ll obey. It doesn’t have to specifically be a tree at all, let alone this specific tree. To explain why God chose to include the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, you need more than that.
And the tree does seem to actually give some knowledge. Adam and Eve both become aware that they are naked (and that there is apparently something shameful about that), as this is how God catches them out for having eaten the fruit. So it’s not just that any sin would have given them that knowledge, and the tree is named after the fact.
It seems the specific tree is chosen as part of the mythological message. And that can be squared away with a the literalist interpretation the OP seems to ask for. There’s this idea among literalists that the Bible does include symbolism, but that the symbolic things still really happened. It would be that God used that specific tree for the message it would send.
If we take even just Genesis as a canon, God would have already known that Adam and Eve would disobey, so he made the way they disobey into a message about the loss of innocence. Even them getting upset about being naked plays into the cultural associations—animals are naked and don’t care, while humans want to cover up.
The non-literalist would just say that’s the story was made up with those cultural assumptions in mind. The literalist would say that these things actually happened because God wanted to symbolize those things to those cultures.
I’m not following this. Who is the child? Are you saying that there was a time when God himself didn’t know right from wrong? That seems a rather astonishing statement coming from a Christian. Is this a mainstream view?
14 posts were split to a new topic: Hijack of Tree of Knowledge thread
This is probably the best summary. We should bear in mind that what we have is a translation of a dead language. If you have ever made a real effort to learn a different language, you come to understand that there are a lot of subtleties and cultural undertones that are difficult to capture just by converting the words to other words in another language. Without a deep study of the original content in its original cultural context, we are doing little more than blowing smoke.
Another thing that seems odd is that, if the tree had attractive flint hanging from its limbs, what was keeping all the other animals from eating of it?
Ever since they switched away from x86 processors, now Apples will definitely endow you with knowledge of good and evil.
It would have to be some damned attractive flint to get an animal to bite at it.
I think somebody’s spellcheck partied too hardy last night.
No, don’t you see, ‘flint’ is a metaphor for the first tools that humans used, in contravention of God’s Plan for us to just laze around all day eating fruit from trees. Now we’re doomed to an eternity of wandering around Home Depot, wondering if we’re going to use a circular saw often enough to justifying buying the expensive one.
damn handwriting recognition
A lot is made about how God created everything in seven days. Creating the tree after would be cheating.
Maybe it was simply a tree that was pleasing to the sight and good for food, and the purpose of the garden was to hold all such trees? The fruits may have been eaten by angels as well.
Genesis 2:9,
And from the ground God caused to grow every tree that was pleasing to the sight and good for food, with the tree of life in the middle of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and bad.
Genesis 3:6,
When the woman saw that the tree was good for eating and a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable as a source of wisdom, she took of its fruit and ate.
~Max
There are many plants/flowers that I would find pleasing to the eye that I wouldn’t let children anywhere near.
Besides, being GOD he could make them perfectly safe without changing how they look and smell.
But how many of those are good for food as well? Plus Adam & Eve were not said to be children. Adam is canonically highly intelligent, as he receives divine commands and names animals according to their nature. (Eve is implied to be just as intelligent).
Could, but why should he? Unlike Eve, the garden wasn’t necessarily created for Adam’s benefit (else why would the divine punishment be expulsion?), and I think the tree probably wasn’t, either.
~Max
Canon, as in it is in the Bible?
“Saw” does not necessarily mean visually observed. Again, it is probably a translation/interpretation issue.
Because that is what a father would do if he could?
You’re getting into theodicy. Remember that the tree is just as much God’s ‘child’ as the man.
~Max
One thing I’ll note is that the tree was there before Adam or Eve. Genesis 2:15 says that God put Adam in the Garden of Eden to till it and take care of it. I assume that includes the tree.
Now, He also said that nobody was supposed to even touch the fruit (Genesis 3:3) so presumably even going near it would be dangerous.
As to why the tree is there at all, I wonder if it was for God. Kind of like someone having a liquor cabinet and telling the kids to stay out of it.
May want to check that one, I’m pretty sure Adam is formed before the tree is planted. I quoted the tree’s planting in Genesis 2:9 above, I believe Adam was formed just before that.
That speech was by Eve/Woman, with some consequence for modifying a divine command in certain interpretations of Genesis.
~Max