9 And God made to spring up also out of the earth every tree beautiful to the eye and good for food,

and the tree of life in the midst of the garden,

and the tree of learning the knowledge of good and evil.

{from the LXX]

>>>Is this saying - that Adam and Eve did not know not only evil, but goodness either? That they were made without knowledge of either?<<<

NKJV

9) and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.


So what was there understanding then? What did they know? If they knew neither good or evil what comprehension did they have then?

They relied on god for direction, not themselves - something that has been lost since!

Main Entry: re·ly
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈlī\
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): re·lied; re·ly·ing
Etymology: Middle English relien to rally, from Anglo-French relier to retie, gather, rally, from Latin religare to tie out of the way, from re- + ligare to tie — more at ligature
Date: 1574
1 : to be dependent <the system on which we rely for water>
2 : to have confidence based on experience <someone you can rely on>
— re·li·er \-ˈlī(-ə)r\ noun


so what your saying then is - they were ""dependant on god""?

Well i agree as to giving them there life, but that does not answer the question of >what they knew<

Gen. says that Adam gave all the animals names did he not? that he had been told to till [cultivate] the garden, so he had knowlege supposedly - so what i'm asking if it was neither good/bad - then what was it? just general non discript knowledge? that which could be neither deemed good ro bad? is their >>neutral knowledge<< ?? A kind of knowledge that is neither? If so what would that knowlege be?

Or do you believe as funches states that man was just another animal with no more intellegnce than an ant or a bird?

Well - it doesn't really say - so obviously, we don't know. But that's never stopped anyone of us from having pages and pages to write about it.

Is it safe to assume that they knew what was around them was good? Since they were tossed out of the garden, it would tend to back up the idea that at least they were surrounded with all that was good. Hard to believe they didn't notice that. Obviously, they knew a lot more when they got out of the garden than when they were in it. Or did they? They likely had the same things to look at, just from two different perspectives when they got outside of the garden. It will be interesting to see where this goes though.

So let me get this straight. Are you asking if someone believes like Funches does?

Let me think about this for a few days.

I'll get back to you.

(insert hand slapping forehead emoticon)

you took that just the way i meant it!!

I disagree, i think they were as little children in there thinking, that they had cognizance, rationality, were able to reason to some degree and understand things that were told them or spoken of much as a young child is able to do. Past that i can't say for sure, but the text gives me that much at least. i don't think they new "good" per say but had a lack of evil awareness for any comparison to be able to know either. if we read the LXX [septuigent} we see wording that implies they had knowledge of neither.

" 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil– of it ye shall not eat, but in whatsoever day ye eat of it, ye shall surely die."

the tree of ""knowledge"" >OF< [knowledge of what?]- good and evil. Not knowledge of things like language or knowing what to name the animals, or being aware of what god said not to do. ONLY the "Knowledge" of good and evil - it would make them aware of things they were not as of then aware of. LXX


again:

7 And the eyes of both were opened, and they perceived that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons to go round them. LXX

"and the eyes of both were opened" meaning they had become "AWARE" they had awareness not know to them before this time.

"they {PERCEIVED] that they were naked. again new awareness, a knowledge unknown to them till then but only in that aspect. that's what funch don't get.

as to dieing - my thought on that was a death of innocense, a type of spiritual death not one of physical death as can be plainly seen. so in that sense god did not lie as some have said about them dieing. No longer could they be in or go back to the innocense they had previous to the eating of the fruit. the LXX also pnts to something not taken into concideration:

2 And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. LXX


"Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall you "TOUCH IT" to me this means the very act of touching it may have caused the same fall, though we will never know because they did go on to eat it.

but to my original OP statement, this is what i see when i read the text carefully, you and others may see it differently.

Hmmm... I don't see a disagreement here. You've pretty much said what I was implying. I was just not as eloquent. Hard to say how long they were in the garden before the "serpent thing". I think the "innocense" thing is right on. Especially our recollection of it (we were - after all - young once) in terms of empathising.

Since they did not immediately drop dead - a "spiritual death" in terpretation makes more sense than a literal one. Though we know absolutely - that everyone dies, eventually, so it could be a tense issue on the physical interpretation. The "argument" could go both ways.

ignorance is bliss? no?

Maybe but i think not - here's why - if god states you shall surely die, i take that literally, since they did not a physical death, then it would only hold that it was other than physical death he was talking of - keep in mind they did not know of death till god slayed what ever animal he slayed to make the clothing/coverings. They had not seen it or anything to make real sense of what it was. I think that is why their was so little concern, on eve's part especially, when she went ahead with the action and also why adam so easily followed - he saw no change immediately with eve, so why not it looked good she said it was good and no immediate consequences were seen. it's much easier to be swayed about something when you really dont know or understand what is actually going to happen to you for doing it like a child told not to play with matches.

for this reason, seeing god knew what was to take place, it makes perfect sense that this would be the spiritual death of innocense i speak of. It also set up his plan or put it into action to bring about christ. Which could not have taken
place if adam and eve were to die physically correct? a death of innocense allows the plan to go forward. a physical death ends the plan god knew what he was doing.

7 And the eyes of both were opened, and they perceived that they were naked

and the eyes of both were opened - how many times have we heard you have eyes but you cannot see? this is their case also at the beginning. the knowledge they gained was that of being able to see[perceive] their nakedness.the gaining of the knowledge of evil - the evil? - their new awareness of sexuality, desire, as they looked on one another in a new found desire we call lust. till then as i said they were as new children learning as they went along, not stupid just learning as they went. thier skills of reasoning are apparent as was their cognizance, and intellegence like I wrote to funch,the new knowledge [awareness] of thoughts they never had till then was what god concidered evil and they knew that shortly after eating the fruit, [i'm going to say it was a pomegranite i'm tired of the apple symbology]

anyway that's my exigesis on the subject - thats why i cant get up to noah yet to much to see in genisis 1-4 -

First off - I agree. But...

Allow me to be "trollish" here. What allows me to dismiss the idea that he is merely refering to the physical, and that "you will surely die" is just informing Adam of what will await? (Which is reiterated in Gen 3:19 when God says "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return".) For in order to be left with "spiritual death" as priori - this must be explained away.

no problem i dont disagree with the finality that was to come of physical death that would not have taken place if they had not disobeyed nor the spiritual. What im reffering to is this:

but in whatsoever >>>day<<< ye eat of it, ye shall surely die.

Now if we take "DAY" to mean a 24 hr period or 12 hr period, then if that is the case, then god lied as to there immediate "physical" death taking place - and if were to take it as there far off over 900 yrs span is to mean "day" then it can't be a physical death spoken of by god, can it?

So all that leaves if it's not talking about their physical death is a "spiritual" death. now what kind of spiritual death happened within that ""day"" period of time? the only thing that can bee seen to happen in the text is that "their eyes were opened and they became [aware] of thought's [and feelings], that were not present before they partook of the nice ripe "pomegranite" AKA- the knowledge of evil -

and i also believe good to. but in a way not known to them before, meaning they had no idea that being the way they were was what was concidered by god to be "good" they just were who and how they were - thats all they know, but afterwords i believe they also gained a real understanding of what god meant by good as well as evil.

Day in hebrew is: >yome< - which is used 14 times as day and 14 times as year, then a number of other times as things out side of specific times which i cant see relate to this subject.

so if it meant year? then somethings wrong, but as a day -be it 12 or 24 hrs. then it fits the rest of the story.

thats my exigesis on it anyway, your milage may differ, all dealer discounts are retained by the owner, tax and title not incuded.

Intelligence has little to do with good and evil or knowing the difference.

Some of the most intelligent people in the world are what could be described has the most heartless, cruel and "evil" people.

The "tree" of the knowledge of good and evil is simply love and compassion.

They ate of that tree when they had sex with each other.
(It was a cherry tree)

(The Naga snake man showed them how.)

(Hence the term "I lost my cherry..")

After that, Adam loved Eve a lot.

And Eve discovered she had something he wanted and learned how to lead him around by the nose.

Not that I think my vote is the one that matters - but this would dismiss the physical.

It is interesting to note - that in the NIV it says "when you eat of it" rather than "the day you eat of it" in the KJV.

But then - there's always the passage that says Adam lived 930 years, and then he died. That's one L-O-N-G day, eH?

that's the story of abra and G -

thats why i went back to the LXX [which should really be the LXXII} i find it to be much more eye opening than any other to the original hebrew to greek translations. 'When you eat of it" ? hmmm? i would have to look at that to see just how they came up with that phrase. when you look at the TR i dont see that as being vialve as to the mesoretic words or the LXX? so9metimes i think the NIV was is, a unreliable version if your looking for the real intended meaning in MO.

Man is an animal. He is a species of mammal. Humans are bipedal primates in the family Hominidae. Our Mitochondrial DNA evidence indicates that modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Its not compulsory for you to believe that but it is one valid theory of course. Naked apes.

did they have somthing to do with ants or fruit bats or birds as funches suggest or believes? he never stated he believed we came as a brach off of apes, he thinks A&E were no smarter than an ant or fruit bat or bird - do you think that also?

Well I don't believe that this story literally took place. I feel it was written as a way to discredit something else that was already happening and had been taking place for thousands of years. Im not sure if you want me to explain this or not. Are you asking me if I think Adam and Eve were dingbats or mindless automatons? Well, if you believe the story to be factual, then they were created whole, never infants, never children. This would mean that they never had a chance to actually grow into adulthood and learn as you and I were capable of doing. We were permitted to exercise poor judgment and make mistakes throughout our lives and then because of this, we had a chance to learn from our errors and not repeat the behaviors that caused us harm. Adam and Eve not so much. They were custom designed like flat bed trucks special ordered from the factory and they rolled off that assembly line not knowing night from day.

No, I look on this entire event and its meaning, a little differently than most I guess.