Can Adam be held responsible?

Ask moral related questions. What things are right and wrong? What should we do and not do?

Moderator: grand_puba

Post Reply
LRR
Banned
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:07 am
Location: MO

Can Adam be held responsible?

Post by LRR » Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:18 am

To get the root of the question we must first establish some absolutes according to the document giving the account- the Bible.

1. Adam and Eve were the very first humans
2. Neither Adam nor Eve had the concept of Good and Evil before the fruit was eaten
3. They received the concept of good and evil from eating the fruit proven through the fact that they were ashamed of their own nakedness upon eating the fruit.

Genesis 2:18 (NAS) And Jehovah God said "It is not good for man to be alone; I will make him a help meet for him"

In Genesis 3:5 (NAS)
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened and they knew that they were naked and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.


With these basics we can then continue our search for a reasonable answer. It is hard to do, but try to completely be objective and empathize with the concept of having no idea what is right or wrong. To envision a toddler would still be missing the mark we are aiming to achieve. A toddler does not know right from wrong on most things, but the difference in a toddler and Adam is that the toddler does have the basic sense of right and wrong. Ex: if she witnesses abuse, she cries.) It is upon that sense which a life of values will be built. Adam on the other hand, had NO basic sense of right or wrong whatsoever or else the tree of the knowledge of good and evil wouldn't be very enlightening now would it? So Adam, before he ate the fruit, was doomed to a lifetime of unaccountability because he could never build up morals and base his life around them. Adams existence was based on 3 things, food, water and procreation. Our lives are more complex than this primal man because of the fact that knowledge of what is good or evil plays a major role in the directions we take and the decisions we make.

If I was Adam, it would not matter to me that I was naked in a garden as long as I was comfortable with the weather. (which is exactly what we witness in the pages of this book) Comfort was the only factor that concerned Adam and Eve. When Adam had a desire, the thought was not: is the deed right or wrong, rather, where is it so I can commit the act that satisfies the desire. When a person is driven out of desire and primal instinct, rather than reasoning of good and evil they no longer fall into the category of what we think of as present day humans but instead become something all together different. Animals would be the best example, although I am quite sure that animals cannot accurately describe the state of absolutely no spark of knowledge of good and evil. Even monkeys will starve themselves if they realize that the button they push for food causes their cage mate to be shocked. **http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/scien ... ref=slogin **more evidence toward the evolution of emotions and intellect rather than divine endowment of them.

To get down to meat of the point, look at concrete definition of the word Lack.
lack [lak]
n
1. shortage or absence of something: a shortage or complete absence of a particular thing
Encarta World English Dictionary & (P) 1998-2004

If I make the statement I lack the sense of sight. Any rational human being would come to the conclusion, that if I am telling the truth, I have absolutely no vision whatsoever, none. That would be an absolute. If I told you I lack the concept of the knowledge of good and evil- First, you are going to ask when I am scheduled to go before the judge and make my insanity plea for murder and then after your fits of laughter or worry have subsided you are going to ask "Well, my good Sir, where did it go?" Because what I have told you is that I have NO concept of Good or Evil. My statement did not leave room for me to have any knowledge of the sense whatsoever, just as a man lacking his sense of sight has none at all. A statement such as Last night I had a lack of sleep is a different use of the word because that lends way to the fact that I have had some sleep it was just lacking the amount I want. To be blind from birth though is a different use of the word lack. To ask a man blind from birth to point out the color red in a box of crayons would be asking him to do a task that to anyone else is simple but to him impossible. Just as to ask a man who lacks the concept of good and evil to obey an order is just as silly, but easy to present day humans who do have the concept.

For God, to base the bible around the redemption of sin that started with Adam is in its very premise flawed. In the bible it states that Adam sinned when eating the fruit. To that statement I say does a lion sin when hunting down and devouring a wilder beast on the African plains? Even if I told a lion not to do so he still would without ever feeling an ounce of guilt at the blood dripping from his fangs, because in the lions mind he saw, he wanted, and he took. Just as Adam, when told not to eat of the tree by God then in turn was told that he should in fact eat of the tree by his wife which was told to do so by the talking serpent, and neither having the ability to decide from who is right or wrong (serpent, God, themselves) or more importantly even what is right or wrong, did end up eating of the fruit. By doing so he was satisfying primal desire and had no way of factoring in that he was breaking a law or sinning. Just as the blind man can not point out the color red if told to do so, even if his life is on the line. How can you hold a blind man, that you yourself created blind, accountable for not being able to choose the red crayon from a stack of crayons? Adam was guilty of nothing more than being what he was programmed to be: A man surviving by desire. Clearly stated in the scripture above, Eve was only using value judgments of the flesh when she saw that it was "good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise". None of which are moral judgments; for, as already established- neither Adam nor Eve had the luxury of a moral compass upon which to base their decisions. To hold either of them responsible for pains in child birth, sweat in the fields or the death of billions upon billions, is something to be balked at if not rejected all together.

In sincere concern for the Truth,
LRR
"One man standing for what he knows to be right is more powerful than a thousand kneeling for what they know to be wrong" -LRR

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

flaw in fundamental premise

Post by m273p15c » Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:45 am

You say that they had no concept of right and wrong, but that is not what the Bible says. It says they had no knowledge of good and evil.

They were morally responsible for their decisions, because God clearly instructed them to not eat of the tree:
Moses wrote:15 Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;
17 "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:15-17)
Eve exhibited that moral capacity and consciousness, when she first used that as explanation to why she would not originally eat:
Moses wrote:1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Has God indeed said, 'You shall not eat of every tree of the garden'?"
2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat 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 has said, 'You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.' "
4 Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die.
5 "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.
7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. (Genesis 3:1-7)
The mistake came when she second-guessed God, substituting her judgment, as supplied by the Devil, for God's judgment.

Just because they had no "knowledge", does not mean they had no concept of good and evil. It just means they were innocent, without empirical, fist-hand, or full appreciation. For example, consider another use of the same word (Hebrew - yada) in the immediate context:
Moses wrote:1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, "I have acquired a man from the LORD." ...
25 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, "For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed." (Genesis 4:1, 25)
Did Adam have no concept of his wife, Eve, until she conceived their first son? You mean he had never seen here? He had been walking around, completely oblivious of her until she conceived? How did he come to "know" her again later? Had he forgotten her during the intermittent time?

Clearly, "knowledge" in this context has a much more specific meaning than simple awareness of just any information whatsoever.

Adam and Eve were both morally competent and accountable. Their eyes were opened to the first-hand experience of the guilt, horror, and consequence of sin. They became empirically aware of the evil potential in themselves and others. They knew the meaning of sin before they ate, but afterwards, they appreciated its full significance.

Thy physical consequences passed to all men (physical death, working by sweat of brow, pain in childbirth - Genesis 3:16-24) are typical and expressive of sin's unfairness. By its very nature, sin produces unfair consequences for others to bear. However, the spiritual consequences of sin only continue indirectly, because we likewise sin (Romans 5:12) - not because we inherited Adam's sin (Ezekiel 18; II Corinthians 5:10).
Last edited by m273p15c on Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

LRR
Banned
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:07 am
Location: MO

Re: flaw in fundamental premise

Post by LRR » Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:22 pm

You are bending over backwards in order to attempt to make the bible correct when it just isn't as it applies to this story.

"They knew the meaning of sin before they ate, but afterwards, they appreciated its full significance."

Yet they had no problem whatsoever walking around naked before the tree and then suddenly learned it was wrong? That makes no sense.

Further, look at your quote of the serpent speaking with Eve. She never said anything about it being sinful. He asked her a question about trees in the garden and she simply reiterated what god told her. Never anything about the sinfulness of the act...

You are making some serious leaps and bounds of truth in your response to that article. But hey, something that cannot exist in our reality, but does in some other supernatural realm can, I suppose, fit or not fit into any box you wish.
"One man standing for what he knows to be right is more powerful than a thousand kneeling for what they know to be wrong" -LRR

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

spare me your mockery

Post by m273p15c » Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:01 am

LRR wrote:You are bending over backwards in order to attempt to make the bible correct when it just isn't as it applies to this story.
There is nothing unnatural or awkward about the interpretation. The immediate context shows how the word can be used. Moreover, plenty of Bible dictionaries and lexicons can be quoted to make the same point. Here's one:
Strong's wrote:3045 [yada` {yaw-dah'}] Meaning:

1) to know 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to know 1a1a) to know, learn to know 1a1b) to perceive 1a1c) to perceive and see, find out and discern 1a1d) to discriminate, distinguish 1a1e) to know by experience 1a1f) to recognise, admit, acknowledge, confess 1a1g) to consider 1a2) to know, be acquainted with 1a3) to know (a person carnally) 1a4) to know how, be skilful in 1a5) to have knowledge, be wise 1b) (Niphal) 1b1) to be made known, be or become known, be revealed 1b2) to make oneself known 1b3) to be perceived 1b4) to be instructed 1c) (Piel) to cause to know 1d) (Poal) to cause to know 1e) (Pual) 1e1) to be known 1e2) known, one known, acquaintance (participle) 1f) (Hiphil) to make known, declare 1g) (Hophal) to be made known 1h) (Hithpael) to make oneself known, reveal oneself
You have to use the context to determine if "knowledge" refers to mere acquaintance or the appreciation of experience. Did Eve know that she should not eat? What does the context say?
  1. God had told them specifically not to eat (Genesis 2:15-17).
  2. God explained the consequences of eating (death) (Genesis 2:17-17), which the Devil tried to defuse (Genesis 3:4-5).
  3. Eve repeated that warning to the Devil and initially refused (Genesis 3:3); therefore, she exhibited some moral fiber.
What more do you need to show that she was morally competent?
LRR wrote:Further, look at your quote of the serpent speaking with Eve. She never said anything about it being sinful. He asked her a question about trees in the garden and she simply reiterated what god told her. Never anything about the sinfulness of the act...
First, the Devil asked about God's command regarding the trees - not just the trees. Morality was the subject from the beginning. Furthermore, what is sin? It is nothing more than violation of God's commands:
John wrote:Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. (I John 3:4)
When she initially based her decision on obedience to God's command, she invoked the definition of morality and sin, even if she never used the actual words. Whether or not she used the word you want is just semantics. The idea is clearly in the context.

She based her second round of reasoning on her own judgment, as suggested by the Devil. As you recognized, it was a carnal thought process (see also I John 2:15-17; James 1:14-15), but it was her second thought process!! Her initial reaction was spiritual, because it was rooted in faith in God. Again, what better proof of moral accountability than to witness one profess the correct moral thought process, followed by an inaccurate and inferior thought process. She had it right, but then she caved to her own carnal reasoning. This proves she knew better but chose otherwise.

Finally, witness her guilt:
Moses wrote:And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. (Genesis 3:8)
Does one feel guilty, when they believe they are innocent? Her actions betrayed her heart. Her manifested guilt proves that she knew she had done wrong and regretted it.

All the signs of moral competency are present in the context:
  • Ability to articulate what should be done and not done.
  • Ability to articulate the consequences of doing the wrong things.
  • Reluctance to do the wrong thing.
  • Guilt and regret for doing the wrong thing.
Consequently, unless one presumes the originally proposition, I see no basis in the context to believe that Adam and Eve were morally incompetent. Admittedly, the word "knowledge" can be a little confusing, but looking at a dictionary, or just reading into the next chapter will explain the paradox.

Regarding the "eye-opening" nature of this incident, a good analogy is a child (or anyone) getting burned for the first time. I still remember my mother telling me not to touch the stove, because it was hot and it would burn very badly. I understood the idea of heat. I understood the idea of pain and hurt. I understood that I should not touch it, because she said so. However, after several unsuccessful attempts, due to her batting away my persistent hand, I finally manged to get a finger on the stove, while she wasn't looking. Man, Oh, man, did I then know what pain and heat was. I knew before, but now I really knew. I had experienced it!

I think most everybody has had multiple experiences, even in their adult life, when they knew something was bad before experiencing it, but after an empirical encounter or some "near-miss", they later understand the full danger, consequences, etc. of a given thing. Can you relate? If so, then you should have no trouble understanding how Eve and Adam were morally competent before their first experience of sin's guilt.
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

LRR
Banned
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:07 am
Location: MO

Post by LRR » Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:47 am

*sigh*

Again....
"And the eyes of them both were opened (present tense) and they knew that they were naked; (NEW Revelation of the fact, not that they had realized it as a problem the day before) ; and they sewed fig leaves together and made for themselves aprons."

Why did they supposedly, according the story book, make aprons for themselves? If they had known about nakedness and the fact that, according the the story book, it is a sin to be naked did they not already have aprons? I suppose we should just overlook this sudden epiphany of good and evil as a new experience, just an offshoot of becoming
"empirically aware of the evil potential in themselves and others."
Because
They knew the meaning of sin before they ate, but afterwards, they appreciated its full significance.
and as a bonus point they received nakedness knowledge?

That again makes no sense. They had been naked it is inferred the whole time before they ate of the fruit. And then suddenly "their eyes were opened" to sin and they knew what nakedness was and felt shame at being such. Not- they experienced someone mocking, rebuking or chastising them for such, they just suddenly knew it. How? By eating of the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL.

What is the whole point of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and becoming like god if you eat of the tree knowing good and evil if you already had no issue knowing it before?

What would you say the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was, sir? The reveal your nakedness tree?
"One man standing for what he knows to be right is more powerful than a thousand kneeling for what they know to be wrong" -LRR

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

who said their prior nakedness was a sin?

Post by m273p15c » Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:40 pm

LRR wrote:Again....
"And the eyes of them both were opened (present tense) and they knew that they were naked; (NEW Revelation of the fact, not that they had realized it as a problem the day before) ; and they sewed fig leaves together and made for themselves aprons."

Why did they supposedly, according the story book, make aprons for themselves? If they had known about nakedness and the fact that, according the the story book, it is a sin ... That again makes no sense. They had been naked it is inferred the whole time before they ate of the fruit. And then suddenly "their eyes were opened" to sin and they knew what nakedness was and felt shame at being such.
You are assuming that it was sinful for them to be naked prior to this point. Where in the text does it say their nakedness was a sin?

Please recall, Adam and Eve were married:
Moses wrote:Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. (Genesis 2:24-25)
Therefore, there was no sin in their nakedness.

Consciousness of guilt from sin produced shame, manifesting itself as a desire to clothe (hide) oneself. They had no shame regarding nakedness until they sinned by eating of the tree. Awareness of their nakedness was a consequence of their newfound knowledge of good and evil.
LRR wrote:What is the whole point of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and becoming like god if you eat of the tree knowing good and evil if you already had no issue knowing it before?
Before they ate, they knew the definition of good and evil. They knew the definition of right and wrong. After they ate, they had first-hand knowledge of both good and evil. Their new experience with evil, sin, guilt, and shame undoubtedly gave them a new appreciation for "good", since they were that no longer. Kind of like the old saying, "You don't know what you got, until it's gone." Therefore, we can easily say and understand that eating from the tree gave knowledge of both evil and good. ... (Recall, only the Devil said it would make them wise like God. God never said nor endorsed that point.)

So, to sum up, they had no sin before eating from the tree. They were aware it was wrong to eat the tree. They knew the consequences of eating fruit from the forbidden tree. But, they ate anyway, thereby introducing sin into their own lives and the world. Afterward they felt a sense of shame, which manifested itself by recognition of their nakedness and a desire to conceal it. The context shows that Adam and Eve were free from sin before eating from the tree, and they were accountable for their eating of it by their own sense of shame and admission. Therefore, God is exonerated from charges of unjust punishment.
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

LRR
Banned
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:07 am
Location: MO

Re: who said their prior nakedness was a sin?

Post by LRR » Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:05 pm

You are still quite wrong and reviewing the text and exactly what it says to the matter proves it. What you are doing is mere spin which is to be expected of you. Same as the individual who says that when the bible said that God created TWO lights the greater to rule the day and the lesser to rule the night, it is REALLY speaking of TWO seperate lights like would have been believed by the primitive minds that lived during the time the bible was written..., no no no thats it just speaking for the now known reflection of the sun off the moon fact. The bible was completely clear on this.... riight.
"One man standing for what he knows to be right is more powerful than a thousand kneeling for what they know to be wrong" -LRR

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

is that an argument or an insult?

Post by m273p15c » Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:13 pm

LRR wrote:You are still quite wrong and reviewing the text and exactly what it says to the matter proves it. What you are doing is mere spin which is to be expected of you.
What is this? What if I said that, "You are quite wrong and only spinning the subject, which is expected of you"? Would that answer anything? Would you accuse me of having blind-faith, a prejudiced heart, or simply submitting to the pressure of fear of hell? I am surprised to see these kind of statements coming from someone who boasts of his consistency. ... Anyway, I am happy to let the record stand as it is, letting the kind reader judge for himself or herself. I believe the facts and arguments speak for themselves.

If you would like to discuss the "lights" of Genesis 3:1-3, I would be happy to discuss that with you in a new post, since that is a new topic. Would you mind starting a new thread? I'll be happy to answer you there.
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

LRR
Banned
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:07 am
Location: MO

Re: is that an argument or an insult?

Post by LRR » Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:47 am

m273p15c wrote:
LRR wrote:You are still quite wrong and reviewing the text and exactly what it says to the matter proves it. What you are doing is mere spin which is to be expected of you.
What is this? What if I said that, "You are quite wrong and only spinning the subject, which is expected of you"? Would that answer anything? Would you accuse me of having blind-faith, a prejudiced heart, or simply submitting to the pressure of fear of hell? I am surprised to see these kind of statements coming from someone who boasts of his consistency. ... Anyway, I am happy to let the record stand as it is, letting the kind reader judge for himself or herself. I believe the facts and arguments speak for themselves.

If you would like to discuss the "lights" of Genesis 3:1-3, I would be happy to discuss that with you in a new post, since that is a new topic. Would you mind starting a new thread? I'll be happy to answer you there.
To not have the knowledge of good and evil is not not be aware of good and evil. You say that they knew it was wrong to eat of the tree which there is no evidence of. I cannot argue an individual who chooses to write his own version of the bible. That is no different than you attempting to argue with a baptist on the plan of salvation. The points you are attempting to make just are not in the text. Many have read this article and even some Christians and they are not stretching to the lengths that you would attempt to do with this reach. It just is not there, and yes, the readers will have to decide for themselves. I have often stated that in a debate, it is not the individual one is debating that is the target of change, rather the audience.
"One man standing for what he knows to be right is more powerful than a thousand kneeling for what they know to be wrong" -LRR

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

<insert witty subject here>

Post by m273p15c » Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:14 am

Well, I don't know what more I can say, LRR - except, Thanks! I appreciate you discussing this topic with me. I hope the thread will prove spiritually profitable to you and others in the future. I have found the discussion to be very encouraging to me personally.
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

foc
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:01 pm
Contact:

Post by foc » Sat Dec 15, 2007 9:16 pm

In Genesis 3:5 (NAS) For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.
while I do very much see what you are trying to show here, a concept of 'good' and 'evil' was not necessary to know and fully comprehend that the big Guy on the block said "DONT TOUCH".
If for no other reason, fear alone would have told anyone with a brain and common sense that if I was created by this Being, that Id probably not be doing myself any favors by ignoring His demands.

Again, tho, based on the scripture you cited, I DO understand how you might draw the conclusion you seem to have.
Just bear in mind that I dont need to comprehend all the details of what is going on at a job to know that what *I* have been told to do is sweep the floors.

I hope this makes sense :)

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Post by m273p15c » Sat Dec 22, 2007 1:26 pm

foc wrote:... while I do very much see what you are trying to show here ...
LRR, being an atheist, attempted to show that God was unjust, thereby discrediting the Bible and the notion of God own its own admission. However, I believe it was demonstrated that he twisted the Scriptures to arrive at his desired conclusion.
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

foc
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:01 pm
Contact:

Post by foc » Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:01 am

m273p15c wrote:
foc wrote:... while I do very much see what you are trying to show here ...
LRR, being an atheist, attempted to show that God was unjust, thereby discrediting the Bible and the notion of God own its own admission. However, I believe it was demonstrated that he twisted the Scriptures to arrive at his desired conclusion.
I understand :)
My point was to try to show that there IS a common sense approach to Adam being blamed for what he did.
Adam didnt need to eat of the tree or understand good and evil to know that the big Guy on the block said 'dont touch'.
:)

Post Reply