God, death, and Adam

[Kelp]

Here's something that came to mind yesterday.

When God said to Adam and Eve, "In the day you eat of the fruit you shall surely die" (paraphrase), how would they have known what death was? The answer: That they had already seen animals die.

Make sense?

The only objection I can think is if God gave Adam prophetic vision of death in the future and explained the concept to them that way. Problems with this?

What do you think?

[justsumguy]

There certainly seemed to be some confusion.
First God tells Adam that in the day he ate it, Adam would surely die.
I guess that in the day, didn’t really mean that day.
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Apparently Adam didn’t tell Eve it would be that day or Eve forgot…
And I don’t know where she got the not touch it from. Just goes to show, too many commandments and the main one gets broken (I couldn’t help myself with that one).
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Then the serpent apparently tells the truth in one sense…
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
After they eat it, they are told a wide arrange of things they will have to go through as they live…and then God gets to the death part…
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Right after God tells Adam about the dust thing, Adam does this…
And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

I would say God is the only one who knew what God was talking about and fear wasn’t the issue. Knowing it was what God said not to do was quite enough and the dying part was just God speaking the truth.

[KBertsche]

Here's something that came to mind yesterday.

When God said to Adam and Eve, "In the day you eat of the fruit you shall surely die" (paraphrase), how would they have known what death was? The answer: That they had already seen animals die.

Make sense?

The only objection I can think is if God gave Adam prophetic vision of death in the future and explained the concept to them that way. Problems with this?

What do you think?

The story certainly assumes that Adam & Eve understood something about what "death" was. If they had no inkling of "death," the story doesn't make sense.

Your explanation is a reasonable one. Some OECs use your argument as evidence that there was animal death before the Fall.

[nightbringer]

Did Adam and Eve have to learn what every language term referred to by experience before they understood anything God said? The young-earther can just say that they were created with a knowledge of such concepts even without direct experience of what they denoted.

[JimL]

Did Adam and Eve have to learn what every language term referred to by experience before they understood anything God said? The young-earther can just say that they were created with a knowledge of such concepts even without direct experience of what they denoted.

I think that the point of the story is that they were absent of knowledge, otherwise there would be no need for a tree of knowledge by which they could attain it. They were like pets in a zoo, a very nice zoo to be sure, but they had no clue, which was the way their caretaker, for whatever the reason, wanted it. But I think that the idea of immediate death upon partaking of the fruit is a misreading of the verse. It is the tree of knowledge, not the tree of death, and so I think that it should be read as a metaphor relating the evolution of human life from thoughtless or blind innocence, such as is the case in the whole of the animal world, to a world in which their innocence is lost and their eyes are opened to the realities of life. Of course if you take the story literally this change takes place in an instant of disobedience, but if you take in its allegorical sense, which personally I think is the more logical perspective, it is just describing in a short story, the long history and evolution of the human mind and the consequences of knowing.

[apostoli]

I think that the point of the story is that they were absent of knowledge, otherwise there would be no need for a tree of knowledge by which they could attain it.

I can agree that they didn't have the knowledge of good and bad, but it has to be assumed that they were taught about other things, thus had some knowledge. Consider Gen 2:15, God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. That would imply attaining some knowledge of agriculture. Also consider Gen 2:19 where God is said to have brought all the creatures for Adam to name. Which implies Adam was able to conceptualise things, which imo requires some knowledge of philosophy.

They were like pets in a zoo, a very nice zoo to be sure, but they had no clue, which was the way their caretaker, for whatever the reason, wanted it. But I think that the idea of immediate death upon partaking of the fruit is a misreading of the verse.

As do most religionists as Genesis clearly has them surviving their error. Nowhere is it written that they would "immediately die", merely that they would "surely die". Admittedly the phrase "in the day" would indicate to us something happening within a 24 hour period, but the reality is the hebrew word used, "yowm", can refer to an indefinite period of time.

It is the tree of knowledge, not the tree of death

The indication is that they died because they lost access to the tree of life, not because they ate from "the tree of the knowledge of good and bad" - which was the cause of their expulsion from the garden.

and so I think that it should be read as a metaphor relating the evolution of human life from thoughtless or blind innocence, such as is the case in the whole of the animal world, to a world in which their innocence is lost and their eyes are opened to the realities of life. Of course if you take the story literally this change takes place in an instant of disobedience, but if you take in its allegorical sense, which personally I think is the more logical perspective, it is just describing in a short story, the long history and evolution of the human mind and the consequences of knowing.

I think the author of Genesis worked from the presumption that mankind was created innocent but with all the functional knowledge he required to survive. What we seem to have in the story is the evolution of evil in the world.

Here's something that came to mind yesterday. When God said to Adam and Eve, "In the day you eat of the fruit you shall surely die" (paraphrase), how would they have known what death was? The answer: That they had already seen animals die.

That idea works for Eve but not for Adam. Genesis 2:18 says Adam was 100% alone when God gave him the commandment. Later God brought "every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air" to Adam.

The only [alternative] I can think is if God gave Adam prophetic vision of death in the future and explained the concept to them that way.

I don't think a "prophetic vision" was required, I doubt any vision would have had meaning to Adam. I think it easier to assume he had full cognition of his creation and that from dust he came and to dust he would go if he ignored God's warning.

I always find Genesis 3:17 interesting, Adam's woes were the result of him "hearkened unto the voice of thy wife", which implies if he had acted on his own voilition things may have been different, he still would eventually die, but his life may not have been so hard.

As I was writing this I noticed something in Genesis 3:22-24 that I hadn't previously thought upon = only Adam is said to have become as God, knowing good and evil. The implication is that Eve remained niave. And onlythe man is cast out of Eden, The implication is that because of vs16, Eve was obligated to follow after him.

[Zeta Metroid]

Here's something that came to mind yesterday.

When God said to Adam and Eve, "In the day you eat of the fruit you shall surely die" (paraphrase), how would they have known what death was? The answer: That they had already seen animals die.

That's like saying when the Bible says "Fear him who...has authority to throw you into hell", we must have already seen people thrown into Hell to know what we're being warned about.

[Teallaura]

Um, so how do you suppose Adam and Eve managed that whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing? "Oooh, honey, look what they're doing! I bet that is what God meant by 'multiply' - although those multiplication tables you invented were nice, too".



Okay, serious answer: the concept of cessation wouldn't have been alien and since its still in use as the explanation sometimes first given to children it seems perfectly feasible. That they didn't get the full theological implication is fairly evident - but heck, neither do most people in church nowadays....

[shunyadragon]

The indication is that they died because they lost access to the tree of life, not because they ate from "the tree of the knowledge of good and bad" - which was the cause of their expulsion from the garden.

I think the author of Genesis worked from the presumption that mankind was created innocent but with all the functional knowledge he required to survive. What we seem to have in the story is the evolution of evil in the world.

In varying degrees these are the concepts that lead to the Christian doctrines of 'original sin' and the 'Fall.' In some way most Christians consider Adam and Eve in an idyllic world without sin and death. This down the road runs head long into the reality of the historical and scientific evidence, which leads to most Christians either denying or questioning science and history. the chasm grows wider and wider as our knowledge of our human past and science progresses.

The genesis accounts can be reworked and interpreted many many ways, but the bottom line is those that wrote it believed and intended it to be literally the history of our existence from a limited ancient world view which has no relevant meaning today.

The bottom line is, humans have been distinctly human, and death is given scenario for all of human past.

[OmniSkeptical]

The point of the story is how Mankind could not and should not blindly obey God. We would live if we blindly followed God, but this was not possible, and thus "the serpent" delivered God's will, like it or not. Mankind could not follow while being blind, but also could live while seeing with one catch-- he dies. Because Mankind could not do so blindly; we live, see and die without God doing much to guide human development.

[JimL]

I can agree that they didn't have the knowledge of good and bad, but it has to be assumed that they were taught about other things, thus had some knowledge. Consider Gen 2:15, God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. That would imply attaining some knowledge of agriculture. Also consider Gen 2:19 where God is said to have brought all the creatures for Adam to name. Which implies Adam was able to conceptualise things, which imo requires some knowledge of philosophy.

And you are interpreting the story literally, which for one, I think is sad, and two, I think that such an interpretation misses the actual point of the story. The point of the story from my perspective, which is a allegorical one, is the portrayal of the evolution of the human mind from that of ignorance and innocence, to that of knowledge and the associated guilt.

As do most religionists as Genesis clearly has them surviving their error. Nowhere is it written that they would "immediately die", merely that they would "surely die". Admittedly the phrase "in the day" would indicate to us something happening within a 24 hour period, but the reality is the hebrew word used, "yowm", can refer to an indefinite period of time.

And being that it is the tree of knowledge it was not death, but the knowledge of death that they would surely acquire. Its about the loss of innocence, or in other words, the loss of ignorance, and the pschological costs of coming to know. Young children, though they will one day die, know nothing of death, generally don't give a thought to it, but once they come to understand, or partake of the tree of knowledge so to speak, only then will they truly know that they will surely die. And this analogy between the evolution of children with that of the evolution of the human mind itself, from its more innocent state to its more evolved and knowledgeable state, and the penalty that we pay for that evolution is the point.

The indication is that they died because they lost access to the tree of life, not because they ate from "the tree of the knowledge of good and bad" - which was the cause of their expulsion from the garden.

Ignorance is associated with innocence and innocence is associated with life. The tree of life represented the childlike innocence of life, which they lost, as we all do, with the loss of their innocence.

I think the author of Genesis worked from the presumption that mankind was created innocent but with all the functional knowledge he required to survive. What we seem to have in the story is the evolution of evil in the world.

No, I disagree, what we have here, at least in my interpretation of it, is the loss of innocence, the evolution of the human mind, and therefore, not the evolution of evil into the world, but rather the evolution of mans "knowledge of evil" in the world. As far as a mind is concerned, there is no such thing as evil, unless, and until, it "knows" it to be evil.

[Calminian]

Here's something that came to mind yesterday.

When God said to Adam and Eve, "In the day you eat of the fruit you shall surely die" (paraphrase), how would they have known what death was? The answer: That they had already seen animals die.

Make sense?

The only objection I can think is if God gave Adam prophetic vision of death in the future and explained the concept to them that way. Problems with this?

What do you think?

There is nothing in the text to suggest that everything recored in Genesis exhaustively covers everything conversation that Adam and God had. Just the opposite. Implicitly, they walked and talked in the cool of the day. Adam was very intelligent and would have had no problem understanding the concept of death, both physical and spiritual. The argument's a non starter. It's in essence and argument from silence.

[Calminian]

I can agree that they didn't have the knowledge of good and bad, but it has to be assumed that they were taught about other things, thus had some knowledge.

They didn't have general knowledge of of all sins, but they did have knowledge of a specific sinful act—eating of the tree of knowledge. They got this directly from God himself.

Sometimes people misunderstand the tree of knowledge as a tree of comprehension—thus concluding that Adam had no means of comprehending what was right and wrong. It's simply a case of adding something to scripture that was never intended. Indeed, the problem is not taking the text literally enough and trying to add additional meanings to words (as is the constant temptation with OEC interpretations). Adam was liable for his disobedience, specifically because he understood it. Paul confirms this.

1Tim. 2:14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.

Partaking of the tree did not give adam the ability to comprehend the concept of right and wrong, but rather opened his mind up to countless moral laws he was not yet aware of before (nakedness for example). But had the Lord told him prior to eating the tree that he was to be clothed, he would have been able to understand God just fine. He wasn't stupid.

Partaking of the tree took Adam from knowledge of one law to countless laws.