A Response to the Previous Posts

I have some comments that I would like to voice concerning the previous posts ...

"Indeed, what is fair or unfair? just or unjust? good or evil?If the woman and man truly did not have knowledge of good and evil, then how can they be faulted for disobeying God"

They can be faulted because they had all that they needed to know. God was not withholding vital information from them that suspended their moral obligation to obey him. He told them, "Don't eat." That was and should always be enough. The problem comes in, when we are not satisfied with that answer. Why? We want to "know" more.

In fact if you compare Gen 2:9 with 3:6 they both say "good for food," and "pleasant to the eyes" but 3:6 adds "to be desired to make one wise." It was not appetite nor beauty that drew Eve, but the desire for "wisdom" or "knowledge." She wanted to know something that was not for her to know. We can all identify ... think of a time when some authority made a decision without consulting you. They tell you what to do and what is our response? "Why?" Or have they ever made a decision with which you disagreed and they would not tell you why they did so? Does not that tick you off? Why ... because we want to be "in the know." We think the more we know the better off we are. I am not advocating a compaign for total ignorance, but there is evil that we are not intended to know. We want to know, because we are the children of Eve ... we want to be like God.

Think of it. We don't like the answer "Because I said so." It is a vulnerable place to be. This means that we have to trust the person on the basis of what they know and who they are, not on what we know or who we are. Adam and Eve had no reason not to trust God's words. They had the rest of the Garden to prove that he was a benevolent and life-giving God. It was the unknown that they wanted to know.

"did the first humans already have an inherent knowledge of good and evil?"

Whether they did or did not is not the point. They had all that they needed. The "fall" was that they did not believe this. They wanted more. They wanted something that was not given to them. Thus they did not trust God for their all ... they decided to take matters into their own hands. DISOBEDIENCE ... pure and simple. "Do not eat of the tree" is pretty straight forward. If they can name animals, I am sure they can discern what "do not eat" means.

As to Crazy Mollies comment ... I think one is stepping on dangerous territory with this:

"What’s striking to me about the serpent’s proposition is that it is, in fact, true. Certainly Woman—she has not yet been named—and Adam are disobedient to the Lord, but, when they eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil they DON’T DIE."

By making this statement you are saying that the Serpent was telling the truth and that God was lying. Think about that. Do you really mean call God a liar? Adam and Eve did not immediately die, but they did die ... therefore, God was both gracious in suspending the punishment and trustworthy in that he causes them to die. It was on the basis of his mercy that they were not immediately destroyed.

I think we ought to focus on what God was doing (and not doing) in this story. How merciful of God to sustain our life even when we disobey. How kind of God to make provision for us so that we may receive life and not be cast out forever. How good of God. How good He is.