In the book of Genesis, God explicitely instructs Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. When they do, and learn of good and evil, God is angry and banishes them from the Garden of Eden. My question is, why would God not want man to know of good and evil? God is truth, so why would he want to keep man in ignorance? To me, it seems that the only answer is that God wanted man to accept whatever He says is right as fundamentally good and whatever He says is wrong as fundamentally evil. Is this not the same problem that some Christians have today?

My question is a bit deeper than just that account. Do Catholics believe that what is good is good because God says so, or does God say it is good because it actually is good? In other words, is there a definition of good, a moral absolute if you will, that is separate from God, or is good merely whatever God says that it is?

Sorry, I realize that was several questions, but I would be very interested in a response. Thanks.

-- John Walker (Olympus19@hotmail.com), October 19, 2003

Answers

When God speaks of Adam and Eve "learning of good and evil", He is not speaking of their recognizing something that has always been around them, but which they just didn't see before. Originally there was NO evil in the Garden of Eden at all. Adam and Eve were created good, and had remained good, and since they were the only people who existed, they therefore had no experience and therefore no knowledge of human sin or evil, because it did not exist. The phrase "learning of good and evil" really means "introducing evil into their experience". One they sinned, a moral dichotomy was set up, their will vs God's will, evil vs good. They "learned" of good and evil by allowing evil to enter their world. God did not intend that they should gain this knowledge in this way. He intended that their lives would be filled only with goodness, and that evil would remain not just outside of their knowledge, but outside of their experience. He didn't want them to be ignorant. He wanted them to be happy.

God is goodness itself. Goodness is not so much what He commands or teaches, but rather He Himself. His commandments are simply revealed ways of drawing closer to Him, and therefore to goodness. Breaking His commandments is drawing away from Him, and therefore from goodness. Goodness does not exist apart from God, for God alone is goodness (Mark 10:18); yet knowledge of goodness is possible at a very basic level, even without conscious knowledge of a personal God. This inate recognition of goodness, and therefore of God, is called The Natural Law. Adam and Eve however did know God in a personal way - far more personally than we are now capable of. This is what God wanted for them - that they would know none but Him, enjoying as it were the beatific vision during their earthly lives. He knew that acceptance of "other than Him", that is "other than goodness", that is "evil" into their lives would sever that relationship, and blind them to that vision. What a glorious ignorance that must have been! But that we could share in it as well! But thanks to the sin of our first parents, we no longer share in that delightful freedom from knowledge of evil. NRather, we share in their "knowledge of good and evil", and all of the suffering that such "knowledge" - such experience - brings.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 19, 2003.

Yes, but the idea that man had not experienced evil and only good opens up a whole new issue. First of all, you say that there was no evil in the garden of Eden, but wouldn't man still be capable of evil? Or do you believe that they would not because they did not know what evil was? (thus they could sin, but not know that it was a sin and thus it would not be evil) Or would they simply be unable to sin, thus making Adam and Eve totally good? The later seems most unlikely.

Secondly, if Adam and Eve did not know of evil, then how could they know of good? You say that God himself is good, but Adam and Eve must not have known that, because they had nothing to compare this goodness to (evil) and thus know it as good. So, this brings us back to Adam and Eve simply having to take God's word for it. I don't know about you, but I would rather know of good and evil, and choose good, then not know evil and thus in my ignorance, blindly follow the teachings of another without knowing if I am doing good or not.

This also raises another problem: How can you do good if you are unable to do evil? In such a paradise, if you are unable to do evil, then the good you do really isn't good since it is your only option. So, Adam and Eve, in order to do good, actually had to eat from the tree. Otherwise, they would never have that choice. But God was against giving Adam and Eve that choice. The question I pose is, why?

Sheesh, that was a long response. Gonna go rest my fingers now. ;)

-- John Walker (Olympus19@hotmail.com), October 19, 2003.

"wouldn't man still be capable of evil?"

A: Of course. Otherwise he would not have committed evil. Man was not perfect. God alone is perfect. But man, even in his imperfection, did not know sin or evil.

"This also raises another problem: How can you do good if you are unable to do evil?"

A: This often-posed question is essentially illogical. It's like saying "how can you experience light if you haven't experienced darkness"? Or "how can you experience sound if you haven't experienced silence"? Or "how can you experience heat if you haven't experienced cold"? Obviously, one experience not depend on the other. A person born on the equator and living there his entire live may never have experienced cold, but he has certainly experienced heat. A person born deaf has never experienced sound, but has surely experienced silence. The fact that evil did not exist where Adam and Eve lived did not in any way interfere with their experience of good. On the contrary, it necessitated their experience of good - which is exactly what God wanted for His people.

God was not against giving Adam and Eve a choice. Obviously He had given them a choice, or they would not have been able to choose evil. Free will is an inate characteristic of human beings. It is one of the ways in which we are created "in His image and likeness". If they did not have free will, there would be little point in God commanding them NOT to do something, since they would have had no choice about it anyway. Because He loved them, God WAS against their using their free will to choose their own destruction - just as with us. But He could not prevent them from doing so, or their choice would not be free - just as with us.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 19, 2003.

"Of course. Otherwise he would not have committed evil. Man was not perfect. God alone is perfect. But man, even in his imperfection, did not know sin or evil." A: I agree, but I was actually referring to a comment made by someone else who said that there was no evil in the garden. There was, at least the potential for it, because Adam and Eve had such potential. Sorry if I was not clear.

"This often-posed question is essentially illogical. It's like saying "how can you experience light if you haven't experienced darkness"? Or "how can you experience sound if you haven't experienced silence"? Or "how can you experience heat if you haven't experienced cold"? Obviously, one experience not depend on the other..." A: I believe you have misunderstood my meaning. You see, what we call "cold" is subjective, just as "hot" is as well. Someone living close to the equator may not call Houston, Texas hot, only, perhaps warm or even cool. My point is that Adam and Eve knew the current state of things (let us call it "good" for sake of argument) but had no reason to call it good because there was nothing to weigh it against. Or if there was a slight problem in the garden, say a snake that took a crap on a flower bed, then that would be called evil since it is only very slightly unpleasant but is the only unpleasant thing around. Either way, good is still existing, but the definition may be changed, unless you believe in a set definition of good and evil, which I do, but cannot yet define and thus argue oppositely, the subjectiveness of such words, until I can effectively define them. Now, that being said, I agree that Adam and Eve could do evil, and thus could do good, and I agree with your argument, but I raised the question (illogical though it was) to prove a point--that Adam and Eve were always capable of evil (which was something minor I talked about). So, I guess I made a long response despite actually agreeing with you, so there was not much point, oh well. :)

"God was not against giving Adam and Eve a choice. Obviously He had given them a choice, or they would not have been able to choose evil. Free will is an inate characteristic of human beings..." A: I have no problem with this. Yes, man has free will (I have an argument against that, but will save it for another topic at another time).

"Because He loved them, God WAS against their using their free will to choose their own destruction - just as with us. But He could not prevent them from doing so, or their choice would not be free - just as with us." A: I agree that God could not stop them, but I do have a problem with the idea that by learning about good and evil, man was choosing destruction. There are two possibilities: (1) Either man did not know of good and evil before eating from the tree, and only knew of God who told them what was good or not (thus they had no internal means of judging right from wrong), (2) or man was unable to commit evil (sin) before eating from the tree, and thus God wanted to keep man from having the option to sin by telling them not to eat from the tree, and thus being unable to sin man would not have true free will.

Please, tell me which of the two you believe to be correct (or argue for a third option if you like) and then we can take the argument in that direction, as those are the only points I wish to discuss further (if you do not mind the discussion).

-- John Walker (Olympus19@hotmail.com), October 19, 2003.

"There are two possibilities: (1) Either man did not know of good and evil before eating from the tree, and only knew of God who told them what was good or not (thus they had no internal means of judging right from wrong), (2) or man was unable to commit evil (sin) before eating from the tree, and thus God wanted to keep man from having the option to sin by telling them not to eat from the tree, and thus being unable to sin man would not have true free will"

A: The third option, the actual one, is this: God did not have to tell Adam and Eve what was good and what was not good, because everything in the Garden, therefore everything in their realm of experience, was good. Goodness was a given. God created ... and saw that it was GOOD. And so it remained until they themselves introduced evil into the picture. THEN they knew the difference between good and evil, because then evil was part of their realm of experience. One who was born blind cannot tell the difference between light and darkness, because light does not exist to that person. In fact, if others did not mention it to him, he would have no clue that such a thing even exists. Likewise, evil initially did not exist in Adam and Eve's life. Therefore the question of the difference between good and evil was completely irrelevant to their existence. How can you know the difference between that which is your whole life, and that which you have never heard of, much less experienced? And why would you need to know?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 19, 2003.

It seems to me that what is at issue is not so much whether God wanted Adam and Eve to have the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but whether it is possible to sin without such knowledge. If it is not possible, then the entire Christian tenet of salvation from the sin we somehow brought upon ourselves comes unraveled and we can close the Bible at Genesis 3.

Sin is defined in the Bible as knowing to do good and not doing it. (James 4:17) Clearly, if A&E were without the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they could not sin. The concept of original sin appears to collapse upon itself. (The idea that "the phrase 'learning of good and evil' really means 'introducing evil into their experience'" as put forth by Paul M. is really a bit of hermeneutical finagling. I have not seen any translation that suggests that this is what is meant.)

The next argument is dialectical, but I do not think it is fraught with the same metalogical flaws as "God is Love and Love is blind, so therefore God is blind." Here goes. Sin may also be defined as a disobedience to God. Disobedience is an unwillingness to submit to authority, and such unwillingness is an exercise of free will, and therefore sin requires the exercise of free will. The exercise of free will requires a choice. And now we are at the dilemma of Buridan's ass, a donkey set equidistant from two equal-sized piles of hay, who starves to death because he can make no choice, because there is none. Without the Knowledge of Good and Evil, there is no choice, therefore, Adam and Eve could not have sinned.

Another way to view this issue is to look at the experience of the First Couple. They hung with God. He was with them all the time. They chatted Him up whenever they liked. They knew He was their Creator, having had the adult faculties to recall what it was like to be brought into being. It is difficult to believe that when God told them that they should not eat of the fruit of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil lest they surely die that Adam and Eve would not have believed Him. Unless, of course, they were ignorant of God's goodness and the serpent's evil. But that ignorance alone absolves them of the crime of sin, as we see above.

Love to here a rebuttal to these thoughts.

-- Jeffery Ford (jefferyford9@hotmail.com), December 19, 2003.

Jeffrey, For sin to occur 3 things have to occur:

1) You engage in a grievious act 2) You must know that you are breaking God's law, and 3) You must freely choose to do it.

You cannot sin without free will.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 19, 2003.

Bill,

We are in accord here. My struggle (actually, one of my struggles; there are others) is that I do not see how Original Sin could have occured. I don't see how Adam and Eve met criteria 2 and 3 that you have outlined. There may even be some argument as to how "grievious" the act of acquiring forbidden knowledge is, as John Walker, our question poser has pointed out. You cannot know that "breaking God's law" has a good or evil connotation without the knowledge of Good and Evil. In fact, without such knowledge, laws and lawbreaking are meaningless. Additionally, without that knowledge, a choice for good or evil, ie: to sin or not to sin, cannot be made.

In Search, Jeff

PS: here=hear

-- jeffery ford (jefferyford9@hotmail.com), December 20, 2003.

Jmj

Jeffery, you are mistaken in saying two things:
1. "The idea that 'the phrase "learning of good and evil" really means "introducing evil into their experience"' as put forth by Paul M. is really a bit of hermeneutical finagling."
2. "I don't see how Adam and Eve met criteria 2 and 3 that you have outlined."

On point #1 ... In fact, Paul M was right in what he said. In speaking of "a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil," God is not talking about "head knowledge" but "experiential knowledge." This is also reflected in the early-Genesis phrase, "he knew his wife, and she conceived." Adam had "known" Eve for a long time before "knowing" her carnally. Adam and Eve "knew" of the Tree (and the options it offered -- good and evil) in their minds, long before "knowing" evil by experience.

On point #2, Bill's second and third criteria were that one "must know that [one is] breaking God's law, and ... must freely choose to do" so. Adam and Eve knew God's command ("Do not eat"), but they freely chose to disobey it. They knew (in their minds and by experience) that obedience was good, and they knew (in their minds) that disobedience was evil -- even though they had never experienced doing evil before.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 20, 2003.

John,

Point #1: What a cool point! And thank you. I had not thought of "knowledge" as being defined as an action. (Apologies to Paul M.) Knowledge, in my mind, is typically a noun, not a verb. I will look into the original Hebrew and the translations for "knowledge" of Good and Evil and "knowledge" of one's mate, and see how they relate. What you are saying, I think, is that Adam and Eve knew Good from Evil, but they did not know what it would be like to pick one over the other, and it is that experience that is what is meant as the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The experience gave rise to this special circumstance of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The experience was the the experience of sin. So the Experiential Knowledge of Good and Evil is sin. Is this what you mean? Am I right in this?

I just looked this up, and have not thought this through completely, nor have I given you a chance to let me know I understood you clearly, so bear with me. What does one make of Genesis 3:22 then? If the Knowledge of Good and Evil is experiential knowledge, ie, the knowledge of what it is like to sin, then how can God, who has no part in sin whatsoever, say, "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil..."?

I intend to mull these things over at length tomorrow.

Point #2: If "knowing good and evil" as defined in Gen 3:5 is experiential, I concede your point, though, by your argument, Adam and Eve only learned (gained knowledge of, experienced, etc...) evil when they ate the fruit. They had already known and experienced Good, making the "Good" in the Knowledge of Good and Evil superfluous.

John, thank you for responding. Looking forward to your view on the above (Hey! A pun!)

Jeff

-- Jeffery Ford (jefferyford9@hotmail.com), December 21, 2003.

Many kinds of knowledge can be gained only through experience. You can read and study everything that has been written about how to sing opera; what hang gliding is like; how to hit a golf ball; or how to cut a diamond. But having done so, you really have no real knowledge of what any of these experiences are like, and would be totally incapable of doing them like someone who really does know by experience. Adam and Eve may have initially had factual knowledge regarding good vs. evil, but having never experienced evil they had no experiential knowledge, and therefore could not have understood evil - or the difference between good and evil - in any meaningful way, until evil entered their realm of experience by their own free choice.

You ask: "If the Knowledge of Good and Evil is experiential knowledge, ie, the knowledge of what it is like to sin, then how can God, who has no part in sin whatsoever, say, "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil..."?

A: God is knowledge itself. God does not rely on experience as a source of knowledge. He has known from all eternity what sin is like, and what hang gliding is like, and how to hit a golf ball or cut a diamond, even if He has never "personally done" any of these things; and, His knowledge of these things, and all things, is complete and perfect, unlike the knowledge of the greatest human experts, whose knowledge, both factual and experiential, is always incomplete and imperfect. Therefore, God is saying here, "the man, by his experience, has gained a small glimpse of the knowledge that I have had from eternity, even without experience".

You state: "They had already known and experienced Good, making the "Good" in the Knowledge of Good and Evil superfluous."

A: Yes, in a sense. But what is really meant by "knowledge of good and evil" is not knowledge of two topics as separate entities, like knowledge of cooking and sewing. You can have full knowledge of either of these topics, factual and experiential, without having any knowledge of the other. They are distinct subjects. "Knowledge of good and evil" is more like knowledge of harmony and disharmony. It's a single subject. You can't understand either of the concepts without experience, and you can't understand either of them until you have experienced them both. Which of course answers the original question of this thread. God would not want men to have this kind of knowledge because the only way of obtaining it is by sinning.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 21, 2003.

Greetings, Paul!

I have written into this forum twice, and had three responses from three different people. Are y'all in cahoots? Is this Tag-Team Wreligion? Ha! What a great thing this is. Y'all are pushing me here, making me think. Thank you again.

Paul, I know about knowledge (now that's an exercise in tautology!), insofar as it can be hard-wired, inspired or even acquired by one who has perspired. For the last decade I have taken the words of Gen 3:5 "...ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil" as meaning that A&E would understand the difference between those two completely disparate moral points as a result of eating the fruit. You and John and Bill would say that the Knowledge of Good and Evil is the knowledge of the consequences of evil behavior. (Let me make a side point here. Our Original Poser, Mr. Walker, asks if goodness, that is, the antithesis of evilness, and God are separate things. If one believes in an omnibenevolent God, then there cannot be some "goodness" outside of Him. In other words, if there was some moral law that existed beyond the inifinite God, some super law that God was compelled to adhere to, then the existence of that law would contravene God's omnibenevolence. Not only that, but He could no longer be the Alpha and Omega, since some moral standard of Goodness had been established by Something outside of, and presumably before and beyond Him. And now, back to our show...) "Knowing Good and Evil" has been replaced in our discourse by "knowing what it is like to sin." That is not what Gen 3:5 says. Is it what it means? I don't know. But I plan to make good on my threat to look at the original Hebrew text.

More to follow, but I cannot remain "the brother of dragons and the companion of owls" much longer. It is late. Thank you again, good people. Looking forward to who I might meet next.

Jeff

PS: Paul says- A: This often-posed question is essentially illogical. It's like saying "how can you experience light if you haven't experienced darkness"? Or "how can you experience sound if you haven't experienced silence"? Or "how can you experience heat if you haven't experienced cold"? OBVIOUSLY, ONE EXPERIENCE NOT DEPEND ON THE OTHER. [sic]

Paul says- "Knowledge of good and evil" is more like knowledge of harmony and disharmony. It's a single subject. You can't understand either of the concepts without experience, AND YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND EITHER OF THEM UNTIL YOU HAVE EXPERIENCED THEM BOTH.

Both good arguments, but you can't have it both ways.

-- Jeffery Ford (jefferyford9@hotmail.com), December 22, 2003.

Well sure you can! "EXPERIENCING" something is not the same as "UNDERSTANDING" it. It is obvious that you can EXPERIENCE light without EXPERIENCING darkness; or sound without silence; or disharmony without harmony; or good without evil. However, you cannot fully UNDERSTAND that EXPERIENCE until you have also EXPERIENCED its antithesis. Trying to explain darkness to a person who has experienced only light would be just as impossible as trying to explain light to a person born blind. Understanding of either one requires experiential knowledge; and it requires experiential knowledge of both in order to understand either one.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 22, 2003.

Jeff, you wrote:
"I have written into this forum twice, and had three responses from three different people. Are y'all in cahoots? Is this Tag-Team Wreligion?"

Actually, I'm not sure that you are aware of the fact that you are on one discussion thread at a multi-threaded Catholic discussion forum. It happened that three people chose to reply to you at different times. Suppose two people exchange messages. If the first one then asks the second one a question, he may or may not get a reply from the second person -- and he may get a reply from a brand-new contributor. That is characteristic of the openness and free flow of ideas here. It is not that people are "in cahoots" or "tag-teaming." It is just the custom here. You can call it "welcome intrusion." Most people come to expect it and not be offended by it.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 22, 2003.

John,

Actually, I was not clear on how the forum was set up, and I appreciate you filling me in, and the different replies from different people are more than welcome. I had hoped "the cahoots" comment would be taken in the tongue in cheek manner in which it was intended. I am thoroughly enjoying this, and learning a lot.

More later, Jeff

-- Jeffery Ford (jefferyford9@hotmail.com), December 22, 2003.

And now, back to Paul,

Ah, cursed context and slippery semiotics! In our discussion, “knowing” has become, at least in some cases, “experience.” And, in the special circumstance of this discourse, “knowing” must also imply a concomitant “understanding.” Simply to “know” good and evil and not “understand” what they mean would make Adam and Eve complete innocents, and Original Sin could not have occurred.

And, if “you can't understand either of them [good and evil] until you have experienced them both,” then Adam and Eve could not have understood the ramifications of what they were doing when they ate the fruit until they ate the fruit. The understanding of good and evil came ex post facto. Bill’s Three Criteria for the commission of sin cannot be met under these circumstances.

I must admit that this is getting very complicated for me. I am having trouble keeping track of what is meant by “knowledge,” which I always thought of as a noun, a thing possessed by the knower. Its use as a verb (“experiential knowledge”) was, for me, exclusively a quaint Mosaic euphemism for sexual intercourse, and not a word to be applied to other experiences. I think that in order for me to go on and remain clear in what I am saying and hearing, I will have to develop some sort of lexicon to which I can refer.

Back again later. Thanks again, guys!

Jeff

-- Jeffery Ford (jefferyford9@hotmail.com), December 23, 2003.

Hey, guys!

As I said before, I feel this thread is developing some spaghetti- like qualities, and I am having trouble keeping it all straight. In an effort to make myself less imprecise, I am going to define some of the words we’ve been using (there are three different definitions for “know!”). These definitions are not necessarily Webster’s, but will reflect how we have been using these terms.

Knowledge – This is a cache or repository of facts (ie: memory) accessible to the individual who has acquired them. These facts can exist within memory with or without the individual understanding what the facts mean. Ex: One might have the knowledge that “2+2=4” as a fact, but not understand how two plus two equals four.

Know, knowing, knew(1) – This is knowledge coupled with understanding. The distinction between having “knowledge” and “knowing” is important, insofar as I have pointed out that having knowledge of “good and evil and not “understand[ing]” what they mean would make Adam and Eve complete innocents, and Original Sin could not have occurred.”

Know, knowing, knew(2) – This is a very specific experience or activity, that is, sex.

Know, knowing, knew(3) – This is also an experience, and is the extension of definition (2) beyond sex to encompass other experiences, offered as an explanation by John on 12/20. (“In speaking of "a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil," God is not talking about "head knowledge" but "experiential knowledge." This is also reflected in the early-Genesis phrase, "he knew his wife, and she conceived." Adam had "known" Eve for a long time before "knowing" her carnally. Adam and Eve "knew" of the Tree (and the options it offered -- good and evil) in their minds, long before "knowing" evil by experience.”)

Below is a recap of our discussions to date. Where I have quoted others, I have not held them to the definitions I have outlined above, because I will not presume to know what they intended.

The verse of interest is Genesis 3:5, where the serpent is telling Eve that she should go ahead and eat of the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden, “for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” The question again is, how is it possible for Adam and Eve to commit the first sin if they are not “as gods, knowing good and evil?” If you don’t know good and evil, you can’t sin.

It has been proposed that the answer to this lies in what is meant by “know.” John says (see point #2 on 12/20) that Adam and Eve did in fact know(1) good and evil prior to the Fall. This is not substantiated in scripture, but, as we have already seen, if it were not true, then Adam and Eve could not have sinned. It has also been stated that Adam and Eve knew(3) good, since they lived in the garden and experienced God and goodness directly. So they had knowledge of and understood good and evil, and had experience of good only. So what did they acquire when they ate the fruit? They came to know(3) evil. Not good and evil as scripture says, mind you, but evil only. In Paul’s letter of 12/21, he states that “knowledge of good and evil" is more like knowledge of harmony and disharmony. It's a single subject. You can't understand either of the concepts [good and evil] without experience, and you can't understand either of them until you have experienced them both.” I agree. If these concepts cannot be understood apart from one another, as, according to what has been established thus far, they were in the garden, and they cannot be understood without experience, then Adam and Eve would first have to sin in order to understand they were sinning. You cannot know(1) about something without understanding it. How can one choose to sin when one does not know(1) sin until one knows(3) sin? This is like getting a package in the mail and opening it to find that the only thing inside is a note saying “Do Not Open This Package.”

As I read over the above, I am struck by how complex this is. Would it not have been better, in the case that you are right and the “know” in Gen 3:5 is really “experience,” if Moses had written “and ye shall be as gods, experiencing evil,” rather than “and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil?” Does not such wording invite “hermeneutical finagling?”

Merry Christmas, boys. I look forward to hearing from any and all of you. Jeff

-- Jeffery Ford (jefferyford9@hotmail.com), December 24, 2003.

PS: Is the idea that "know" = "experience" in Gen 3:5 Catholic doctrine?

~Jeff

-- Jeffery Ford (jefferyford9@hotmail.com), December 24, 2003.

Here is the passage, again (from the New American Bible).

But the serpent said to the woman: "You certainly will not die! No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad." Gen 3:4-5

It can also be translated: Like gods who know: or "like God who knows."

Adam and Eve were created with free will to do what is right or wrong. They had the capability of reasoning prior to the fall. One thing at that time that Adam & Eve were told that was wrong was to eat of a certain tree. That knowledge they did possess because God gave it to them and they could reason that if they disobeyed God, He would not be happy. You don’t have to have a greater understanding of right and wrong to do so. When they did eat from the tree they did wrong, or sinned. Why? Because they wanted to be like God: to know what God knows. That is a violation of the 1st Commandment. They were then removed from the area so they would not also eat of the tree of life and become immortal.

As for the Catholic understanding of knowledge: Knowledge, to St. Thomas Aquinas, one of our greatest theologians and philosophers, is the understanding of what a human sees, and perceives. "Through the action of sensible objects on his senses, to the act of sensation; by instruction or discovery, to the act of understanding." For instance, if a person is born blind, he would then have no knowledge of colors. However, if he was born with knowledge he would. Aquinas attacks the Platonic idea that when we perceive, it is knowledge. Aquinas says that there is a little thing in the human soul, called reasoning, that we are born with. Reasoning helps someone determine what is truth and what is not. However, he points out that everyone’s reasoning are at different levels, and for one to have a good sense of reason, takes lots of practice and time. Therefore, the people with a better sense of reasoning skills, would know more than of one without a good sense of reason.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 24, 2003.