The Genesis Paradox

The Genesis Paradox

Ought implies can. That is, the only condition under which any command is the least bit intelligible is if it is possible to do what has been commanded.

Gen. 2:16-17 “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 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 die.’”

The paradox here is that the conditions under which this command is given make the command itself impossible to obey. Thus, the command itself is unintelligible, it makes no sense, it is a meaningless assertion of obligation. This is evident when one considers the following question: Before she did so, could Eve have known that she ought not to eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Presumably, before she ate the fruit, Eve had no knowledge of “good” or “evil” and, therefore, couldn’t possibly distinguish between good conduct and evil conduct. So, she couldn’t possibly have known the allegedly evil nature of her deed.

Can this be resolved by noting that since God said not to eat from the tree, Eve at least knew that doing so would be disobedient? There are two problems with this. First, God did not (directly) command Eve to refrain from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This command was delivered to Adam [Gen. 2:16-17] before Eve was created [Gen. 2:22]. Second, while we might assume that Adam informed Eve about this prohibition, knowing that an act is disobedient is quite different from knowing that one ought not to do it. Eve may have known that her act was contrary to God’s wishes. But, without the knowledge of good and evil, it seems impossible that she could have known that her disobedience was evil (or that she ought not to be disobedient).

Let us assume, on a principle of charity, that Eve actually knew that to disobey God is evil, that she ought not to eat from the tree. If this were so, then Eve already had the knowledge imparted by the fruit; God commanded that Eve refrain from acquiring specific knowledge that she already had. But what should we make of a divine imperative not to learn something that is already known? If one already has knowledge of good and evil, then eating from the tree which imparts such knowledge makes absolutely no difference; eating the fruit has the same result as not eating it.

To summarize, it seems obvious that before eating the fruit, either Eve didn’t know it would be wrong to do so or she knew that it would be wrong to do so. In light of this, God’s command not to eat from the tree has only two possible meanings:
(1) God expected Eve to refrain from doing evil without knowing anything about what evil is.
or
(2) God expected Eve to refrain from acquiring knowledge that she already possessed.

Since neither of these expectations can actually be fulfilled, God’s command cannot be obeyed.
Ought implies can. Since this command cannot be obeyed, its expression of obligation is empty, meaningless and unintelligible.
Eve was set up, tricked, not by the serpent, but by God.

BOP

a reply to: birdxofxprey

‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 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 die.’”

because the tree of life's 'fruit' was probably embryos of various animals they were 'growing' to release as part of the terra forming process.

Very special tree, very special produce. Don't touch.

a reply to: birdxofxprey

Unless of course, it was true that when God "told" Adam what NOT to do, he "knew" to his bone that partaking of said tree would, at the very least, shake his reality to the bone. So Eve, having taken from Adam's rib bone also already "knew" everything that Adam did.

Just thinking out loud.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: birdxofxprey

‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 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 die.’”

because the tree of life's 'fruit' was probably embryos of various animals they were 'growing' to release as part of the terra forming process.

I don't see how you can jump from "fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?" to embryos and terra forming. There is no information here that would allow you to make that leap. All it says is "fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Assuming the translation is correct here, WHY would God prevent Adam & Eve from eating "fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?"

Why would he want them to stay ignorant of knowing about morality? Well, okay, assuming this is some sort of metaphor, what is it a metaphor for? Civilization? Knowledge in general? Being reincarnated on Earth and having to leave Paradise in Heaven, therefore being subject to eventual death?

a reply to: birdxofxprey

I dont see what is so complicated.... it doesnt get simpler... Eve knew what god commanded Adam (as she was part of his consciousness before the split) therefore she was told not to do something and she did it, simple!

a reply to: schuyler

[

WHY would God prevent Adam & Eve from eating "fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?"

Because there is no "good" or "evil" fruit trees. The reference was to having knowledge of that tree and "not to eat" of that particular tree. The specific fruit wasn't described for good reason. Because early people were supposed to forget about how they got here.

.02

Good questions.

Disobedience to a commandment is not considered evil. It is considered being disobedient. For example, you tell your child to not go outside, but the child goes outside. The act of disobedience of the child does not carry with it evil intent. There is no profoundly malevolent intent, just failure to obey. Therefore, your logic is faulty.

Sin is disobedience to the commandments of God. Eve never knew God that we can be sure of, and was relying on the word of Adam. When the serpent touched the fruit of the tree, she could see that it was a lie that she had been told by Adam. Therefore, the lie of Adam, while not intended to be evil, opened the door for evil to enter the Garden and tempt the woman. It was not her fault, in a sense, but the fault of both Adam and Eve, therefore the sin is shared and Adam ate with her.

The tree could have been a fig tree, or who knows what. The fruit was not the issue, but the disobedience. Perhaps God knew they were ready for more when they began to "think for themselves" and make decisions that they would have to accept the consequences for as they lived.

We are now made in the image of Adam, not the image of God, and as such we are disobedient and we die. See Genesis 5:3.

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: birdxofxprey

I dont see what is so complicated.... it doesnt get simpler... Eve knew what god commanded Adam (as she was part of his consciousness before the split) therefore she was told not to do something and she did it, simple!

Obviously, Eve disobeyed God, and she knew she was being disobedient.
My point was that she couldn't have known that disobedience was evil.

a reply to: birdxofxprey
The simple answer to this paradox is to understand "knowing good and evil" as a Hebraism for "knowing where the difference is, where to draw the boundary line between them".
Then there is no need to assume that they don't already know good and evil exist. God has told them not to do something; that establishes a distinction between things they can and cannot do. So they already know about the existence of things they should not do.
On that premise, the significance of seizing "knowledge of good and evil" is that they claim for themselves the right to decide where the boundary line comes, instead of leaving it to God. In other words, they move away from accepting the will of God and set up their own will as the standard authority.

P.S. This is the same answer I gave in the thread The tree of what knowledge?

Perhaps they knew of the existence of good and evil but didn't know the difference between the two, as you suggest. If that were so, then they had no capacity to place actions into the general categories of "good" or "evil" (even though they may have known that such categories existed). So, even on your interpretation, they couldn't have known that actions contrary to God's commands fall under the category of evil.

Knowing that someone commands "don't do X" is distinctly different from knowing "X is evil."
The former is only knowledge of the preference of an authority. The latter entails knowledge of the properties of "X."

originally posted by: Jim Scott
Good questions.

Disobedience to a commandment is not considered evil. It is considered being disobedient. For example, you tell your child to not go outside, but the child goes outside. The act of disobedience of the child does not carry with it evil intent. There is no profoundly malevolent intent, just failure to obey. Therefore, your logic is faulty.

Sin is disobedience to the commandments of God. Eve never knew God that we can be sure of, and was relying on the word of Adam. When the serpent touched the fruit of the tree, she could see that it was a lie that she had been told by Adam. Therefore, the lie of Adam, while not intended to be evil, opened the door for evil to enter the Garden and tempt the woman. It was not her fault, in a sense, but the fault of both Adam and Eve, therefore the sin is shared and Adam ate with her.

The tree could have been a fig tree, or who knows what. The fruit was not the issue, but the disobedience. Perhaps God knew they were ready for more when they began to "think for themselves" and make decisions that they would have to accept the consequences for as they lived.

We are now made in the image of Adam, not the image of God, and as such we are disobedient and we die. See Genesis 5:3.

If you say that
- Sin is disobedience to the commandments of God.
and
- Disobedience to a commandment is not considered evil.
Does it not follow that sin is not considered evil?

originally posted by: birdxofxprey
Perhaps they knew of the existence of good and evil but didn't know the difference between the two, as you suggest.

No. that isn't quite my suggestion.
My suggestion is;
Before the Fall; "We know the difference between good and evil; it is what God says it is".
After the Fall; "We know the difference between good and evil; it is what WE say it is".
In the first case, they place actions into categories of good and evil by accepting God's judgement on the matter.
In the second case, they place actions into categories of good and evil according to their own judgement.
The act of taking the fruit is a very effective symbol of the transition, because it involves a change in the way they judge the fruit.
Before that moment, they are classing it as "not-to-be-eaten", because that is what they have been told.
But the moment they begin to class it as "to be desired to make one wise", they are putting their own judgement in place of God's judgement, and THAT is the Fall.
The act of making their own decision on the matter is the act they are not supposed to do.

a reply to: intrptr
No, it was the tree in which its fruit gave knowledge of good and evil.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: birdxofxprey

My suggestion is;
Before the Fall; "We know the difference between good and evil; it is what God says it is".

Again, I think you've conflated two different pieces of knowledge.
Prior to "the fall," God says "Don't do X." What do people know as a result of this?
They know God doesn't like X. That's knowing something about God.
That's not the same as knowing any of the properties of X (for example, that X is evil).

--- apparently, I haven't quite mastered separating my comments from quoted comments. ---

Also, it seems you're taking liberties with the text in suggesting that before the fall they had one concept of good and evil but after the fall they had a different concept of good and evil. It doesn't really say that in the story, it's not the tree of changing one's understanding of good and evil, it's just the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

edit on 18-6-2016 by birdxofxprey because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: birdxofxprey
Again, I think you've conflated two different pieces of knowledge.
Prior to "the fall," God says "Don't do X." What do people know as a result of this?
They know God doesn't like X. That's knowing something about God.
That's not the same as knowing any of the properties of X (for example, that X is evil).

But if God has said "Don't do X, because I regard it as evil", the two kinds of knowledge come to the same thing.

it's not the tree of changing one's understanding of good and evil, it's just the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

My point is that we should not look at the ENGLISH phrase "knowing good and evil" and jump to the conclusion that this means "knowing that good and evil exist", and build up objections to the story on that basis.
I am suggesting that the word we translate as "know" actually covers more territory than the English word "know"; that to Hebrew ears the phrase we translate as "knowing good and evil" actually denoted "marking out the boundary between good and evil".
Hence the very apposite symbolism of "taking the fruit"; the act of deciding "we will make our own decisions" (thus "knowing good and evil") was in itself an act of "making our own decision".

P.S.

--- apparently, I haven't quite mastered separating my comments from quoted comments. ---

You need to make sure that each [ quote ] in the text is closed off with a matching [ /quote ], preferably before using another one.
Your post began with two [ quote ] and only one was properly closed, so the other one remained in force for the rest of the post.
You can check that by clicking on the "quote" button, which shows up the editing text including those instructions.

a reply to: birdxofxprey

She didnt need to know.... knowing the definition between good n evil is not a requirement to fulfilling God's commandment. This is the reason he told them not to eat it in the first place, because they didnt know!

Does a soldier 'need to know' the overall purpose of his mission? No, he just needs to fulfill his orders...

My point was that she couldn't have known that disobedience was evil.

The only reason it is a paradox, is because it is typically the only book Christians bother to read and go by... much of it was borrowed here and there as an amalgamation of other systems. So very very many parallels not to mention a few of the disciples werent even alive during the time Christ was said to be.

But hey if you want to go by the same book, its pretty simple... it also says pretty clearly; judge not lest ye shall be judged. In plain English that means: Dont judge or youll get judged... so its no ones job to judge each other.

Yet in all Abraham religions... thats basically what goes on since all of them including Islam accept the Old Testament as part of their cannon or spiritual set of books.

Impossible one says? No not really, it means dropping all bias and belief itself. Christ, god, whomever one believes in unseen in the world today, existent or not has a very real effect on the world...

One could say Santa Claus is make believe but yet very real effect in the world in the way of traditions although Santa Claus may have been based on a real fellow at one time.

Many people have walked the earth claiming the title of "God" every single Pharaoh, every single Caesar, or Tzar... even some royal families such as Kim Jung wear such a crown in belief structures of the world past and present. Kings were supposed to sit on a throne as the pope became the voice of a God to deliver how people should live.

So, its obvious a lot of folks have ran around claiming the title on Earth as a God all having an effect on the world...

So if one grasps such a concept or belief as real and yet denies others as having an effect on the world... theyd be wholly mistaken real or unreal, Superman, Batman, Sponge Bob all not real yet have a very real effect on the world.

The difference? Belief.

So what if someone not on Hollywood BLVD was walking around saying they were God or Sponge Bob, Jesus or anyone else? Psychiatric ward. Im sure theres at least 1000 Jesus's, 1000 God's, and 1000 Neo's somewhere in the worlds institutions and in the streets believing thats who they are instead of being themselves.

Mental illness and delusions are not a new thing... its even written Jesus's family said to a crowd that wouldnt go away while they were trying to eat basically; he's mentally ill please ignore him, so they wouldnt keep getting disturbed.

Want to know whats real... if you can see it, touch it, taste, it smell it, feel it in more than one sense sphere and it is constantly the same sight, taste, smell, texture? Then its a good chance it is real.

The names we give and label things are what? Knowledge.

Doesnt make anything what it is does it? In English its a dog, in French: Chien, in Spanish: Perro... thats the label thats the knowledge but yet its basically this 4 legged hairy thing that we say barks that comes in many sizes and shapes and forms. Yet none of that label is a dog, chien, perro.

Socrates was put to death, because he realized the above in basically saying: For all the know? We know nothing.

He was right but right and wrong is a judgement... even these words have no meaning, they are just simply illusions or representations of something else that cannot be defined... but we define it.

In defining it? We judge it hey this is good, hey this is bad... when that experience is limited. It automatically draws a line in the dirt for anyone that disagrees. Then what happens? War, Famine, Greed, Hate.

Why? All because of these delusions that the illusions we hold onto is real and tangible and permanent.

Obviously not permanent, so what does holding onto them as real and permanent do? It automatically creates as its opposite the anti matter of permanence which is impermanence or death.

That's what the two trees mean.

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: birdxofxprey

I dont see what is so complicated.... it doesnt get simpler... Eve knew what god commanded Adam (as she was part of his consciousness before the split) therefore she was told not to do something and she did it, simple!

Actually.. she didnt actually 'eat any fruit" except the loins of a certain fallen angel. Cain was sired by the devil after they were tossed out of eden. Adam "ate" some of what eve had left between her legs of the devils seed and immdeiatly knew he did something wrong and he felt ashamed.

The people writing down the verses coudnt be so openly frank and so we get "the apple".

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: birdxofxprey

I dont see what is so complicated.... it doesnt get simpler... Eve knew what god commanded Adam (as she was part of his consciousness before the split) therefore she was told not to do something and she did it, simple!

Actually.. she didnt actually 'eat any fruit" except the loins of a certain fallen angel. Cain was sired by the devil after they were tossed out of eden. Adam "ate" some of what eve had left between her legs of the devils seed and immdeiatly knew he did something wrong and he felt ashamed.

The people writing down the verses coudnt be so openly frank and so we get "the apple".

So we're all supposed to be in this situation due to innuendo?

Spectacular.

a reply to: yuppa

Actually.. she didnt actually 'eat any fruit" except the loins of a certain fallen angel. Cain was sired by the devil after they were tossed out of eden. Adam "ate" some of what eve had left between her legs of the devils seed and immdeiatly knew he did something wrong and he felt ashamed.

The people writing down the verses coudnt be so openly frank and so we get "the apple".

BINGO !!!


Go to the 2:00 minute mark. Eve was wholly seduced.

Trees represent people.
Tree of Life = Christ
Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil = Satan