if eve didn't eat from the tree of knowledge...?

Question

how would she know the difference between good and evil? did it not exist until she ate from the tree? was everything considered ok in the eyes of god. things such as murder, rape, incest, and slavery to name a few, were all these things considered allowable as long as eve did not eat from the tree of knowledge?

Answer 1

Think about it. The one really big no no in the original story was the admonition against knowledge.

That should tell us something.

Answer 2

There would be no rape, murder, slavery. The world was made perfect. There would be no need for such things in the world. There would be no incest, as that is only considered wrong due to the birth defects that now occur, but before God said not to, it would cause no problems.
As a side point, we are all the result of "incest" either way, either from the first "monkey-man" or from Adam and Eve.

Answer 3

I am sure Christians will cite God’s prohibition to not eat from the tree as evidence that Adam and Eve had some rudimentary understanding of what right and wrong was, in that right and wrong could be strictly defined as what God forbade at that time. So I suppose most Christians will view the consumption of fruit from the prohibited tree as Adam and Eve coming into greater awareness of what good and evil entails.

Even if we are to grant credence to the historicity of the Garden of Eden story, there is no way to say one way or another whether rape, murder, and incest were acceptable before the consumption of the forbidden fruit. Most Christians, that I have heard talk about the subject, depict the Garden of Eden, before Adam and Eve’s fall, as a utopian world free of the desire to commit these evil deeds.

Either way, if the story were true, it is a greater testament to God’s utter incompetence and callousness than any superb intelligence or benevolence. I always use the following analogy to illustrate my point.

Suppose a father kept a loaded gun in his house, and put it within the reach of his 5-year-old child. The father merely tells the child to not play with the gun, instead of doing the reasonable thing and move the gun to a place where the child could not possibly have access to it. The child, due to natural curiosity or mischief, decides to go against his father’s wishes, and accidentally shoots himself with the gun and dies. At a court hearing a sensible judge asks the lawyer of the father why he didn’t move the gun to a location that the child didn’t have access to, and the lawyer responds that “if he moved the gun out of the way, then he would not be allowing his son to exercise his free will to his fullest extent and therefore, he wouldn’t really love him”. The lawyer continues by saying, with a straight face that “knowing that his child will be obedient to him, of his own accord, is more important than the preservation of the child’s life.” The judge subsequently, because he is fair and sensible, convicts the father for negligent homicide, and cites the lawyer for contempt of court for vocalizing such absurd reasons for the father’s behavior.

Now the father in this analogy is God. The child is Adam and Eve. The gun is the forbidden tree, and the response that the father’s lawyer gives is the akin to the same idiotic answer given by Christians, both lay and professional apologist, for why God allowed circumstances to exist that would lead both Adam and Eve, and all their progeny, to a life of sin, spiritual death, and eternal separation from God. The judge’s response is the response that any rational person would give to a father figure who behaves in the patently immoral manner that God did, and his citing of the lawyer for contempt of court is symbolic of the scorn we should feel when Christians give such absurd justifications for the Garden of Eden story.

Yes, my crude analogy might lack the sophistication that many people well versed in theology would require, but with a story with such elementary moral flaws, there is no need to respond with anything more than elementary answer.

Answer 4

The way I see it, those things (murder, slavery, etc...) would have never occurred to them. Good and evil did exist before Eve ate of the tree...God had that knowledge (required if he was going to create the tree). He wanted them to trust his knowledge and obey his instructions...it isn't likely those instructions would include evil things like murder, rape, etc...

Answer 5

The point is that Adam & Eve listened to what God said, and did what He asked. Sin would not have occurred. But here's what really happened when they rebelled:

God gave humans authority over the planet. If they were hungry, they could command the earth to produce food, and it would. But by placing Satan's instructions (eat the fruit!) above God's instructions (don't eat the fruit!), they handed over their authority to the evil one, and he took control of things.

That's why Jesus came... to take that spiritual authority back. After Jesus rose from the dead, he said "all authority in Heaven and Earth has been given to me."

Answer 6

None of the things would have happened if Eve had not eaten. The act of disobedience brought all sin into the world. Prior to the garden of Eden incident, sin was not in the world, so there was no murder, no rape, no incest, no slavery.

Neil S. - we were created for eternal life. We still have eternal life, but now we have to die an earthly death first, then eternaity comes. Also, now there are two eternal choices, with God (heaven) or away from God (hell). Adam and Eve did die, not at that moment, but they did die. The reason Jesus died is to save us. He defeated death by rising the thrid day. We now have the opportunity to live eternally with God instead of eternally in hell.

Answer 7

dmd answered the question. I was glad to see that someone reads. Read
Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
3:7 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.

Answer 8

This is speculation, of course, but my own Church teaches that the prohibition was "economical", not "ontological". That is, when the two were "ready" for such knowledge, it would have been permitted to them. However, they put their own desire above the "approved timetable".

Mind you, that is speculation and is not considered to be a doctrine vital for salvation.

Answer 9

IT IS A METAPHOR! ! !

A description of how the learned identity develops - after internalizing duality, what is good and bad about self and the world. Eve is the vulnerable/creator aspect of consciousness and the sleeping Adam is reason. These experiences where we are tempted to believe in duality happen before the developing thinking brain is fully on-line to reflect on what is going on in our early environment.

We can't return to the garden - Tree/Experience of Eternal Aliveness without purification of this learned ego identity. The symbol of the innocent (authentic self) cherubim with the flaming sword represents purification.

Answer 10

Sin was not a part of this world prior to Eve being disobedient. It was satan who brought those things in. Remember that satan tempted her with the same sin that he himself was thrown out for; wanting to be "Like God". As soon as they sinned, they allowed sin and satan into the world. The sin was not eating the fruit but disobeying God's command not to eat. Hope this helps.

Answer 11

She could not have even known eating was evil until afterward. And she and Adam lived after they ate, too, so it seems God lied.