Does God know the difference between good and evil?

[shnarkle]

Hmmmm....

So I am blind.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Thank you for your time. In the absence of correcting that ad hominem I will be moving on to other ops and discussions where posters can refrain from such comments.

You asked for a basic thesis. I presented one in the OP which you are now claiming isn't a basic thesis. I respectively asked you to elaborate on why you are unable to see the basic thesis. You've spurned my OP, and now accuse me of presenting Ad Hominem? I see no correction necessary or desirable as these are just more pointless deflections from the OP.

 

[shnarkle]

Maybe consider this per your initial observation. God is Satan.

I'm not following what you're saying here. Are you saying that my initial observation is that God is Satan?

Because God is the Sovereign, Omniscient, Omni-Present, Omnipotent creator-source of all that exists.

Psalm 139

Therefore, life unfolds from the beginning as God foreordained.

No thing that exists can be other than of and from God when God is the source of all things yesterday,today,forever.

Romans 11:36​

Amplified Bible​

36 For from Him [all things originate] and through Him [all things live and exist] and to Him are all things [directed]. To Him be glory and honor forever! Amen.

Isaiah 45:7 I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things.

The aforementioned observation may seem outlandish to some readers. However, if so, I would ask this. If God is God and all that this is defined as, where would anything else originate from? If not from/of the only source of all things?
Isaiah 45: 6 “For the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts says this,

‘I am the First and I am the Last;
And there is no God besides Me."

Could you sum this all up? What's your point here?

 

[Miriam]

So would you agree that knowledge of the dual nature of reality is unnecessary? Do you see it as being superior to a non-dual nature of reality? Why or why not?

I don't believe I am able to answer that full question because I'm only experienced in living within dual /contrast reality.

Oneness nature/reality is nothing I've experience of.

This brings up yet another issue, i.e. the non-dual nature of reality versus the knowledge of the non-dual nature of reality. I'm inclined to see the non-dual nature of reality as something intrinsically beyond the intellectual faculties. It is more immediate than the intellect.

Perhaps. I'm not so sure that's a safe assumption. However, those closest to the truth are the best liars.

I would concur that Oneness consciousness/reality/nature, is beyond our comprehension.

Though it would appear the tenets of our faith seek to lead us back to the garden, sort of speak and prior to consuming the fruit that would change the world and our place in it.

I would agree also those closest to the truth make the best liars. Especially when they pre-existed the creation of this world and the human race and God confers with them of his plans.

"God is in control."
I don't think that ever abates.

"The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps." Proverbs 16:9

 

[Miriam]

I'm not following what you're saying here. Are you saying that my initial observation is that God is Satan?

No.I am making that observation for your consideration and after I read your thoughts in your post that I afforded my reply to.

Could you sum this all up? What's your point here?

Simply, there is no thing that is not of or from the Creator. All is God.

 

[Josheb]

I agree. Adam and Eve were without knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil.

I think you responded to the wrong poster.

My remarks do not show my saying ignorance is good.

No, my response in intended to ask about the statement of agreement: "Adam and Eve were without knowledge of right and wrong."

The word "ignorant" means, "lacking knowledge, information, or awareness of a particular thing."

God stated all that He had made was very good.

Genesis 1:31
"God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good...."

The remark was Adam and Eve were without knowledge of right and wrong. Adam and Eve lacked knowledge of a particular thing; they were ignorant. Yet, God, having made them that way declared them good. He declared Adam and Eve in their knowledge-lacking state, in their state of ignorance "good."

That is a problem.

The remark does show you saying ignorance is good. I assume that was unintended. I assume either the statement made was incorrectly written or its inherent contradiction with Genesis 1:31 was made unawares. The solution is simple enough: either clarify the statement so it does not conflict with God's declaration or change the view of Adam and Eve as knowing and not unknowing.

The moment God examined everything He'd made and called it good we are required to read everything else within that context. Everything is good, until the text itself indicates otherwise. That change happens at Genesis 3:7 when Adam eats the forbidden kiwi. At that moment he and she become ashamed in their nakedness. They move from being naked and unashamed to ashamed in their nakedness. Paul describes this in Romans 5 when he says sin entered the world in that moment of disobedience.

Their ignorance began at Genesis 3:7/Romans 5:12. Prior to that they possessed a dispositional, an ontological, an epistemological knowledge of good by which all else could be measured. As I stated earlier, they could understand that which was not-good simply because it was not good. Once the state of goodness was lost and they had become not-good then not-good became their only means of measuring everything.

 

[Miriam]

No, my response in intended to ask about the statement of agreement: "Adam and Eve were without knowledge of right and wrong."

The word "ignorant" means, "lacking knowledge, information, or awareness of a particular thing."

God stated all that He had made was very good.

Genesis 1:31
"God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good...."

The remark was Adam and Eve were without knowledge of right and wrong. Adam and Eve lacked knowledge of a particular thing; they were ignorant. Yet, God, having made them that way declared them good. He declared Adam and Eve in their knowledge-lacking state, in their state of ignorance "good."

That is a problem.

The remark does show you saying ignorance is good. I assume that was unintended. I assume either the statement made was incorrectly written or its inherent contradiction with Genesis 1:31 was made unawares. The solution is simple enough: either clarify the statement so it does not conflict with God's declaration or change the view of Adam and Eve as knowing and not unknowing.

The moment God examined everything He'd made and called it good we are required to read everything else within that context. Everything is good, until the text itself indicates otherwise. That change happens at Genesis 3:7 when Adam eats the forbidden kiwi. At that moment he and she become ashamed in their nakedness. They move from being naked and unashamed to ashamed in their nakedness. Paul describes this in Romans 5 when he says sin entered the world in that moment of disobedience.

Their ignorance began at Genesis 3:7/Romans 5:12. Prior to that they possessed a dispositional, an ontological, an epistemological knowledge of good by which all else could be measured. As I stated earlier, they could understand that which was not-good simply because it was not good. Once the state of goodness was lost and they had become not-good then not-good became their only means of measuring everything.

I actually think the apt word to describe Adam and Eve is, Innocent.

While Omniscience created all things in six days, including the tree of forbidden knowledge, and the law and consequences to consuming its fruit, in the beginning. And upon that sixth day gazed upon all of it and judged it good.

Omniscience knowing full well what was to transpire.

Which is how the serpent, never actually identified as Satan in that book of Genesis, was well aware of the trees significance.

I say the serpent was not identified as Satan because after the fall God cursed the serpent. To slither on his belly and eat dust for all time.
Yet later, as we read in one occasion in the book of Numbers, God directed Moses to create a Bronze serpent and mount it on a pole. That the Israelites bitten by the venomous snakes God sent among them in wilderness be healed if bitten.

Seems contradictory to think the cursed serpent out of Eden would later be a healing bronze idol for God's people. That they be healed gazing upon it from the venous bites, that killed some before the bronze serpent was made, after God sent those venous serpents upon them.

God used Satan in serpent form against his groaning people, then ordered Moses to create a fiery/bronze serpent idol and place it upon a staff. That it heal the people of their venous serpent bites that they be healed?

Satan's serpent image heals? Or was it that God's power overcomes the power of the serpent's venom?
The venomous serpents being an issue in the first place because God sent them against his people.

Take God at his word.

Isn't that necessary when in study of God's word?

When God tells me who God is, I believe God.

 

[shnarkle]

I don't believe I am able to answer that full question because I'm only experienced in living within dual /contrast reality.

Oneness nature/reality is nothing I've experience of.


I would concur that Oneness consciousness/reality/nature, is beyond our comprehension.

Interestingly, infants are not born with a dualistic understanding. It is learned through the culture we're born into. It may be more immediate than our understanding.

 

[Miriam]

Interestingly, infants are not born with a dualistic understanding. It is learned through the culture we're born into. It may be more immediate than our understanding.

True. Adam and Eve were as newborns.
They weren't capable of understanding consequences or ultimatums or to intelligently express non-compliance. Because they were innocents.

They did not possess the knowledge that defined right from wrong, good from evil, in order to choose the consequence of death should they wilfully disobey God .
Because death did not yet enter the world. Therefore, they would also have no comprehension of the cessation of life/living.

 

[shnarkle]

No, my response in intended to ask about the statement of agreement: "Adam and Eve were without knowledge of right and wrong."

The word "ignorant" means, "lacking knowledge, information, or awareness of a particular thing."

God stated all that He had made was very good.

Genesis 1:31
"God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good...."

The remark was Adam and Eve were without knowledge of right and wrong. Adam and Eve lacked knowledge of a particular thing; they were ignorant. Yet, God, having made them that way declared them good. He declared Adam and Eve in their knowledge-lacking state, in their state of ignorance "good."

That is a problem.

It's only a problem for those who mistake an ontological statement for an epistemological one.

The remark does show you saying ignorance is good. I assume that was unintended. I assume either the statement made was incorrectly written or its inherent contradiction with Genesis 1:31 was made unawares. The solution is simple enough: either clarify the statement so it does not conflict with God's declaration or change the view of Adam and Eve as knowing and not unknowing.

The claim is that Adam and Eve are good. The fact that they are ignorant isn't an issue to begin with. What is a problem is knowing the difference between good and evil.

The moment God examined everything He'd made and called it good we are required to read everything else within that context. Everything is good, until the text itself indicates otherwise. That change happens at Genesis 3:7 when Adam eats the forbidden kiwi. At that moment he and she become ashamed in their nakedness. They move from being naked and unashamed to ashamed in their nakedness. Paul describes this in Romans 5 when he says sin entered the world in that moment of disobedience.

Adam and Eve have introduced an intermediary between them and God. They now filter reality through their intellect. Instead of being good, they intellectually apprehend good and evil. Instead of an ontological apprehension, they have an epistemological one.

Their ignorance began at Genesis 3:7/Romans 5:12. Prior to that they possessed a dispositional, an ontological, an epistemological knowledge of good by which all else could be measured.

This is assumed, but never proven.

As I stated earlier, they could understand that which was not-good simply because it was not good.

They didn't have to understand anything. They were good, and that's what the text states. That's the explicit difference. Prior to the fall, they are good. Afterwards, they know the difference between good and evil.

Once the state of goodness was lost and they had become not-good then not-good became their only means of measuring everything.

Prior to the fall, they have an immediate awareness of goodness. There are no mediators or intermediaries between them and God. They don't need to know anything about God because God is immediately connected to them. As soon as they begin to filter reality through their intellects, they believe that they can hide from God. They can compartmentalize reality to such a degree that they believe they can hide from God who the author humors the reader with God seeking and asking questions as if he's ignorant.

However, this may actually be the case. God may actually respect humanity's privacy, at least until Judgement Day when all will be revealed. Here again, whatever is may be revealed needn't be intellectually revealed or understood. It need only be apparent.

An acute awareness with no intermediaries cannot include the intellect. Hence Paul's observation that there is only one mediator between God and humanity. Nowhere does he add the caveat that the addition of the intellect is necessary.

As soon as one comes into the presence of God, their life comes to an abrupt end along with any and all thoughts they ever had or ever could have.

 

[shnarkle]

While Omniscience created all things in six days,

Omniscience does nothing of the sort. Omniscience refers exclusively to the faculty itself. It literally means "all knowing", not knowing some, and creating some.

Omniscience knowing full well what was to transpire.

Again, there is no reference to what is known, but only the faculty itself which is exclusively knowing. There is no reference to what is known or even the Knower.

Which is how the serpent, never actually identified as Satan in that book of Genesis, was well aware of the trees significance.

I say the serpent was not identified as Satan because after the fall God cursed the serpent. To slither on his belly and eat dust for all time.
Yet later, as we read in one occasion in the book of Numbers, God directed Moses to create a Bronze serpent and mount it on a pole. That the Israelites bitten by the venomous snakes God sent among them in wilderness be healed if bitten.

Seems contradictory to think the cursed serpent out of Eden would later be a healing bronze idol for God's people.

That's because the word in the Hebrew actually means "burning one", or "shining one". It is only because the bite of a serpent burns that they are also referred to as a "NaXash" Again, in the Hebrew, God requests that Moses mount a "seraph" to a pole, and Moses complies by mounting a "naXash of brass" which shows that these two terms are synonymous. He mounted a celestial being; a burning or shining one to the pole, not a serpent. Contrary to popular opinion, Eve was not holding converse with a serpent, but a celestial being; a Seraph.

 

[Miriam]

Omniscience does nothing of the sort. Omniscience refers exclusively to the faculty itself. It literally means "all knowing", not knowing some, and creating some.

Again, there is no reference to what is known, but only the faculty itself which is exclusively knowing. There is no reference to what is known or even the Knower.

That's because the word in the Hebrew actually means "burning one", or "shining one". It is only because the bite of a serpent burns that they are also referred to as a "NaXash" Again, in the Hebrew, God requests that Moses mount a "seraph" to a pole, and Moses complies by mounting a "naXash of brass" which shows that these two terms are synonymous. He mounted a celestial being; a burning or shining one to the pole, not a serpent. Contrary to popular opinion, Eve was not holding converse with a serpent, but a celestial being; a Seraph.

There is nothing in your personal observation that pertains to what is written in the Bible Christians read.

A Seraph, is not in contention against the word in my post, serpent as pertains to Numbers 21.
Numbers 4 (Orthodox Jewish Bible) 8 And Hashem said unto Moshe, Make thee a fiery serpent, set it upon a pole; and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

Where is "Seraph" identified in this passage?

Numbers 21:8 Parallel Hebrew Texts

biblehub.com

Lastly, Omniscience is a characteristic of God's Sovereignty.

When he predestined all things according to his will and plan, all things predestined and planned are synonymous with his Omniscient Omnipotent Omnipresence.

Editing to expand the above reply further. I in error referred to Numbers 4 in my original post above, now corrected in this edit to Numbers 21.
BibleHub Interlinear Bible Numbers 21
Source:https://biblehub.com/hebrew/8314.htm
Excerpt from verse 8
8314 [e]
śā·rāp̄,
שָׂרָ֔ף
a fiery [serpent]
N‑ms

Your reference to śā·rāp̄ is incorrect when you state it is translated as Seraph and, as you contend, is not related to the word, serpent.

That is incorrect as pertains to the full context of chapter 21 and its account.

​

8314. saraph ►

​

Strong's Concordance saraph: serpent​ Original Word: שָׂרָף Part of Speech: Noun Masculine Transliteration: saraph Phonetic Spelling: (saw-rawf') Definition: fiery serpent Brown-Driver-Briggs I. שָׂרָף noun masculineIsaiah 14:29 a serpent, usually venomous (possibly from above v, from burning effect of poison); — absolute ׳שׂ Numbers 21:8 (J E; on Arabic parallels see JacobArabic Dichter ii. 93, iv. 10 f.), apposition ׳נָחָשׁ שׂ Deuteronomy 8:15, plural הַנְּחָשִׁים הַשְּׂרָפִים Numbers 21:6; a flying serpent, or dragon, שָׂרָף מְעוֺפֵף Isaiah 14:29; Isaiah 30:6. II. [שָׂרָף] noun masculine Isaiah 6:2 plural שְׂרָפִים seraphim (probably akin to I. ׳שׂ, as beings originally mythically conceived with serpents' bodies (serpent-deities, compare Isaiah 14:29; Isaiah 30:6), or (CheComm.) personified of lightning, compare arts. SERAPHIM, StrachanHast. DB CheEncy. Bib.; Di Marti and others compare also Egyptian guardian-griffins, called Šerref; see also כְּרוּב; on Assyrian Šarrapu (-bu), epithet of god Nergal, connected by DlWB with √ שָׂרַף, see שָׁרָב, ZimKAT 3. 415); — in OT. majestic beings with six wings, and human hands and voices, attendant upon ׳י Isaiah 6:2,6.

 

[e v e 21]

It's only a problem for those who mistake an ontological statement for an epistemological one.

The claim is that Adam and Eve are good. The fact that they are ignorant isn't an issue to begin with. What is a problem is knowing the difference between good and evil.

Adam and Eve have introduced an intermediary between them and God. They now filter reality through their intellect. Instead of being good, they intellectually apprehend good and evil. Instead of an ontological apprehension, they have an epistemological one.

that coming between is still the case now for man because being separated from eden and absorbed in theology.

This is assumed, but never proven.

They didn't have to understand anything. They were good, and that's what the text states. That's the explicit difference. Prior to the fall, they are good. Afterwards, they know the difference between good and evil.

Prior to the fall, they have an immediate awareness of goodness. There are no mediators or intermediaries between them and God. They don't need to know anything about God because God is immediately connected to them. As soon as they begin to filter reality through their intellects, they believe that they can hide from God. They can compartmentalize reality to such a degree that they believe they can hide from God who the author humors the reader with God seeking and asking questions as if he's ignorant.

However, this may actually be the case. God may actually respect humanity's privacy, at least until Judgement Day when all will be revealed. Here again, whatever is may be revealed needn't be intellectually revealed or understood. It need only be apparent.

An acute awareness with no intermediaries cannot include the intellect.

because the carnal/natural mind is now guiding man instead of Him and acting as intermediary

Hence Paul's observation that there is only one mediator between God and humanity. Nowhere does he add the caveat that the addition of the intellect is necessary.

As soon as one comes into the presence of God, their life comes to an abrupt end along with any and all thoughts they ever had or ever could have.

once a soul meet Him, this life ends and no more is it possible to continue in the Self and all its needs and wants (its type of life).

 

[shnarkle]

They did not possess the knowledge that defined right from wrong, good from evil, in order to choose the consequence of death should they wilfully disobey God .
Because death did not yet enter the world. Therefore, they would also have no comprehension of the cessation of life/living.

The body can die without the mind knowing it.

If God is eternal, it stands to reason that his image is eternal as well. However, if this image no longer reflects God, but instead reflects upon itself, there is no way it can sustain itself.

Adam and Eve are able to eat from a number of different seed bearing plants, but the fruit produced cannot remain alive when it is consumed by Adam or Eve. It necessarily must die.

What entered the world was an identification with death rather than an identification with life. An identification with the physical body rather than the spiritual image of God.

 

[Miriam]

The body can die without the mind knowing it.

If God is eternal, it stands to reason that his image is eternal as well. However, if this image no longer reflects God, but instead reflects upon itself, there is no way it can sustain itself.

Adam and Eve are able to eat from a number of different seed bearing plants, but the fruit produced cannot remain alive when it is consumed by Adam or Eve. It necessarily must die.

What entered the world was an identification with death rather than an identification with life. An identification with the physical body rather than the spiritual image of God.

No, the body cannot die without the brain knowing it.

All in creation is a reflection of God. There is no thing that is not of nor from God.

Isaiah 45

 

[shnarkle]

There is nothing in your personal observation that pertains to what is written in the Bible Christians read.

What are you talking about?

A Seraph, is not in contention against the word in my post, serpent as pertains to Numbers 21.
Numbers 4 (Orthodox Jewish Bible) 8 And Hashem said unto Moshe, Make thee a fiery serpent, set it upon a pole; and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

Where is "Seraph" identified in this passage?

You have it listed below in your own post.

Numbers 21:8 Parallel Hebrew Texts

biblehub.com

Lastly, Omniscience is a characteristic of God's Sovereignty.

More specifically, it is the faculty itself. It literally means "all knowing".

When he predestined all things according to his will and plan, all things predestined and planned are synonymous with his Omniscient Omnipotent Omnipresence.

False. Predestination is a logical necessity for omniscience, but they can't be synonymous. Look up these two terms if you don't believe me.

Editing to expand the above reply further. I in error referred to Numbers 4 in my original post above, now corrected in this edit to Numbers 21.
BibleHub Interlinear Bible Numbers 21
Source:https://biblehub.com/hebrew/8314.htm
Excerpt from verse 8
8314 [e]
śā·rāp̄,
שָׂרָ֔ף
a fiery [serpent]
N‑ms

Your reference to śā·rāp̄ is incorrect when you state it is translated as Seraph and, as you contend, is not related to the word, serpent.

I never claimed the word had no relation to serpent. In fact, I pointed out the reason why these two terms are practically synonymous. Moreover, the word is actually "seraph" so there is no reason not to translate it as that very word.

That is incorrect as pertains to the full context of chapter 21 and its account.

Correction: as it pertains to your interpretation.

​

8314. saraph ►

​

Strong's Concordance saraph: serpent​ Original Word: שָׂרָף Part of Speech: Noun Masculine Transliteration: saraph Phonetic Spelling: (saw-rawf') Definition: fiery serpent Brown-Driver-Briggs I. שָׂרָף noun masculineIsaiah 14:29 a serpent, usually venomous (possibly from above v, from burning effect of poison); — absolute ׳שׂ Numbers 21:8 (J E; on Arabic parallels see JacobArabic Dichter ii. 93, iv. 10 f.), apposition ׳נָחָשׁ שׂ Deuteronomy 8:15, plural הַנְּחָשִׁים הַשְּׂרָפִים Numbers 21:6; a flying serpent, or dragon, שָׂרָף מְעוֺפֵף Isaiah 14:29; Isaiah 30:6. II. [שָׂרָף] noun masculine Isaiah 6:2 plural שְׂרָפִים seraphim (probably akin to I. ׳שׂ, as beings originally mythically conceived with serpents' bodies (serpent-deities, compare Isaiah 14:29; Isaiah 30:6), or (CheComm.) personified of lightning, compare arts. SERAPHIM, StrachanHast. DB CheEncy. Bib.; Di Marti and others compare also Egyptian guardian-griffins, called Šerref; see also כְּרוּב; on Assyrian Šarrapu (-bu), epithet of god Nergal, connected by DlWB with √ שָׂרַף, see שָׁרָב, ZimKAT 3. 415); — in OT. majestic beings with six wings, and human hands and voices, attendant upon ׳י Isaiah 6:2,6.

 

[shnarkle]

No, the body cannot die without the brain knowing it.

The brain can't even tell when it's dreaming. smh. People get knocked out all the time, and know absolutely nothing. Take it one step further, and there is no reason why they would suddenly know they're dying.

 

[shnarkle]

No.I am making that observation for your consideration and after I read your thoughts in your post that I afforded my reply to.

So you want me to consider the notion that Satan is God?

Simply, there is no thing that is not of or from the Creator. All is God.

Given that God is the origin of everything, it does not then follow that God is everything. Paul points out that God is the origin while Christ is the means by which everything comes into existence. All things are created in, with, and through Christ. Christ points out that his own origin is in the father as well.

When Paul points out that there is no other mediator between God and humanity other than Christ, to then claim that everything created is God eliminates the necessity of Christ as mediator. God doesn't need to mediate reality or anything else if everything is already God.

 

[Josheb]

It's only a problem for those who mistake an ontological statement for an epistemological one.

No such mistake was made. No evidence of such a mistake has been provided.

The claim is that Adam and Eve are good.

It is not a claim; it is a clear declaration of scripture.

Genesis 1:31
God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Adam and Eve were among the things God had made and all that God had made was good. Ergo, Adam and Eve were good.

Their ignorance began at Genesis 3:7/Romans 5:12. Prior to that they possessed a dispositional, an ontological, an epistemological knowledge of good by which all else could be measured. As I stated earlier, they could understand that which was not-good simply because it was not good. Once the state of goodness was lost and they had become not-good then not-good became their only means of measuring everything.

This is assumed, but never proven.

It is not assumed. It is the logical necessity of a good creature providing the means of sin's entrance into the world and in so doing becoming sinful to the point his/her thinking becomes futile, his/her heart darkened, their minds become hostile to God, and their considering the things of the Spirit foolish and incomprehensible (Romans 1:18-32, Romans 8:5-8, 1 Corinthians 2:14).


Adam and Eve were good. They therefore understood goodness because they were good and there was nothing in the world that was not good. That's all there was = good!

Genesis 1:31
God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

The moment they disobey they become sin and sinful. Instant experiential knowledge of sin (evil). Instant knowledge of the loss of good-ness and the change into not-good-ness.

Genesis 3:6-7
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned...

They disobeyed God and their eyes were opened. To what were their eyes opened: their nakedness and shame (they hid - John 3:19). It was through one man's act of disobedience that sin entered the world. Prior to that act of disobedience there was no sin in the world and, according to Genesis 1:31, everything was good - including the humans He had made.

This is assumed, but never proven.

It is this dissent that is assumed and not proven.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Why do we feel this need to believe Satan's claims? What reason could we possibly have to believe the father of lies?

Simple!!! Satan always plays to the Flesh, and the Human nature, and SIN is often VERY Pleasurable and fulfilling in the short term.

 

[shnarkle]

No such mistake was made. No evidence of such a mistake has been provided.

If we compartmentalize being and knowing, what one may known can never come close to being despite the extent of their knowledge. Knowing everything there is to know about water will never quench one's thirst. One must actually drink water. One doesn't have to know this either. One simply has to drink water. A babe suckles at their mother's breast without ever knowing what they're doing. It is instinctive.

It is not a claim; it is a clear declaration of scripture.

Claims and declarations are synonymous. They are synonymous terms. If you're making an argument that Adam and Eve are good just because of God's declaration, then you've just grabbed hold of the first horn of Euthyphro's dilemma which points out that your God is capricious, and nothing is inherently good or evil.

Genesis 1:31
God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Adam and Eve were among the things God had made and all that God had made was good. Ergo, Adam and Eve were good.

No one is denying that Adam and Eve are created good. What is being pointed out is the fact that they needn't know it for it to be the case.

It is not assumed.

This is what is assumed: "they could understand that which was not-good simply because it was not good." They don't know anything, and don't need to know anything in order to sin, or develop the faculty of knowing. One must necessarily develop the faculty in order to know. You're putting the cart before the horse.

The simple fact that something is not good doesn't automatically provide anyone with the ability to understand this fact. In fact, one doesn't need to understand it if the truth is self evident. To understand is to stand under, but one's understanding cannot stand under the ontological reality.

You're placing one's understanding of the ontological reality as the foundation of the ontological reality when the reality is that one's understanding is necessarily derived from the ontological reality. Adam's understanding does not create the ontological reality. Adam's understanding is derived from the ontological reality. Again, you're placing the cart before the horse.

Adam and Eve were good. They therefore understood

False. Prove it. So far, you've provided nothing to support this claim.

goodness because they were good

This is a tautology.

and there was nothing in the world that was not good. That's all there was = good!

No one is denying that all of creation is good. What is being presented to you which you continue to ignore is the fact that all of these very good things which were created good were not only not created knowing this existential and scriptural fact, but nowhere in the texts themselves do they suggest this as a necessity. Moreover, the texts then go on to state that if they were to discover or understand the knowledge of good and evil, they would die. They're not only not dead, but they don't die during this process of receiving knowledge, knowledge which they necessarily couldn't have had prior to actually receiving this knowledge.

Genesis 1:31
God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

The moment they disobey they become sin and sinful. Instant experiential knowledge

You're conflating experience with knowledge of the experience.

of sin (evil). Instant knowledge of the loss of good-ness and the change into not-good-ness.

Knowledge is never instantaneous with the experience. By definition, and usage, knowledge is after the fact.

Note that none of these synonyms denote or convey instantaneous knowledge, but actions that occur in time, or over an extensive period of time. synonyms
understanding · comprehension · grasp · grip · command · mastery · apprehension · expertise · skill · proficiency · expertness · accomplishment · adeptness · capacity · capability · savoir faire · learning · erudition · education · scholarship · letters · schooling · science · wisdom 

Genesis 3:6-7
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned...

They disobeyed God and their eyes were opened. To what were their eyes opened: their nakedness and shame (they hid - John 3:19). It was through one man's act of disobedience that sin entered the world. Prior to that act of disobedience there was no sin in the world and, according to Genesis 1:31, everything was good - including the humans He had made.

It is this dissent that is assumed and not proven.

You're not addressing my argument. You're presenting a Strawman argument. You don't seem to be able to comprehend what my argument is at all. You're not even presenting an argument that I disagree with. I'm not denying that Adam and Eve are created good so most of your post is irrelevant. You're presenting this as if I disagree or deny this fact. I have no idea why you're ignoring the OP, and presenting these arguments that have practically nothing to do with it.

A newborn infant is good, innocent, undefiled, and yet it has no ability to understand this concept at all. The new creation is created for works of righteousness, and yet there is no reason whatsoever for it to know or understand this ontological fact in order to accomplish these works of righteousness. Why? For the same reason Adam and Eve needn't know. For the same reason a good tree produces good fruit without ever knowing or understanding why or how. Good trees produce good fruit because they're good, not because they understand anything.

Fish are not fish because they swim, they swim because they're fish. Lungs are not lungs because they breath, they breathe because they're lungs. That's what lungs do because that's what they are. It has nothing to do with understanding. Understanding comes after the fact. We are then told that their breathing is good or bad, but the declaration is not what makes it good or bad. The declaration affirms the ontological fact just like God declares what is already an ontological fact. God makes that declaration AFTER the FACT. He could have made that declaration 500 trillion years after the fact, and it wouldn't have mattered, or changed the fact that 500 trillion years before the declaration, Adam was created good.