OGD says,
According to this theology, Adam and Eve-or all of humanity-can know what is truly good and what isn't if they accept guidance from the Creator. The narrative isn't saying that Adam didn't know the difference between the two, because the story relies on both humans knowing God's ordinance regarding the tree in question and its fruit. Eve even quotes the law of God for the serpent when asked, demonstrating that she knows the difference between what should be done and what shouldn't (what is good and what is evil).
Yeah, I've seen that interpretations, and it raises more questions than it answers.
Basically, you're saying that the fruit didn't bestow morality, as much as it made them "head-strong", giving them the classic flawed personality trait that leads to mortal downfall: hubris, AKA excessive pride.
However, that flies smack into the face of what the Bible records about what Eve thought as the temptation to eat: she saw it looked good for food, had a pleasant appearance, but "it was desirable to gain wisdom". There it is, in black-and-white.
(of course, morality is synonymous for wisdom)
Another problem is, hubris is considered as an excess of confidence in one's decision-making powers, basically feeling invincible, untouchable. However, God himself acknowledged "their eyes had become opened" by eating, and that phrase implies something fundamental about their World-view HAD changed, such that their perspective OPENED UP, and they were seeing possibilities that previously had been unknown to them. Imbuing them with hubris wouldn't provide them with such a life-changing experience.
In fact, an argument can be made that hubris may have lead up to them eating the forbidden fruit, not vice-versa. How so?
We've all seen children who way-overestimated their abilities to do something (skate-boarding, dirt-bikes, you name it: think of the kid wearing a "No Fear!" t-shirt), and earned a broken bone, as a result. Or kids who felt they were ready to make life-altering decisions (eg getting married at 14). Adults can recognize they're not ready, but do they? Children haven't yet learned their limits, as that's a part of normal maturation process that hopefully everyone completes before getting a drivers license!
Adam and Eve HAD to be tempted to eat the fruit, hence it had to possess something they didn't have, but saw as desirable. The Bible acknowledges they obtained it, by stealing it: that was WISDOM (per the Bible). So, what's the antonym of WISDOM, in Biblical terms? Foolish. They were created as fools, who wanted to be wise. God didn't want them to be wise, to exercise their own decisions. He wanted to dole out laws to them, not have them make their own rules.
So obviously the idea that the story is saying that Adam didn't know good from bad is an incorrect conclusion since it doesn't explain why the serpent would question the humans about what was right and wrong. (Why would the Devil ask Adam and Eve a question about what was right regarding the trees and their fruit if they didn't know?)
Hmmm, why did YHWH ask "Adam, where art thou?" when they hid from him? Surely God wasn't just playing dumb, suppressing his omnipotence and omniscience?
Why did God ask them if they ate of the fruit, who told them they were naked, etc? (Hint: God isn't much on using process of elimination, i.e. how many other talking animals did God make? The serpent was "craftier" than the other beasts of the field: did He forget about the most likely suspect?)
BTW, just because Eve parroted God's prohibition to the serpent doesn't mean She or Adam understood the serious consequences in violating God's rule (which by definition IS sinning, acting contrary to God's Divine Will is what broadly defines a sin). A child can parrot back whatever YOU tell them, but they don't understand the importance of the consequences until they learn about it the hard way, via the school of hard knocks. Some can learn by the examples of others who see them suffer as a result of poor choices, but most deny it, telling themselves "it'll never happen to me".
So, God was dealing with the equivalent of children, and they paid with their lives: that's the basis of "Original Sin". Sound fair to you? All of us being sentenced to death, suffering, torment, etc, because God left the poisonous fruit out where they could eat it? I dunno: do you leave candy out that's tainted with poison for your kids to eat, just so you could punish them?
If SO, you might have God-like status in your future!!!
@@@@
FWIW, it's basically a retelling of the story of Promethus, wherein the protagonist stole fire (which represents actual knowledge, gnos, in Greek symbology; the fire was replaced by the symbol of fruit, and gave them moral knowledge). Zeus was upset, and punished Prometheus with a perennial painful task (having his liver eaten out daily, only to regrow at night); Adam had to work the cursed soil for the rest of his days. The oral legend was modified over thousands of years, but is just a retelling of the same 'origins' myth.
