Adam and Eve…literal or allegorical?

saint4God,

You'll have to elaborate on the meiosis and primary atom comments, but I doubt you'll be able to arrive at the conclusion that dirt instantly transformed into a human being using any rational scientific argument.

Originally posted by saint4God
Your evidence that shows it did not happen? Your evidence to show that any one of us in the same conversation would not do the same thing?
[edit on 18-5-2010 by saint4God]

In order to show that something is likely to be true, there needs to be sufficient supporting evidence. Asserting that something is true until someone disproves it is getting one step ahead of the argument.

For example, I could claim that I was abducted by aliens last week and taken to an alternate universe populated by smurfs and then when someone questions me I could just say, "Well, you don't have any evidence that shows it did not happen!" In fact, I would have to provide evidence in order for my claim to be believable.

However, even having noted all this, I would say that there is a substantial amount of evidence against the story being literal in the form of humanity's common understanding of how the natural world works and scientific discoveries regarding the evolution of life.

Originally posted by Superbus
saint4God,

You'll have to elaborate on the meiosis and primary atom comments,

Carbon and DNA.

Originally posted by Superbus
but I doubt you'll be able to arrive at the conclusion that dirt instantly transformed into a human being using any rational scientific argument.

I would never make such a presumption. An evolutionist would by saying "over billions of years" however. In order for something to be created, it would require a creator.

Originally posted by saint4God
In order to show that something is likely to be true, there needs to be sufficient supporting evidence.

Surely, and I have mine. No need to worry about htat.

Originally posted by saint4God
Asserting that something is true until someone disproves it is getting one step ahead of the argument.

Ah, but it's okay to assert something is untrue without evidence? I thought we were trying to be open-minded here. Also, it seems you've disregarded my second related question in this set.

Originally posted by saint4God
For example, I could claim that I was abducted by aliens last week and taken to an alternate universe populated by smurfs and then when someone questions me I could just say, "Well, you don't have any evidence that shows it did not happen!" In fact, I would have to provide evidence in order for my claim to be believable.

Are you in fact claiming this as true? Yes or no?

Originally posted by saint4God
However, even having noted all this, I would say that there is a substantial amount of evidence against the story being literal in the form of humanity's common understanding of how the natural world works and scientific discoveries regarding the evolution of life.

Such as? I find it strange...though my university degree is in Biology and work in Biochemistry, that all educators thus far have overlooked this evidence, but am certainly interested in learning more. I haven't discounted the possibility, but support beyond mere hypothesis severely lacking.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by saint4God]

saint4God,

Again, your response of "Carbon and DNA" doesn't convey much information. I don't see how this response provides support for a literal interpretation of the Adam & Eve story.

Also, it seems that you missed the point of my "alternate universe of smurfs" analogy. When someone claims that something is true, that person must provide supporting evidence for the claim to be believable. That is different than making a claim and then challenging others to disprove the claim because this could be done for any claim imaginable no matter how outlandish the claim may be. Therefore, in regard to a literal interpretation of the Adam & Eve story, the appropriate question is not "Can you disprove it?" but rather "Can you prove it?"

As for why I feel that an allegorical interpretation is more likely than a literal interpretation, I will list a few reasons:

1) The scientifically supported view of the development of life on this planet involves gradual evolution of species over billions of years leading to modern species, including humans, which inhabit the earth today. This contradicts any claim that humans appeared spontaneously from dirt.
2) The story in Genesis includes certain elements such as a talking serpent, humans walking around a garden talking with God, a fruit with special powers, an angel showing up with a flaming sword etc. which do not correspond with observations of reality.
3) The language of the story is similar to other creation myths which appear in many cultures from around the world. I suppose my question to you regarding this point is why you seek to establish the Genesis story as literal in opposition to other recorded creation myths?

Originally posted by Superbus
Again, your response of "Carbon and DNA" doesn't convey much information. I don't see how this response provides support for a literal interpretation of the Adam & Eve story.

I was hoping we could take this a step at a time to better put the puzzle pieces together.

Originally posted by Superbus
Also, it seems that you missed the point of my "alternate universe of smurfs" analogy. When someone claims that something is true, that person must provide supporting evidence for the claim to be believable.

I'm willing to do more than that, I'm willing to help anyone obtain their own proof who honestly seeks it. What good would it do you (or anyone else) to look at what I have?

Originally posted by Superbus
That is different than making a claim and then challenging others to disprove the claim because this could be done for any claim imaginable no matter how outlandish the claim may be. Therefore, in regard to a literal interpretation of the Adam & Eve story, the appropriate question is not "Can you disprove it?" but rather "Can you prove it?"

I did not say I could, nor did I say for definite that it is not allegorical. You, on the other hand, have taken a firm stand that it is...so again, where is your proof?

Originally posted by Superbus
As for why I feel that an allegorical interpretation is more likely than a literal interpretation, I will list a few reasons:

1) The scientifically supported view of the development of life on this planet involves gradual evolution of species over billions of years leading to modern species, including humans, which inhabit the earth today. This contradicts any claim that humans appeared spontaneously from dirt.

As universal as you may believe this is to be, it is not. I'm a scientist and do not hold this view. I'm confident over 40% of the people I work with do not either. It comes back again to evolutionary proof, and as stated before, it is severly lacking.

Originally posted by Superbus
2) The story in Genesis includes certain elements such as a talking serpent, humans walking around a garden talking with God, a fruit with special powers, an angel showing up with a flaming sword etc. which do not correspond with observations of reality.

They do, but not a reality you're familiar with. Do you believe these things would be impossible for an omnipotent God?

Originally posted by Superbus
3) The language of the story is similar to other creation myths which appear in many cultures from around the world.

In what way?

Originally posted by Superbus
I suppose my question to you regarding this point is why you seek to establish the Genesis story as literal in opposition to other recorded creation myths?

Please review what I've said. I've said the more that I learn about the Bible, the more I'm finding that is literal. I've never said (and intentionally so) that yes, Genesis is literal, though the possibility is becoming more abundantly pronounced. The reason why I found the Bible, as opposed to any other book, to be the truth is because I have tested it and what I have tested verifies as true. I have also tested other books, which have fallen well short of their mark (including some textbooks). A person is foolhardy to believe everything they read, especially when they think having the word "scientist" attached to their name means their omniscient. I don't know everything, but I will stand beside what I do know as true.

[edit on 19-5-2010 by saint4God]

reply to post by DISRAELI

Originally posted by DISRAELI
One thing that has often struck me about the story of the "tree" is that it is not about knowledge as such. It is, very specifically, about the "knowledge of good and evil", i.e. the ability to distinguish between them.

Now understanding a difference between good and evil necessarily involves awareness of the existence of evil. Without that awareness, they would have been able to live among the "good", but they would not have been able to identify it as "not-evil". Just as White can exist in the absence of other colours, but White could be recognised and identified as such by human minds in the absence of other colours. If "knowing good and evil" involves making the acquaintance of evil, that would explain why it is treated as a bad move.

I kind of see it in a similar way, although I see man’s learning “evil”, as a form of knowledge. I believe when man lived in accordance with God, they were living in the “good” (without the knowledge of evil), but when man turned away from God and began to seek his own way, he then became aware of “evil”.

I just find it hard to believe that fruit of the tree, could give man knowledge of good and evil over night. Where as, the idea of man moving away from a relationship with God and going his own way, and in the process of doing so learns of evil, kind of makes more sense to me.

Do you see 2 Genesis Literally or Allegorically?


- JC

Originally posted by saint4God
I'm willing to do more than that, I'm willing to help anyone obtain their own proof who honestly seeks it. What good would it do you (or anyone else) to look at what I have?

The good it would do is to support your view and give credibility to your interpretation.

I did not say I could, nor did I say for definite that it is not allegorical. You, on the other hand, have taken a firm stand that it is...so again, where is your proof?

I commend you for admitting that, but you did raise a lot of questions/challenges when I stated that I viewed the story as allegorical. Considering that, I concluded that you must be arguing for the merit of a literal interpretation to some extent.

As universal as you may believe this is to be, it is not. I'm a scientist and do not hold this view. I'm confident over 40% of the people I work with do not either. It comes back again to evolutionary proof, and as stated before, it is severly lacking.

I flatly disagree with this point. Evolution is an established scientific theory and has been for some time now. There is significant evidence from several different fields of scientific study that supports the theory of evolution.

They do, but not a reality you're familiar with. Do you believe these things would be impossible for an omnipotent God?

I'm talking about the consensus reality familiar to us all. "Is there an omnipotent God? Could he do these things?" These are interesting questions, but I don't seek to ultimately prove or disprove either question. Rather, I'm simply stating that many events in the Adam & Eve story do not correspond with observed phenomena in our world.

In what way?

This is a somewhat minor point, but all I'm saying is that the language and nature of the story identify it as a creation myth. I'm not aware of any arguments in favor of declaring any other creation myth to be literal stories, so I'm just asking why the Genesis story in particular should be singled out in this way.

Please review what I've said. I've said the more that I learn about the Bible, the more I'm finding that is literal. I've never said (and intentionally so) that yes, Genesis is literal, though the possibility is becoming more abundantly pronounced. The reason why I found the Bible, as opposed to any other book, to be the truth is because I have tested it and what I have tested verifies as true. I have also tested other books, which have fallen well short of their mark (including some textbooks). A person is foolhardy to believe everything they read, especially when they think having the word "scientist" attached to their name means their omniscient. I don't know everything, but I will stand beside what I do know as true.

I agree with you that one should not believe everything they read and I also agree that "scientist" does not equal omniscient. The OP asked whether people thought the Genesis story was literal or allegorical and I simply stated that I felt the story must be allegorical based on the reasons I gave. If you feel that the story is literal and you have information which supports this view, I encourage you to present that information. Peace.

reply to post by saint4God

Originally posted by Saint4God
As I began to apply this actually this advice I decided to try a literally approach and actually love someone who hated me and pray for them. Although it was a surprise to see them turn just a little bit of hate into tolerance (dare I say acceptance), it was even more of a surprise how it changed me interally. If I could do that for one person, someone who apparently wanted me dead, then surely I could do so for everyone.

First of all, thanks for sharing your testimony here, and I'm glad you’re still alive to tell the story.

Originally posted by Saint4God
A domino effect began to ensue, not only with the advice but with historical and archaeological evidences.

Do you mean historical and archaeological evidences, relating to 2 Genesis?


- JC

Originally posted by Superbus
The good it would do is to support your view and give credibility to your interpretation.

I've tried it before, it doesn't help, but to be fair, you may be different.

Originally posted by Superbus
I commend you for admitting that, but you did raise a lot of questions/challenges when I stated that I viewed the story as allegorical.

Yep ^_^

Originally posted by Superbus
Considering that, I concluded that you must be arguing for the merit of a literal interpretation to some extent.

I do believe there's merit, but surely that begs that I come over to someone's house and show them my proof.

Originally posted by Superbus

As universal as you may believe this is to be, it is not. I'm a scientist and do not hold this view. I'm confident over 40% of the people I work with do not either. It comes back again to evolutionary proof, and as stated before, it is severly lacking.

I flatly disagree with this point.

That's cool and I'm used to it.

Originally posted by Superbus
Evolution is an established scientific theory and has been for some time now. There is significant evidence from several different fields of scientific study that supports the theory of evolution.

If you've found those ideas compelling/convincing, wait until you see proof of God, that'll knock your socks off!

Originally posted by Superbus
I'm talking about the consensus reality familiar to us all.

There seems to be an assumption here that we all have had the same experiences and therefore all have experienced the fullest in reality. This is not the case.

Originally posted by Superbus
"Is there an omnipotent God? Could he do these things?" These are interesting questions, but I don't seek to ultimately prove or disprove either question.

Rats, because this was the avenue to progress.

Originally posted by Superbus
Rather, I'm simply stating that many events in the Adam & Eve story do not correspond with observed phenomena in our world.

I understand why you and many others would say the same. I would say that the Adam & Eve story does not correspond with most observed phenomena in our world.

Originally posted by Superbus
This is a somewhat minor point, but all I'm saying is that the language and nature of the story identify it as a creation myth. I'm not aware of any arguments in favor of declaring any other creation myth to be literal stories, so I'm just asking why the Genesis story in particular should be singled out in this way.

A very interesting point you've made here. Why indeed do you believe Genesis claims to be true while the other myths clearly state they are myth? I realize I'm bouncing the question back, but if I answered it'd rob us both of exploration.

Originally posted by Superbus
I agree with you that one should not believe everything they read and I also agree that "scientist" does not equal omniscient.

My example saying this is extreme and didn't mean it in your case, but as a general mindset for ATS. Many here think just because a scientist who doesn't post on ATS says it, it is true. Naturally if you're a scientist here who does post, you're bunk. Still trying to figure that one out. It also goes full circle as to why any testimony on proof cited will likewise be considered null.

Originally posted by Superbus
The OP asked whether people thought the Genesis story was literal or allegorical and I simply stated that I felt the story must be allegorical based on the reasons I gave.

Certainly, didn't mean any strong offensive, merely challenging your affirmation since you seem so sure.

Originally posted by Superbus
If you feel that the story is literal and you have information which supports this view, I encourage you to present that information. Peace.

It's easier to prove Matthew/John/Luke/Mark than it is Genesis. Venture a guess as to why? In our case we have to work with our current timeframe and work backwards else indeed we end up in a place completely foreign to us. I submit that it is easier to have the devil on your doorstep than meeting Adam and Eve...but then again, it's not that difficult to have the former as terminally dangerous as that would be.

Originally posted by Joecroft
First of all, thanks for sharing your testimony here, and I'm glad you’re still alive to tell the story.

Thanks, it was long ago and despite the trouble I can say that it resolved for the better. Lesson learned. If I could give any advice from it, I would say seek out if there is God first, then if you're not satisfied browse around...at least you'd know how to get back to home base.

Originally posted by Joecroft
Do you mean historical and archaeological evidences, relating to 2 Genesis?

Candidly I don't think there is much that the winds haven't blown over beyond a few thousand years. We can't even settle the Shroud of Turin (though many of us in our own minds already have it settled), let alone pre-Moses. The chain-reaction goes backwards, not starting at the beginning of time going forward...although it would be quite awesome if someone received proof of Adam and Eve, therefore Moses, therefore believed in Christ, therefore came to know God.

[edit on 19-5-2010 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Joecroft
reply to post by 13th Zodiac

 

Originally posted by 13th Zodiac
The Tree of Knowledge was a living being not littoral Tree . This being was the Egyptian God Thoth ( todays Christian Satan wich means advisary).

This is interesting, I also don’t believe, it is a literal tree either…but how is the Egyptian God Thoth, regarded as being, the “Tree of knowledge”… where does this myth/information stem from?



- JC

Hi Joe , thank you for your interest .My source for this is very personal and best said as a off the record oral tradition.However I can point you to many other sources indicating the same thing . Firstly any basic referance to Thoth will quote Thoth as the God of Wisdom and Knowledge , God of Knowledge -Tree of Knowledge is not a great stretch .
The serpent is also associated with wisdom ( be as wise as serpents ) , however in Genisis the talking serpent is allegory for both DNA and the delivery of that DNA through the phallus ( another serpent allegory ) .Both these allegories are of Thoth who through speach decieves the Eve .To be conscise Thoth passes his DNA on to Cain Via a particular Eve through his serpentine phallus . Having verbally decieved her .
Thoth of Memphis is also known as Seth and or Hermes Trismegistus ( Thrice Greatest , from Thrice and Tri you have the Trinity of the Catholic Church . It has nothing to do with Father, Son and Holy Spirit . It's origin is Babylonian where Thoth , Cain [ Tubal Cain the Great Vulcan of Freemasonry ] and the particalar Eve [ Lilith ] were banished .Here you have your Trinity.
A well known symbol of Hermes (Thoth) is two serpents entwined on a staff , this represents the serpentine DNA Double Helix and is the modern medical symbol used today .
There are also many Luciferian referances to Thoth and Hermes as Lucifer in the writings of people such as Madame Blavatsky ( The Secret Doctrine ) and others of her ilk like Maree Moore ( Masters of the Mystical Rose ).
Another cross referance comes from the Qur'an ( Koran ) where the advisary is called Shaytan/shaitan ( Satan ) and or Iblis , from Iblis you get the word Ibis .Thoth is depicted with the head of a Ibis .
Look at this saying, fruit doesn't fall far from the tree .This term is typically used for some one who follows the crimanal path of the father .Just like Thoth and Cain and again you have referance to a tree and fruit .

Ask yourself why is there a slang word called Root for loveless carnal knowledge ? The tree has roots , and there is the word knowledge attatched to a term for sinful sex .

The understanding of Good and Evil Adam and Eve gained was from the awakening of the pinal gland from Chakra stimulation .

I could go on for ever on this subject and the hidden meanings . The new Testement is just as interesting . I hope this helps you further Joe .
Jason

[edit on 19-5-2010 by 13th Zodiac]

[edit on 19-5-2010 by 13th Zodiac]

Originally posted by Joecroft

My personal view, is that most but not all parts, of the Adam and Eve story are allegorical. I believe it try’s to portray a story, with the help of various visual aids. The big question is, which of those visual aids are literally real and which ones are allegory.


How do you view the story of Adam and Eve, in Genesis?


Do you see it literally or allegorically and if so, why?


- JC

Here is a big clue. Find out what the names mean. If you do this for every name you come across in the bible and learn what they mean. The story will come to life...literally.

All of the stories in the bible are one story as it is finished, the whole world, by the end of Gen 1:31. When I say the whole world I mean everything past present and future. As it says, The whole host of heaven.

Peace

By the way, God as everyone says means "Good Luck" and I'm pretty sure the big guy speaks very harshly about committing things to "luck".

His name truly is blasphemed every time someone prays to "God".

[edit on 19-5-2010 by letthereaderunderstand]

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
By the way, God as everyone says means "Good Luck"

How do you figure?

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
and I'm pretty sure the big guy speaks very harshly about committing things to "luck".

I agree here, there are strong words about attributing things to luck.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
I do believe there's merit, but surely that begs that I come over to someone's house and show them my proof.

I don't see why this should be the case, unless of course you have a talking pet snake you'd like to show me.

There seems to be an assumption here that we all have had the same experiences and therefore all have experienced the fullest in reality. This is not the case.

Certainly, people have different experiences, but to a large extent there is a shared understanding of what kinds of events are probable in reality. I realize that this is not 100% universal as evidenced by the discussion we're having right now.

In fact, there are sometimes significant cultural differences in the perception of reality, however if you look into these you will often find that there are simply two different explanations addressing the same phenomena. For example, say someone in a remote tribe comes down with symptoms of fever, shivering and vomiting. Members of the tribe might say that "such and such evil spirit" has attacked the person, while a western doctor would diagnose the condition as malaria.

Even beliefs addressing the whole of physical existence such as "the world is illusion" refer to the same set of experiences and phenomena which are known to the materialist. The only difference here is that the former belief asserts that there is some additional understanding which can be gained concerning ultimate reality or existence.

Finally, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I don't see why presenting evidence for a literal view of the story should be such a complicated and strenuous matter. At the same time, it's no big deal. Maybe you feel that your explanation is too lengthy for a forum post? Whatever the case may be, I doubt we'll come to an agreement, but if you do have a full explanation in support of your position I'm certainly willing to read and consider it. Peace.

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Here is a big clue. Find out what the names mean. If you do this for every name you come across in the bible and learn what they mean. The story will come to life...literally.

Names…which names, can you give an example?

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
His name truly is blasphemed every time someone prays to "God".

What do you mean?…that we should use Gods name or say Jesus? I’m not sure I follow you here?



- JC

reply to post by 13th Zodiac



Thanks Jason, for your detailed explanation.

Originally posted by 13th Zodiac
Hi Joe , thank you for your interest .My source for this is very personal and best said as a off the record oral tradition.However I can point you to many other sources indicating the same thing . Firstly any basic referance to Thoth will quote Thoth as the God of Wisdom and Knowledge , God of Knowledge -Tree of Knowledge is not a great stretch .

I guess it’s a possible stretch, although I’m not so sure… unless it can be shown how the Egyptian deity Thoth, has filtered it’s way into Judaism/Genesis.

Originally posted by 13th Zodiac
A well known symbol of Hermes (Thoth) is two serpents entwined on a staff , this represents the serpentine DNA Double Helix and is the modern medical symbol used today.

Yes, I have seen the picture of the symbol you are talking about and how it has been connected/associated with DNA. I personally think this is just down to coincidence, although there are a lot of serpent symbols/worship in many ancient cultures throughout the world.

How do we know for sure that the symbol for Hermes (Thoth), is two serpents entwined on a staff?

Originally posted by 13th Zodiac
The understanding of Good and Evil Adam and Eve gained was from the awakening of the pinal gland from Chakra stimulation.

I always thought that the pineal gland was connected to third sight i.e. seeing into the future.



- JC

reply to post by Joecroft
Chalk me up for "literal".

2nd line.

Originally posted by Superbus
I don't see why this should be the case, unless of course you have a talking pet snake you'd like to show me.

That's all it would take for you to be convinced God exists?

Originally posted by Superbus
Finally, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I don't see why presenting evidence for a literal view of the story should be such a complicated and strenuous matter.

Proving God exists is easier than proving Adam and Eve due to presence of evidence. I'm sure the remains of Adam and Eve are around here somewhere...but really it's beside the point since Adam and Eve would not prove God. It happens the other way around. Again, I'd like to here otherwise if anyone has such testimony.

Originally posted by Superbus
At the same time, it's no big deal.

It's a big deal in that when you take facts as relativistic fables, truth itself becomes obscure. It's the difference between walking in the park during the day verses crossing a log across a river on a foggy night.

Originally posted by Superbus
Maybe you feel that your explanation is too lengthy for a forum post?

I doubt anyone here is interested in my testimony (as it's been tried before here) so I find it more helpful to describe what would benefit them. These things are kinda useless unless it has a personal and meaningful impact on our own lives.

Originally posted by Superbus
Whatever the case may be, I doubt we'll come to an agreement, but if you do have a full explanation in support of your position I'm certainly willing to read and consider it. Peace.

Sure, I know I'm not the best at articulating meaning, especially on topics that go well beyond the human realm (I'd venture few could), so my best advice is, instead of looking for a fallen fruit that likely became part of the soil thousands or more years go, how about looking at that which does tangibly exist? Are Adam and Eve really going to do anything for any of us right now? Should we expect them to?

P.S. I get "Radio Song" stuck in my head every time I see you're username www.youtube.com...

[edit on 25-5-2010 by saint4God]

Saint,

The whole "talking pet snake" thing was just a little joke about proving that the Adam & Eve story was literal. As I mentioned before, I posted in this thread to address OP's question about the story and I'm not making any claims for or against the existence of God.

Originally posted by saint4God
It's a big deal in that when you take facts as relativistic fables, truth itself becomes obscure.

I wouldn't say that's necessarily true. First of all, in order to legitimately claim something as a historical fact you have to provide evidence suggesting it actually happened. Secondly, there's no law that says that all allegorical stories and fables must be relativistic. For example, look at Aesop's fables. Most if not all of these stories communicate clear moral teachings and messages.

P.S. I get "Radio Song" stuck in my head every time I see you're username

www.youtube.com...

Thanks for the link. I had heard of that band, but I hadn't heard any of their music before. My username is derived more from this guy, but maybe that's where the band got their name as well.

Originally posted by Superbus
The whole "talking pet snake" thing was just a little joke about proving that the Adam & Eve story was literal.

I was thinking so, but there was that little hope that perhaps proof wouldn't be rejected. People reject proof, I have myself on a number of occasions before realizing the full scope of what I was looking at.

Originally posted by Superbus
As I mentioned before, I posted in this thread to address OP's question about the story and I'm not making any claims for or against the existence of God.

It's cool and didn't mean to harp on you in particular, but you did seem the most firm at the time and we've had what I think is a most progressive discussion.

Originally posted by Superbus
I wouldn't say that's necessarily true. First of all, in order to legitimately claim something as a historical fact you have to provide evidence suggesting it actually happened.

Okay, so how would you provide evidence suggesting Lucius Tarquinius Superbus orchestrated the murders of key senators who supported Servius Tullius?

Originally posted by Superbus
Secondly, there's no law that says that all allegorical stories and fables must be relativistic. For example, look at Aesop's fables. Most if not all of these stories communicate clear moral teachings and messages.

Fantastic answer!

Originally posted by Superbus

P.S. I get "Radio Song" stuck in my head every time I see you're username

www.youtube.com...

Thanks for the link. I had heard of that band, but I hadn't heard any of their music before. My username is derived more from this guy, but maybe that's where the band got their name as well.

Don't I feel silly, someone makes a historical reference and I'm playing music in my head . Well, the roots are the same at least:

"The band got their name from the Latin word superbus, meaning proud, which Jennifer Ayache (lead singer) stumbled upon while browsing a Latin dictionary." - en.wikipedia.org...(band)

reply to post by DISRAELI

One thing that has often struck me about the story of the "tree" is that it is not about knowledge as such. It is, very specifically, about the "knowledge of good and evil", i.e. the ability to distinguish between them.

I think there may be at least two ways to understand this.
A possible interpretation, to me, looking at the Hebrew words, is a propensity of contentiousness. Like God says this, and I decide that I disagree, even to the point of demonstrating how much I value my own opinion, by acting out in a way that is directly against a commandment.