Why the sacrifice had to occur

It baffles me how anyone can justify murdering an innocent man (not convicted of heinous behavior) as an acceptable conflict resolution strategy. Human sacrifice is barbaric and appalling in any circumstance.

a reply to: Dcopymope

This is the true reason why Jesus was sent, to eradicate the knowledge of good and evil, and it should be the basis for answering all of the more difficult questions people often ask, because I personally don’t see any other way to answer them convincingly. Assuming God decided not to plant the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the only thing that would have done was postpone what God already knew was inevitable. The fall, or the knowledge of sin cropping up within Adam and Eve was going to happen regardless if there was a tree or not. We can know this for sure because the fall already occurred in heaven with Satan, and it doesn’t put the blame on a tree for his fall into iniquity. This also addresses the second question. Could God have started over with another Adam, Eve and new earth? Sure, but I am 100% certain that God wouldn’t have allowed things to continue as they were if he actually had a choice.

Yes, I said it, God didn’t have a choice in the matter, because the truth is, the whole creation is doomed without Jesus.

This is only partly true.

While the end result will be to eradicate all evil, since it can never enter the new heaven, the reason God allowed angels and humans free will was so they could choose whether to follow God and enter it. It was never God's plan to force a perfect eternity with Him on anyone, including angels.

The whole creation is doomed without Jesus because the Bible tells us that Jesus was the one who created everything, including man and angels. Jesus is God. So, yes, God did have a choice in the matter and allowing everyone free will to accept or reject Him has been the plan from the beginning.

a reply to: Seede

There is no permissive will in Gan Eden, only the perfect will of the Creator can exist in the garden.

That's not what the Bible tells us. It's also why there's mention of a "third heaven" in the Bible. Only Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit reside there.

1 John 5:7

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

The angels reside in the heavens below that, where free will is also allowed to reside. Angels will be judged just like humans and the Bible tells us that a third of God's angels will choose to follow Satan.

originally posted by: Dcopymope
...
The only thing Jesus was sent here to change when it comes down to it was our ability to gain the "knowledge of good and evil".

Traditional teachings have attempted to explain the prohibited fruit in a variety of ways. For example: as standing for the mere cognizance of right and wrong. The mere ability to recognize right and wrong most certainly cannot be meant, for obedience to God’s command required of sinless man that he be able to exercise such moral discrimination.

What was actually represented by the tree is well expressed in a footnote on Genesis 2:17, in The Jerusalem Bible (1966):

“This knowledge is a privilege which God reserves to himself and which man, by sinning, is to lay hands on, 3:5, 22. Hence it does not mean omniscience, which fallen man does not possess; nor is it moral discrimination, for unfallen man already had it and God could not refuse it to a rational being. It is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being. The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty, a sin of pride.”

DISRAELI mentioned some of that as well, apart from the last reminder there concerning sovereignty. I got the feeling from your commentary that even after his comment you still didn't fully understand this very well, and that much of the things you say in the OP are build or further building upon this misunderstanding. So maybe that footnote can be of help.

Some of your other misunderstandings are related to God's selective use of foreknowledge as discussed here:

Is Your Future Predestined? (Awake!—2009)

...
Total or Selective Foreknowledge?
...

Foreknowledge, Foreordination (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1)

...
If the Creator of mankind had indeed exercised his power to foreknow all that history has seen since man’s creation, then the full weight of all the wickedness thereafter resulting was deliberately set in motion by God when he spoke the words: “Let us make man.” (Ge 1:26) These facts bring into question the reasonableness and consistency of the predestinarian concept; particularly so, since the disciple James shows that disorder and other vile things do not originate from God’s heavenly presence but are “earthly, animal, demonic” in source.​—Jas 3:14-18.

Infinite exercise of foreknowledge? The argument that God’s not foreknowing all future events and circumstances in full detail would evidence imperfection on his part is, in reality, an arbitrary view of perfection. Perfection, correctly defined, does not demand such an absolute, all-embracing extension, inasmuch as the perfection of anything actually depends upon its measuring up completely to the standards of excellence set by one qualified to judge its merits. (See PERFECTION.) Ultimately, God’s own will and good pleasure, not human opinions or concepts, are the deciding factors as to whether anything is perfect.​—De 32:4; 2Sa 22:31; Isa 46:10.

To illustrate this, God’s almightiness is undeniably perfect and is infinite in capacity. (1Ch 29:11, 12; Job 36:22; 37:23) Yet his perfection in strength does not require him to use his power to the full extent of his omnipotence in any or in all cases. Clearly he has not done so; if he had, not merely certain ancient cities and some nations would have been destroyed, but the earth and all in it would have been obliterated long ago by God’s executions of judgment, accompanied by mighty expressions of disapproval and wrath, as at the Flood and on other occasions. (Ge 6:5-8; 19:23-25, 29; compare Ex 9:13-16; Jer 30:23, 24.) God’s exercise of his might is therefore not simply an unleashing of limitless power but is constantly governed by his purpose and, where merited, tempered by his mercy.​—Ne 9:31; Ps 78:38, 39; Jer 30:11; La 3:22; Eze 20:17.

Similarly, if, in certain respects, God chooses to exercise his infinite ability of foreknowledge in a selective way and to the degree that pleases him, then assuredly no human or angel can rightly say: “What are you doing?” (Job 9:12; Isa 45:9; Da 4:35) It is therefore not a question of ability, what God can foresee, foreknow, and foreordain, for “with God all things are possible.” (Mt 19:26) The question is what God sees fit to foresee, foreknow, and foreordain, for “everything that he delighted to do he has done.”​—Ps 115:3.

Selective exercise of foreknowledge. The alternative to predestinarianism, the selective or discretionary exercise of God’s powers of foreknowledge, would have to harmonize with God’s own righteous standards and be consistent with what he reveals of himself in his Word. In contrast with the theory of predestinarianism, a number of texts point to an examination by God of a situation then current and a decision made on the basis of such examination.

Thus, at Genesis 11:5-8 God is described as directing his attention earthward, surveying the situation at Babel, and, at that time, determining the action to be taken to break up the unrighteous project there. After wickedness developed at Sodom and Gomorrah, Jehovah advised Abraham of his decision to investigate (by means of his angels) to “see whether they act altogether according to the outcry over it that has come to me, and, if not, I can get to know it.” (Ge 18:20-22; 19:1) God spoke of ‘becoming acquainted with Abraham,’ and after Abraham went to the point of attempting to sacrifice Isaac, Jehovah said, “For now I do know that you are God-fearing in that you have not withheld your son, your only one, from me.”​—Ge 18:19; 22:11, 12; compare Ne 9:7, 8; Ga 4:9.

Selective foreknowledge means that God could choose not to foreknow indiscriminately all the future acts of his creatures. This would mean that, rather than all history from creation onward being a mere rerun of what had already been foreseen and foreordained, God could with all sincerity set before the first human pair the prospect of everlasting life in an earth free from wickedness. His instructions to his first human son and daughter to act as his perfect and sinless agents in filling the earth with their offspring and making it a paradise, as well as exercising control over the animal creation, could thus be expressed as the grant of a truly loving privilege and as his genuine desire toward them​—not merely as the giving of a commission that, on their part, was foredoomed to failure. God’s arranging for a test by means of “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad” and his creation of “the tree of life” in the garden of Eden also would not be meaningless or cynical acts, made so by his foreknowing that the human pair would sin and never be able to eat of “the tree of life.”​—Ge 1:28; 2:7-9, 15-17; 3:22-24.

To offer something very desirable to another person on conditions known beforehand to be unreachable is recognized as both hypocritical and cruel. The prospect of everlasting life is presented in God’s Word as a goal for all persons, one possible to attain. After urging his listeners to ‘keep on asking and seeking’ good things from God, Jesus pointed out that a father does not give a stone or a serpent to his child that asks for bread or a fish. Showing his Father’s view of disappointing the legitimate hopes of a person, Jesus then said: “Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will your Father who is in the heavens give good things to those asking him?”​—Mt 7:7-11.

Thus, the invitations and opportunities to receive benefits and everlasting blessings set before all men by God are bona fide. (Mt 21:22; Jas 1:5, 6) He can in all sincerity urge men to ‘turn back from transgression and keep living,’ as he did with the people of Israel. (Eze 18:23, 30-32; compare Jer 29:11, 12.) Logically, he could not do this if he foreknew that they were individually destined to die in wickedness. (Compare Ac 17:30, 31; 1Ti 2:3, 4.) As Jehovah told Israel: “Nor said I to the seed of Jacob, ‘Seek me simply for nothing, you people.’ I am Jehovah, speaking what is righteous, telling what is upright. . . . Turn to me and be saved, all you at the ends of the earth.”​—Isa 45:19-22.
...

Allow me to come in trolling you with "Jesus never experienced death before."

Mind that the people had to kill Jesus.

God planted a tree so man could eat of it.
God made an angel so it could rebel against him.
God sent Jesus so they could kill him.

What is life?

Or perhaps better, what is God?

People who Judge God are ignorant, they simply are vomiting over their own imagination of God.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Who killed Jesus?

God or people? Think you aren't God for a change.

God must have known they would kill him making something beautiful from his death people could benefit from.

a reply to: Deetermined

That's not what the Bible tells us. It's also why there's mention of a "third heaven" in the Bible. Only Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit reside there. 1 John 5:7 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. The angels reside in the heavens below that, where free will is also allowed to reside. Angels will be judged just like humans and the Bible tells us that a third of God's angels will choose to follow Satan.

You are correct. The bible is not specific concerning the third heaven but there is evidence in and out of the biblical literature as to the kingdom of heaven being in the third heaven. 2nd Corinthians 12: 1-4 does tell us that the Gan Eden [paradise] is in the third heaven and Revelation tells us that Gan Eden is the kingdom of heaven. In that understanding the third heaven does have the justified dead living in paradise [third heaven] now.

As you read the bible remember that paradise or the kingdom of heaven was not offered to the human race till after the covenant of the Christ was sealed with His blood. There are many schools of thought in a heaven. The Orthodox Jews teach that there are as many as ten heavens While the Christians will teach of one heaven outside of the boundaries of this universe or known to us as the third heaven. Also the same schools teach that there are two Gan Edens. One Gan Eden is in this terrestrial World and another is in the celestial world. Regardless of belief the bible is not specific.

a reply to: Seede

As for the possibility of Eden being in heaven, the only direct evidence we have of this being a possibility is the very last chapter of the entire book where it speaks of the tree of life in the midst of the throne of God in new Jerusalem, the same Jerusalem that descends from heaven itself. Is it the same tree from the garden? Maybe, but I don't see why it has to be.

a reply to: whereislogic

You are free to believe that I have some misunderstanding of the nature of free will. From where I am sitting though, you have a clear misunderstanding of the entire point of this thread, which is the inevitability of sin arising within creation because of the knowledge of it. You believe I have some misunderstanding of Gods foreknowledge, fine, so I read through your commentary, until I got to this part, seeing this is really part of the crux of the argument after skimming through the rest.

To illustrate this, God’s almightiness is undeniably perfect and is infinite in capacity. (1Ch 29:11, 12; Job 36:22; 37:23) Yet his perfection in strength does not require him to use his power to the full extent of his omnipotence in any or in all cases. Clearly he has not done so; if he had, not merely certain ancient cities and some nations would have been destroyed, but the earth and all in it would have been obliterated long ago by God’s executions of judgment, accompanied by mighty expressions of disapproval and wrath, as at the Flood and on other occasions. (Ge 6:5-8; 19:23-25, 29; compare Ex 9:13-16; Jer 30:23, 24.) God’s exercise of his might is therefore not simply an unleashing of limitless power but is constantly governed by his purpose and, where merited, tempered by his mercy.​—Ne 9:31; Ps 78:38, 39; Jer 30:11; La 3:22; Eze 20:17.

I didn't really bother continuing reading past this point, because if you were paying attention to what I was saying, you would see I already addressed this. My answer, once again, to this is simple and to the point. If God thought that destroying all of creation and starting over with a new one would magically make the problem of sin and the knowledge of it disappear into a black hole, he would have done it from the get go. This is the problem that believers have when asked why God allows Satan to exist when he could have ended him right then and there the moment he started getting uppity. If he thought it would solve all his problems, he would have done it. The truth is, eventually, there was going to be another Satan rearing his ugly head regardless. His decision not to reboot the creation was not governed by his "purpose", or his "mercy". He had a plan to eliminate sin once and for all, and the only thing uprooting the whole creation would have done was postpone the inevitable, and what he knew from the start had to be done no matter what.

(1 Peter 1:18-20) "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; [19] But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: [20] Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,"

You don't make these kinds of decisions before you even get started on your project, deciding that something within that project has to happen no matter what in a very specific way unless you know the far reaching implications of the consequences if you don't do it.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: TzarChasm

Who killed Jesus?

God or people? Think you aren't God for a change.

God must have known they would kill him making something beautiful from his death people could benefit from.

It was a brilliantly executed plan, and as explained, it is in fact the only plan that could have possibly worked, otherwise, he would never have foreordained it to occur in the first place.

originally posted by: Dcopymope
a reply to: whereislogic
... From where I am sitting though, you have a clear misunderstanding of the entire point of this thread, which is the inevitability of sin arising within creation because of the knowledge of it. ...

That's because you seem to interpret the act of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and bad, as acquiring mere cognizance of sin (at least that's how you phrase it or talk about it in the rest of your commentary, that's the impression I'm getting from the rest of your commentary). This correlates to the interpretation I phrased as:

Traditional teachings have attempted to explain the prohibited fruit in a variety of ways. For example: as standing for the mere cognizance of right and wrong. The mere ability to recognize right and wrong most certainly cannot be meant, for obedience to God’s command required of sinless man that he be able to exercise such moral discrimination.

Adam and Eve already knew of sin (or what sin was) before eating the forbidden fruit, just like they knew what right and wrong was, for the first man and woman had such knowledge by reason of God’s commands to them. It was also not inevitable that they would sin, they had a choice (as opposed to the predestinarian concept expressed in the word "inevitable").

Understanding God's selective use of foreknowledge helps us to understand that God did not know that Adam and Eve would sin ahead of time. Which helps us understand what's wrong with your first question in the OP:

1. If God only wanted Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of life, why bother planting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to start with, especially knowing they were going to disobey since he is omniscient?

Answer: he didn't know, so the question is invalid and based on a wrong assumption which sets one on the wrong path if one attempts to answer that question while holding on to that assumption (which is what the question is based on). The first article I linked probably has the answer to the first part of that question if you ignore everything after "especially". In short, it allowed them to demonstrate their love of God and appreciation for everything God had given them (including life and everything in the Garden of Eden) by means of obedience to his simple commandment (it was not restrictive or burdensome at all).

Minor caveat: God allowed them to eat from every tree* in the garden of Eden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad, it's not as you phrased it as if God only wanted them to eat from the tree of life. *: the ones with fruit obviously

“This is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments; and yet his commandments are not burdensome.”​—1 JOHN 5:3.

a reply to: whereislogic
How can man know anything if God is all knowing?

What is knowing this present appearance?

originally posted by: whereislogic
That's because you seem to interpret the act of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and bad, as acquiring mere cognizance of sin (at least that's how you phrase it or talk about it in the rest of your commentary, that's the impression I'm getting from the rest of your commentary). This correlates to the interpretation I phrased as:

Traditional teachings have attempted to explain the prohibited fruit in a variety of ways. For example: as standing for the mere cognizance of right and wrong. The mere ability to recognize right and wrong most certainly cannot be meant, for obedience to God’s command required of sinless man that he be able to exercise such moral discrimination.

Adam and Eve already knew of sin (or what sin was) before eating the forbidden fruit, just like they knew what right and wrong was, for the first man and woman had such knowledge by reason of God’s commands to them. It was also not inevitable that they would sin, they had a choice (as opposed to the predestinarian concept expressed in the word "inevitable").

You claim Adam and Eve already knew of sin, yet the narrative clearly speaks otherwise, since God was most certainly concerned about them becoming like him because of what they did in the first place.

(Genesis 3:22-24) "¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: [23] Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. [24] So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

If your interpretation is true, the actual consequences of Adam and Eve eating from the tree would be described differently. It wouldn't be saying he has "become as one of us", now having the knowledge of sin, if he already had it in the first place. You see, I don't need the personal interpretations of people who are clearly leaning on their own understanding when I have the word of God clearly telling me exactly what happened in kings English.

a reply to: whereislogic

If you aren't going to let the Bible speak for itself, you might as well not even waste your time reading it in the first place, and look elsewhere. This is assuming you actually read it, because it doesn't seem like you have.

originally posted by: Dcopymope
...
You claim Adam and Eve already knew of sin, yet the narrative clearly speaks otherwise, since God was most certainly concerned about them becoming like him because of what they did in the first place.

Which is why I quoted the footnote from The Jerusalem Bible that adequately explains in what sense they were 'becoming like God' “in knowing good and bad.” (Ge 3:22) And gave the reason why that cannot be interpreted as referring to the mere cognizance of right and wrong, i.e. the mere ability to recognize right and wrong, merely having knowledge of what was good and what was bad for them (3 different ways of phrasing the same thing). Once more, phrased slightly differently than before:

As with the verb ya·dhaʽʹ (know), the principal Hebrew word rendered “knowledge” (daʹʽath) carries the basic idea of knowing facts or having information, but at times it includes more than that.
...
After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit (Ge 2:17; 3:5, 6), Jehovah said to his associate in creative work (Joh 1:1-3): “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad.” (Ge 3:22) This apparently did not mean merely having knowledge of what was good and what was bad for them, for the first man and woman had such knowledge by reason of God’s commands to them. Furthermore, God’s words at Genesis 3:22 could not pertain to their now knowing what was bad by experience, for Jehovah said that they had become like him and he has not learned what is bad by doing it. (Ps 92:14, 15) Evidently, Adam and Eve got to know what was good and what was bad in the special sense of now judging for themselves what was good and what was bad. They were idolatrously placing their judgment above God’s, disobediently becoming a law to themselves, as it were, instead of obeying Jehovah, who has both the right and the wisdom necessary to determine good and bad. So their independent knowledge, or standard, of good and bad was not like that of Jehovah. Rather, it was one that led them to misery.​—Jer 10:23.

Source: Knowledge (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2)

... You see, I don't need the personal interpretations of people who are clearly leaning on their own understanding when I have the word of God clearly telling me exactly what happened in kings English.

Take note, the interpretation of what is said at Ge 3:22 as gaining the mere ability to recognize right and wrong, is also an interpretation (like much of the rest you're talking about in the OP consisting of interpretations build upon interpretations). But that interpretation does not agree with common sense (the reason mentioned above and before why this cannot be interpreted as the mere cognizance of right and wrong, because of God's commandment regarding the tree of knowledge of good and bad; this overly literal interpretation also gives ammo to Bible critics who argue that Adam and/or Eve can't be blamed for what they did, because they supposedly didn't know any better, painting God as cruel for making an issue out of it). And if you're thinking the phrase at Ge 3:22 pertains "to their now knowing what was bad by experience" as mentioned above, this also cannot be the case, "for Jehovah said that they had become like him and he has not learned what is bad by doing it. (Ps 92:14, 15)"

Just to be clear, when I say:

Adam and Eve already knew of sin (or what sin was) before eating the forbidden fruit, just like they knew what right and wrong was, for the first man and woman had such knowledge by reason of God’s commands to them.

I am not using the verb "knowing" the way it is used at Genesis 3:22, I am using it to refer to the mere ability to recognize sin, right and wrong, the mere cognizance of sin, right and wrong, "merely having knowledge of what was good and what was bad for them" (as some people interpret it for Genesis 3:22, for which I gave a simple reason why that cannot be correct and to which I am responding with that remark). That's why I added "or what sin was", to make that clear that that's what I mean when I use the verb "knowing" in that sentence (after already having explained the difference between that type of usage for "knowing" compared to what is meant with it at Genesis 3:22 as explained by the footnote in The Jerusalem Bible and in the latter part of the bolded part above after "Evidently, ...").

Perhaps I didn't needed to point that out again, but there you go, just to be extra clear about it.

a reply to: whereislogic

Well me being forbidden from committing a certain action doesn't mean I understand why it is bad to disobey it. The only thing Adam was told about the tree was 'don't eat it or you will die'. He wasn't told anything about it being a gateway for sin to enter the world in any way. Why would he if he didn't even know what sin was in the first place? The term "good and evil" wouldn't have meant much of anything to him because of the state of his innocence. If it is argued that Adam didn't know any better, well in a sense, this is true, because at that point the only being in existence that knew the full ramifications of sin was God. Judging what is right and wrong in itself wasn't even the issue, for they already had the capability to do that for themselves.

We weren't created as nothing but a bunch of unthinking automatons after all. It was knowing what was right and wrong within the parameters of what are considered sinful actions from God's perspective that was the real issue. Since there was no sin in the world until that point, since it didn't even exist, there was nothing there for them to judge in the first place. Really, this goes back to understanding the nature of free will in relation to how knowledge is gained. You can't make a "judgement" on something being right and wrong that you know nothing about. In the new heaven and earth, this will no longer be of concern to God, because the me're ability for "iniquity to be found" within the creature, like it was found within Satan, and like it inevitably would have been found with Adam and Eve, will be rendered impossible.

originally posted by: Dcopymope
a reply to: whereislogic

Well me being forbidden from committing a certain action doesn't mean I understand why it is bad to disobey it.

Whether or not they understood all the reasons why it would be bad (for them) is not part of this discussion. My commentary is about Adam and Eve being aware that it would be bad for them to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and bad because God was very specific in his commandment and the bad effects it would have if they were to eat from it (warning them that they would die if they did*). So yes, they had this knowledge (that it would be bad for them to do so; in response to the interpretation of Ge 3:22 that suggests they only gained this knowledge at that time, which I was responding to). And they were even given a reason why it would be bad for them (if you really want to go there), namely because it would result in their deaths. Of course, one can continue with the 'why'-question like a child sometimes does to their parents, in this case asking why it would result in their deaths, but it's a bit irrelevant regarding anything I've said so far about the different ways the verb "knowing" is interpreted at Ge 3:22 by various people.

*: and yes, they did know what death was, unlike the teachings by some people that animals also didn't die yet before the fall, they did (the text in the Bible that talks about how death entered the world, is very clear that it is only speaking about death spreading amongst mankind, not animals or plants; so that text cannot be used to argue that animals only started dying after the fall described there, the only logical conclusion is that animals and plants were dying long before the fall of mankind when sin entered the world. Animals and plants don't sin anyway). But that's another subject.

originally posted by: Dcopymope
a reply to: whereislogic

Judging what is right and wrong in itself wasn't even the issue, for they already had the capability to do that for themselves.

The text that is referenced just after it is explained how Adam and Eve were now "judging for themselves what was good and what was bad" (after eating the forbidden fruit, or signified by eating the forbidden fruit), "idolatrously placing their judgment above God’s, disobediently becoming a law to themselves, as it were, instead of obeying Jehovah", is Jeremiah 10:23, which says:

I well know, O Jehovah, that man’s way does not belong to him.

It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.

So yes, judging for themselves what was good and what was bad as opposed to trusting God to do that for them is very much the issue here. It does not belong to man to do that (set the standard or use their own standard). There's a difference in judging what is right and wrong (developing your own standard) or recognizing (or being aware of) what is right and wrong based on God's standard that he told you. If you meant the latter with "judging" (analyzing and recognizing based on God's standard of which one is informed), then it's a little confusing to use the word "judging" so shortly after I quoted a phrase where the verb "judging" was used in the context of what Adam and Eve did regarding setting their own standard, "placing their judgment above God’s, disobediently becoming a law to themselves, as it were, instead of obeying Jehovah, who has both the right and the wisdom necessary to determine good and bad. So their independent knowledge, or standard, of good and bad was not like that of Jehovah. Rather, it was one that led them to misery.​—Jer 10:23."

Verse 24 says:

Correct me, O Jehovah, with judgment,

But not in your anger, that you may not reduce me to nothing.

a reply to: whereislogic

Whether or not they understood all the reasons why it would be bad (for them) is not part of this discussion.

Well, this is the basis for the subject of this thread, so its part of the discussion whether you want it to or not. I never said they weren't aware of the consequences. God told them the consequence, that they would die, for me to claim otherwise is to claim they had trouble comprehending basic instructions. And its not called the tree of "good and bad", its called 'good and evil'. Anything can be defined as "bad" if it gives what we define to be a negative result, but being defined as "evil", or sinful, a direct contradiction to the sinless nature of God is another thing entirely.

Being aware that there was a tree called "good and evil" they were told to stay away from on the pain of death does not mean they knew what sin was, because according to scripture, it never existed. While I agree with you on who the penalty of death actually applied to, how anyone could use this as part of their argument for this subject is beyond me. We don't even know for sure how long Adam was in the garden before the fall. All we know is Satan didn't waste any time whispering in Eve's ear. The good times certainly didn't last long, a few days at the most, so if you are going to claim Adam knew what death was because he saw animals dying, I fail to see how he would know about it because the time lapse wasn't even close to being long enough.

a reply to: Dcopymope

Yeah, young earth creationism can do a real number on one's understanding of how many years had passed before Satan talked to Eve (the creative 'days' in Genesis 1 are not 24 hours each, including the 6th creative 'day'). I could try to address this but perhaps that would be somewhat futile. Especially since the rest I'm saying doesn't seem to get through the barrier either. So perhaps I should just let it go, maybe I've said enough already anyway. The footnote from The Jerusalem Bible was already clear enough for me (along with the reason why Ge 3:22 cannot be referring to "the mere ability to recognize right and wrong" given in my first comment).

You can put it besides you or dismiss it as being 'beyond you', but it's spot on and not beyond me or common sense. Somewhat irrelevant again, but:

In order to convey the correct thought in English, the very comprehensive Hebrew word raʽ is variously translated as “bad,” “gloomy,” “ugly,” “evil,” “calamitous,” “malignant,” “ungenerous,” and “envious,” depending upon the context. (Ge 2:9; 40:7; 41:3; Ex 33:4; De 6:22; 28:35; Pr 23:6; 28:22)

As first used in the Scriptures, the word raʽ is the very antithesis of good. Adam was commanded not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad (raʽ) and was also warned of the consequences for disobedience. Hence, it is evident that God sets the standard as to what is good and what is bad; it is not within man’s prerogative to do so apart from God. “Bad” is the very antithesis of good. “Evil” is a synonym for bad. Translations that use “bad” at Ge 2:9 are correct (the text about the tree of knowledge).

P.S., to me, the so-called King James Only movement appears as a bad joke (by Satan showing off his ability to brainwash, condition and deceive those who want to be Christians, but are too credulous to recognize it for what it is, or their arguments for what they truly are, spiritual darkness that is part of an attempt to keep people in the dark).

a reply to: whereislogic

Since the book never gives any implications of the time that passed between the sixth day and the fall, we can never really know for sure, only that the time was very short, certainly not long enough for animals to be dropping dead left and right. As for the subject of the thread, its about determining what comes first, the very knowledge of something, or the free will to make decisions based on it. We know that the chicken comes first before the egg, and the same rule applies to the nature of free will.

According to the narrative of the entire book, Jesus wasn't sacrificed because of our ability to make up our own mind, but because of our ability to gain knowledge, the type of knowledge that leads to iniquity. We can't speak about our ability to judge what is good and evil without understanding how we gained the knowledge of it in the first place. The chicken is the knowledge of sin, and the egg is making judgement's based on that knowledge. If there is no possible way for them to know about it because this world and the sin in it won't even come to mind in the world to come, then there is nothing for God to be concerned about.