08 Jun '06 12:52>
Originally posted by Conrau KMy argument is that they did not know that eating the apple was good or evil or sinful - though certainly they knew there were consequences. However, they did could not distnguish sin from good until eating the apple. So its disputable whether they committed a sin.
I don't disagree with what you were saying (I purosely said "popular" translation because you were disagreeing with what most bibles read).
My argument is that they did not know that eating the apple was good or evil or sinful - though certainly they knew there were consequences. However, they did could not distnguish sin from good until eating the apple. So its disputable whether they committed a sin.
Now, it appears we are quibbling about semantics. Sin is thought of as any transgression against the standard or law of God. In Gen. 2:17, the law of God is given to Adam and there is no amiguity related to the prohibition. Very clearly, the man is told "you shall not eat" of the fruit of that tree. The only sin possible at that time was (surprise!) eating from the fruit of that tree.
Inexplicably, you want to impute to them a type of ignorant innocence that would allow them to disobey God's direct command and yet be innocent of disobedience. Moreover, awareness of the consequences (the double death) was ineffective in restraining them, but 'had they known it was a sin...' somehow would have been enough to keep them from eating of the fruit? Weird. Highly convoluted, too, unless I'm missing the gist of what you are trying to say in all of this.