Did Adam know from where came the fruit he ate?


#1

1Now the snake was the most cunning* of all the wild animals that the LORD God had made. He asked the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You shall not eat from any of the trees in the garden’?” 2The woman answered the snake: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; 3a it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, or else you will die.’” 4But the snake said to the woman: “You certainly will not die!b 5God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, who know* good and evil.” 6The woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.c USCCB

Question–When was he with her? Said he nothing when she talked to the snake?
chan26


#2

No which is why he's more guilty because he stood by and watched her sin without stopping her. Of course the fruit is symbolic not literal. Most likely there was no fruit. It's a story to show how sin entered the world through disobedience and pride. There was no apple or whatever.


#3

[quote="padrepio_2012, post:2, topic:319492"]
No which is why he's more guilty because he stood by and watched her sin without stopping her. Of course the fruit is symbolic not literal. Most likely there was no fruit. It's a story to show how sin entered the world through disobedience and pride. There was no apple or whatever.

[/quote]

Would you clarify your post. The question was ," did Adam know the fruit was from the forbidden tree"

You answer "NO" then say [because he didn't know]that made Adam more guilty. Are you saying that doing an Act independent of "knowledge" or "intent" makes one guilty before God?

You touch upon a significant point--it was not until the 10th or 11th Centurythe history is not clear) that the concept of a mental state was required for "guilt". Of course, now, mental state is not only required for our notions of guilt but the mental state also determines the degree of guilt. Is that the point you are making?

Fascinating issue--thank you.
chan26


#4

sorry, i meant no, as in he *did *know that the fruit was from the forbidden tree yet he ate anyway. if he did not know i assume it would not have been a sin necessarily. doing an act independent of knowledge makes one free from sin or guilt. that's called unintentional ingnorance. you cannot sin without knowledge because you did not know it was wrong. it's like a child who does not know it is wrong to curse. can he truly be guilty of cursing if he did not know it was wrong? but adam did know it was wrong to eat from the tree because God specifically told him and he was in full communion with God so adam was full of grace. yet he still sinned


#5

[quote="padrepio_2012, post:4, topic:319492"]
sorry, i meant no, as in he *did *know that the fruit was from the forbidden tree yet he ate anyway. if he did not know i assume it would not have been a sin necessarily. doing an act independent of knowledge makes one free from sin or guilt. that's called unintentional ingnorance. you cannot sin without knowledge because you did not know it was wrong. it's like a child who does not know it is wrong to curse. can he truly be guilty of cursing if he did not know it was wrong? but adam did know it was wrong to eat from the tree because God specifically told him and he was in full communion with God so adam was full of grace. yet he still sinned

[/quote]

Your point is well taken. But the principle you set forth hasn't always been the case. For example I find nothing in the old testament or in ancient history that requires an intent in order to commit a crime or an offense against God or gods. As I understand it, if harm is caused by your act, for those persons or God(s) injured by your act it makes no difference what your intent was, the harm they suffer is the same.

EXAMPLE--Suppose, Eve after a very bad day of searching for food, comes upon a branch from a tree that is laden with fruit. The branch is poking out among bushes and grass and she doesn't see the tree it's attached to. Momentarily, in her stress she forgets to check if this fruit come from a tree she should check out before eating. She eats the fruit, Shares it with Adam. When they finish, they walk on and discover the branch of fruit is a branch from the Tree of LIfe and they ate the forbidden fruit. Wouldn't their eyes still be opened? Aren't they no longer suitable for living in the Garden? Don't they have to leave?
chan 26


#6

[quote="Chan26, post:5, topic:319492"]
Suppose, Eve after a very bad day of searching for food, comes upon a branch from a tree that is laden with fruit. The branch is poking out among bushes and grass and she doesn't see the tree it's attached to. Momentarily, in her stress she forgets to check if this fruit come from a tree she should check out before eating.

[/quote]

Even today, each different kind of fruit tree produces a unique fruit with a unique experience. I really have a hard time swallowing the idea that Adam and Eve were too ignorant to recognize that this fruit might by a problem. (1) They had never eaten one like it before, (2) they surely HAD seen one just like it hanging from the forbidden tree, and (3) they knew there was at least one kind of fruit they weren't supposed to eat so they knew that there was a potential problem with any previously-untasted fruit.


#7

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.