What is the knowledge of good and evil? Did evil already exist before Adam and Eve disobeyed God or is evil the product of human deciding whats good and bad for themselves without God.
1 Like
Evil is the absence of good.
As Adam and eve were tempted by satan in the garden, satan must of rejecte4d God prior to their creation, so good was known in knowing God and evil could also be known as not knowing God.
Man kind does not determine what is ’ good ’ or what is ’ evil ’ that is determined by God.
1 Like
That’s a really interesting question.
I’ve always thought of it as evil not being something created on its own, but more like a turning away from what is good. So in that sense, it could exist as a possibility even before humans acted on it.
At the same time, the story in Genesis seems to show that the “knowledge of good and evil” is tied to humans choosing independence from God, deciding for themselves instead of trusting Him.
So maybe it’s both, evil exists as a possibility, but becomes real in human experience through choice.
1 Like
Well didn’t Lucifer fall while in Heaven? Before man was created. So evil did exist, lucifer had pride and acted on it. (what an idiot). He’s called the father of lies and so forth so lucifer (satan) is the embodiment of evil. So the answer is yes, evil preexisted. It prolly had to do with free will going awry?
1 Like
That’s a really interesting question! I personally think evil existed before Adam and Eve because Satan had already rebelled against God. But the tree represented humanity choosing to define good and evil apart from God instead of trusting Him.
Maybe the deeper question is this: was the first sin simply disobedience, or was it humanity wanting moral authority for themselves?
1 Like
"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements–surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Job 38:4-7
If the Devil (as the fallen angel Lucifer) was part of this original angelic host, this suggests he was created before the material world described in Genesis 1:2. The Bible is clear that the Devil is a created being, not an eternal “opposite” to God.
Two passages are often interpreted as “backward glances” at the Devil’s origins, though they are addressed to human kings (Tyre and Babylon): Ezekiel 28:13-15 describes a being who was “in Eden, the garden of God” and “blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.” Isaiah 14:12 describes the fall of the “morning star” (Lucifer) from heaven.
Before Genesis 1:1, angels were created first to witness and celebrate the physical creation of the universe. Day 1 or Day 2, Angels are “spirit” or “light,” so they may have been created when God made light or separated the heavens.
The Gap Theory between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 A speculative “gap” in time where the fall occurred, leading to the “formless and empty” state of the earth. Ultimately, the Bible focuses less on the when of his creation and more on the fact of his defeat.
Peter
1 Like
In more recent years I’ve occasionally run aground on this subject. My puny views always falter before the sometimes aggravating mystery of God’s nature. Who can say to Him, “What have you done?” We can’t question the Potter. His ways are untraceable. He forms light and creates darkness. He causes well-being and peace; He creates disaster and calamity. He kills and gives life. He wounds and heals. In short, He does what He pleases.
After his disobedience Adam became like God “knowing good and evil.” In what sense did God previously know evil? Does this mean, as the Amplified Bible puts it, that God knew “how to distinguish between good and evil and blessing and calamity”?
Certainly God could distinguish between these extremes yet be unchangeably holy and just. In no sense can He ever practise evil. God’s perfect understanding of the insidious nature of evil is an essential part of the creation narrative. It was God’s intention that “the ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan*” should be in the Garden to deceive Eve. The serpent was part of His all-knowing provision then, as now.
His foreknowledge of the destructive forces of evil was integral to His plan of redemption. Man would inevitably choose to disobey. His sin would necessitate a brutal curse, a global flood, cruel enslavement, the unbending demands of the Law, further disobedience and, ultimately, salvation through His Son’s sacrifice and victory over death.
None of this was possible without the success of evil in the Garden.
*I don’t think we should call the devil Lucifer.
2 Likes
I would suggest that God knows everything. He has always been. Are we His first? Some say there is a gap between Genesis verses 1 and 2. Genesis 1:1 describes God’s initial, perfect creation of the heavens and the earth, complete with all life, including dinosaurs and other creatures known only from the fossil record.
The theory holds that a catastrophic event destroyed this original creation. Commonly, this is linked to the fall of Satan or the sin of a pre-Adamic race, which brought death and ruin to the world. What is interesting, some say typo, some say it is there for this reason, but in the KJV, Genesis 1:28, God said this.
" And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
Replenish? Would that not indicate something was there before? Most translations say “Go forth and fill the earth.” So you can decide which is true. Maybe @Johann can help with this one. Why does the KJV use that word?
Perhaps. But the Devil, as we do, has free will. Therefore? Maybe maybe not. Remember, God tempts no one with evil (James 1:13), so I do not believe it was God’s plan for the devil to tempt Adam.
No, his name is Satan now. And he is very real and very active.
Peter
Bro PeterC
It is my understanding, in modern English parlance, linguistically the prefix “re” usually means “back” , or “again. It did not necessarily carry that meaning in 1600. Early English use of the prefix “re” was just-as-often an intensifier; to suggest “completeness” or “to the max”. In 1600 “replenish” would be understood as “fill completely”; “re” means “completely”, and (root) pele means to “fill up”.
A modern synonym for “replenish” is “accomplish” from Old French (Latin root) present-participle stem “acomplir "to fulfill, fill up, complete. The KJV supply’s the word “replenish” for the Hebrew word “mālēʾ” because to the 1611 reader, they understood it to mean “completely fill”, not “fill again”. More modern translators have abandoned “replenish” for more accurate translations. It could accurately be rendered:
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, accomplish this in the earth, and subdue it! Exercise your dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth. (Genesis 1:28)
All this etymology rhetoric to affirm that you can’t really build a “Gap Theory” theology from this word.
Aiming for more accurate communication.
KP
To add…
The English word “replenish” ultimately comes from the Latin verb replēre. This word is formed from the prefix re- and the root plēre, meaning “to fill.” In Classical and Medieval Latin, the prefix re- did not always mean “again” as modern English speakers often assume today. It could also function as an intensifier, carrying the sense of fullness or completeness. Thus, replēre commonly meant “to fill up,” “to make full,” or “to fill completely.”
From Latin, the word passed into Old French as replenir or repleniss-, and eventually entered Middle English as “replenish.” Therefore, when the King James translators used the word “replenish” in Genesis 1:28, a 1611 English reader would naturally have understood it to mean “fill completely,” not necessarily “fill again.”
The Hebrew verb used in Genesis 1:28 is מָלֵא (mālēʾ), which simply means “to fill,” “fill up,” or “make full.” The Latin Vulgate translates the phrase as replete terram, literally meaning “fill the earth completely.”
Gen 1:28 benedixitque illis Deus et ait crescite et multiplicamini et replete terram et subicite eam et dominamini piscibus maris et volatilibus caeli et universis animantibus quae moventur super terram
There is nothing in either the Hebrew or the Latin that inherently suggests a repopulation after a previous destruction.
The modern misunderstanding largely comes from the way English usage has shifted over time.
Today, many people hear the prefix “re-” and immediately think “again,” but that was not necessarily the intended sense in Early Modern English. This is why most modern translations now simply render the phrase as “fill the earth.”
“And God blessed them, saying, ‘Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth completely, and exercise dominion over it; rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the heavens, and every living creature that moves upon the earth.’”
מלא מלא
mâlê’ mâlâ’
maw-lay’, maw-law’
A primitive root, to fill or (intransitively) be full of, in a wide application (literally and figuratively): - accomplish, confirm, + consecrate, be at an end, be expired, be fenced, fill, fulfil, (be, become, X draw, give in, go) fully (-ly, -ly set, tale), [over-] flow, fulness, furnish, gather (selves, together), presume, replenish, satisfy, set, space, take a [hand-] full, + have wholly.
LXX Related Word(s)
G2674 kat arithmeo
G2983 lambano
G3324 mestos
G4134 pleres
G4135 plerophoreo
G4134 pleres
G2701 kata trecho
G5111 tolmao
G4970 sphodra
G4198 st. poreuo
G2041 ergon
G3173 megas
G5048 teleioo
G4129 plethuno
G1705 em piplemi
G4137 pleroo
G4931 sun teleo
G4130 st. pimplemi
G378 ana pleroo
G1073 gemo
BDB Definition:
- to fill, be full
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to be full
1a1a) fulness, abundance (participle)
1a1b) to be full, be accomplished, be ended
1a2) to consecrate, fill the hand
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to be filled, be armed, be satisfied
1b2) to be accomplished, be ended
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to fill
1c2) to satisfy
1c3) to fulfil, accomplish, complete
1c4) to confirm
1d) (Pual) to be filled
1e) (Hithpael) to mass themselves against
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
J.
I’m not claiming the Gap theory. I did not say I believe in it. This theory has been around for a long time. I was just stating one possible view. Are we the first creation? No. I do not believe we are. Is there concrete evidence for this or the contrary? No. I do not believe there is either way.
Meaning? Do you have a theory?
Peter
Thank you Johann. Yes, this is how most translations translate it. This is what I believe as well. You made a great point.
Very true.
Peter
So sorry PeterC
I never thought you were professing a gap theory, I understood you were just presenting it as one view. I was just contributing an often misunderstood aspect of that particular word. Sorry if I sounded critical of you. It was not my intention.
KP
@PeterC.
Since you asked, I feel I owe you a response.
By my closing salutation “Aiming for more accurate communication” I only meant that I was simply trying to contribute to your post by shedding some additional grammatical light on the word “replenish” as understood by the translators of the KJV, a word which you mentioned. Sometimes I feel I can make a contribution by injecting a bit of entomological light on some English word or phrase. Accurate use of wording is an area I enjoy, and one I have developed (at least tried to develop) in my life.
You seemed to have read, because you responded to, Johann’s more-thorough reiteration (affirmation) of what I had already said about the word “replenish”, so I think you must have gotten the point I made, even if it was through Johann’s more comprehensive post. I feel I understood the point you were making. I was not attempting to dispute, refute, disagree, or imply anything about your particular theories. Nor was I attempting to share my own viewpoint on the existence of evil prior to the fall. I do have a viewpoint, I have shared it on this forum in the past, but I was specifically not sharing it in this discussion.
I think my writing style must put folks “back on their heels” a bit at times, and that surely is not my intention. I am not antagonistic by nature, and I am very rarely triggered by what others post. I rarely get riled or goaded into a dispute. I don’t write to be opinionated, or aggressive, but I try to write in a style that is hopefully enjoyable for others to read. I know I miss the mark too often.
I only write this personal note so you may understand me a little better, and that you might know how much I appreciate your posts, and your contributions to these various subjects. I don’t always have to agree with you to appreciate your contribution. We are all growing, and are all at various stages of growth in our personal course of sanctification. I appreciate the work I see God doing in your life, and in the lives of all those who contribute their Spirit-led understanding to this forum.
In Jesus
KP
1 Like
Correct brother @KPuff, I was affirming and agreeing with you.
I must say, you consistently display the fruit of the Spirit toward your fellow brothers and sisters.
Stay strong in Messiah.
J.
1 Like
Thank you and all good. I understand what you are saying. Thanks for the clarifications.
Peter