Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Muriel wrote:lol. That is barely a quarter of the sentence they said. What was unknown before eating that could only be known after eating? Knowledge? He/they had already told the students what they needed to know earlier. He/they had described the tree as of ,,,,,,,, knowledge,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,of,,,,,,,,,,,good and evil.  By being told that the students hence already ' knew'. The gist was in the students' (I hope I got the apostrophe right) ability to obey his / their express command. Eating hence implied disobedience and distrust. So, yes He/they mentioned something about acquiring knowledge, illumination, enlightenment from this specific, particular, singular instance of eating. If there was disobedience and distrust, then there was ignorance. There was something that the students didn't know. They didn't know whether obedience was good or bad. Action had no basis us such. They were 'children'. But upon illumination childhood was lost, and disobedience became evil. They saw who they were. The other 3/4 that 'He/they' said had to do with keeping the tree of life out of bounds. A regenerative move, if you ask me.
|