I'm sorry you've misunderstood so severely. I thought my illustration of the American Revolution was clear enough, but I'll try again. Supposing a pregnant dog runs away from its master. When the pups are born, they are born lost also, just as the mother is lost. The master never marked them as "fail" before they were tested. It's the nature of their action that they are lost in the woods through no decision of their own. Don't blame the master for that.

As far as a test, the text is virtually unarguable. In Gn. 2.16-17, humankind is given freedom (eat from any tree y'all want) and a prohibition (except for THIS one). As I mentioned in previous posts, the phrase "knowledge of good and evil" is judicial lingo denoting the ability to decide. Theologically, it's a trial of obedience to God, certainly. Literalily, it's a test motif, common in literature and movies. Can the protagonist hold the course despite the trials at hand? We do know for a fact that there is a test going on. And God had made the rules and penalties of the game quite clear. In chapter 1, humans had been ordained to rule over the earth and subdue it as God's priests in his temple. In 2.15 that is repeated, as the words "to work it and take of it" are terms used far more often in priestly duties than they are agricultural ones. It was clear to these people that they had been created to fellowship with God and serve him in his temple as priest and priestess. Then he's very clear in Gn. 2.17 that one tree is prohibited from them, and they know which tree it is, and that if they disobey him, they will fall under a death sentence, meaning they will be separated from Life (God). They were already mortal (created of dust in Gn. 2.7). But if they disobey this one command, they will show that their loyalties and values lie outside of God's character. Chapter 3.1 confirms this, for the serpent questions and distorts what God had said to them. So you are right that I am claiming with full confidence that the rules and penalties for the game were described to them, in person, in full clarity. (We're also not to think that the record we have is all that was done and said, but we are given enough to understand what was said, what the choice was, and what was happening. But even in what we have the progress of the story is clear.)

> They got a direct chance to be part of the kingdom, the rest of us have to earn our way, in the dark...

Here I have some clarity for you. The Bible is clear that no one has to earn their own way. The way to God is a gift that you merely need to respond to. There is definitely no earning involved, and it's certainly not in the dark. The Bible tells us clearly where the light is, what room we are playing in, and what the contents are. It paints a clear picture of humanity, still "lost in the woods," and of God who has found the "litter" and invites any pups who want to back to his house where it is light, a warm fire, good food, and a relationship with the master. As I said in the analogy of America and Britain, anyone who wants to can become a citizen of the kingdom of heaven, not by earning, but by accepting.

As it turns out, despite that we are born "lost," we each have the same decision to make as Adam and Eve did. Are we going to live life centered around self, or around God? Are we masters of our own ship, or do we acknowledge God as our reference point? You're not marked as "fail" before you even get started, you're separated from Life by the action of those who went before you, but you (and everyone) have an open invitation to have both life and light.

Feel free to ask more.

Oh I'm sorry, you'll have to excuse me because this is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

I understand your argument to be sure, but it doesn't apply. God would have unlimited resources to test the entirety of humanity INDIVIDUALLY in the same way and under the same conditions instead of marking them "fail" before they are even tested, which would be the case given the theology you're putting forth. We don't even know for a fact that there IS a test going on, so in what way is that fair? If I'm not mistaken, you think the rules and penalties for the game were described to them, in person, in full clarity before they "lost" yes? They got a direct chance to be part of the kingdom, the rest of us have to earn our way, in the dark, without ever having seen the room we're playing in or the contents therein.

In 1776 America's leaders declared their independence from Great Britain. Not every American was in favor of the declaration, but a presumable majority of the people and a clear majority of leaders made their choice. A war ensued, and from on the people of eastern seaboard of the continent were Americans—no longer British. They were legally separated from the king. And everyone born from then on in the country was born an American, through no choice of their own, but due to the decisions of those who had gone before them. But at any time anyone has the choice to return to Britain and become a citizen, despite what has happened. It's everyone's right to decide.

Adam and Eve, as archetypes of humanity, were put in a special position of leadership. They chose rebellion, and they won! The result was that they were legally separated from the King. But at any time, anyone has the choice to return to the King and become a citizen of his kingdom. It's everyone's right to decide. That was clear from the very start. Abel, in Gn. 4, had the right idea. Look at the end of Gn. 4.26. So also Enoch in Gn. 5 as well as , Noah in 6, and so on. No one has to suffer due to the choices of a few. Each person gets to make their own choices.

Why doesn't he just do that for everyone? Why do we suffer due to the choices of a few?

You're right there was 0 change. He was offering them an opportunity to change. He brought them to this place, provided for them, showed himself to be good, and revealed himself to them. Now it's their choice. Will they respond in love? Will they recognize that he is truth and love, and love him in return? They were being offered hope for life and and answer to the finality of mortality. Why the test? Because what God desires is a love relationship with the people he made. He never made them to be robots, forced to worship, or forced to have anything to do with Him. The only way to have a relationship of love is if both parties choose it. Well, the Bible says, God chose to have a loving relationship with people, but they had to choose to return it.

In the test they are surrounded by evidences of God's goodness and gifts. Everything he has told them is true. They have even had interaction with him. He has provided for them. But the serpent enters the scene, claiming God is not benevolent, truthful, or just. It's a choice between false reality (self-orientation and self-love) and true reality (God-orientation and a love relationship with God). Is God a provider or a depriver? Is he good or not? What's the truth? What's good and what's evil? The temptation plays on the whole range of human desire, and that's why, though historical, it's also archetypal. They represent all humanity. There is no such thing as a creature which is free but has no choices.

"Why not leave us innocent?" Because "innocence" is a term from literature, but not from the Bible. People were sinning, but they were not being held accountable for it (Rom. 5.13) because they were unaware. You're wondering, "Why change things? Why not let them continue on in ignorant bliss?" Remember Gn. 2-3 is a point on a continuum, not the beginning. God wants to draw them into life with him in his presence, and a love relationship with him. God offered them the potential for wisdom. What you fail to see is that the test was their only hope for life. Here are the potential scenarios:

1. God doesn't do what Gn. 2 says he did, and hominids become extinct (as so many lines of hominids have) along with other vertebrate species.
2. God does what he does in Gn. 2, and many billions of people get to share his life, either as people who were not accountable (Rom. 5.13) or as those who choose to love him. (These share God to differing degrees.) And those who intentionally choose not to love him are consigned to the afterlife where they are still not forced to be with him.

I don't see anything evil about it.

Why did they need the test?

And, if we weren't held accountable before, why not just leave us innocent? He knew what the outcome would be if he "tested" us, and still chose to doom the large majority of us. That seems a bit evil to me.

> Did God know the outcome of the test before it occurred?

Yes, and he had a plan in place about how to redeem it.

> if before they ate their moral grounding was in God, why would they choose to eat from the tree?

There is a lot to explain here, so I will try to be brief and concise. No doubt what I write will prompt other questions, so feel free to ask. I can only say so much at one time.

The Bible is most interested in Adam and Eve as archetypes (different from prototypes or metaphors). As such they represent all humanity. It's a common biblical motif that "one" is chosen to represent all. Abraham, in Gn. 12, is chosen from among the many to bring blessing to humanity through his offspring. The nation of Israel is chosen from among the many to reveal God to the nations. You get the idea. OK, hold on to your seat.

Adam and Eve are archetypes (though I believe they are also historical). If you suppose that humans evolved from other hominid forms, here's the scenario: Sometime in that process, which had been guided by God, perhaps at that moment that geneticists refer to as the bottleneck when humanity (human-like hominids) nearly became extinct, God undertook a special action, giving the entire human population at the time (which may have been few) the image of God. Though they are engaging in activities that will later be labelled as sinful, they are not being held morally accountable by God (see Rom. 5.13). They are therefore, technically, in a state of innocence. Two hominids (humans) are selected by God as representatives of humanity, and are placed by Him in sacred space (the Garden of Eden) to function as priests in God's temple (Eden). Though humans are mortal (made of dust, Gn. 2.7), God is now set to offer hope to all humans for the possibility of life in God's presence. (Though people outside the garden are still dying, God is doing his work of revelation through his chosen ones, Adam & Eve, much as he did later with Abraham, Israel, etc.)

God revealed himself to the couple as the Giver of Life and as the foundation for morality. Though since humans were made in the image of God, they have a free will to make their own autonomous choices, as I explained in response to the original post. So, in answer to your question, their moral grounding was not originally in God, though now that He has revealed himself to them, they can choose God instead of themselves as a moral reference point.

When they ate from the tree they chose to see themselves as the source and center of order, life, wisdom, and morality ("You will be like God..." Gn. 3.5). In that choice, they brought sin (willful disobedience to God) into the world, gained moral accountability for themselves and all human beings through them (as archetypes), and lost the hope of life for themselves and all human being through them. They had decided to cut themselves off from relationship with God, and therefore they were given what they had decided (life without God), and so were barred from the Garden of Eden. They and all humanity with them are now out of relationship with God (dead in their sins) because they have lost their connection to Life, and they are doomed to their inherent mortality.

Did God know the outcome of the test before it occurred?

Additionally, if their moral grounding was in God before they ate the fruit, why would they choose to eat from the tree?

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to clarify. You seem to have just a slight misunderstanding of something I said, so let me try again. From the onset man had the power to decide for himself. In the image of God he was created with free will, with every expectation that he would use it. What was being offered by the tree was whether he would use his free will to be self-oriented, or use his free will to be God-oriented—whether he would find his moral ground in self or in the character of God. In order to be what he was created to be, humankind must continue to orient himself to the unwavering reference point rather than to an undependable one (himself). Much like sailing across the ocean, a sailor has a choice to orient to the stars or, say, to the clouds.

The choice presented by the tree is not "Are you going to be a person who thinks for himself, or an empty-headed slave of God", but rather "Are you going to act as if you made yourself and you know how best to govern yourself, or are you going to act as if God made you and you refer to him as the one who knows you and loves you."

Since "the knowledge of good and evil" is a judicial idiom, humankind was being presented with a choice to judge the legitimacy of God's claim upon him as his creator and moral ground. To decide against that was to cut his ties to God and stand alone as his own Master of the Universe.

Wow! Thank you so much for this fantastic response. I wish I could respond, but I can't. Many of these ideas are new to me, and I'd like to analyze them in detail before I'd write back with anything substantial. I'd love to see what others have to say in response though.

Once again, thank you so much. That was a very insightful post.

You said, "What is being forbidden to the man is the power to decide for himself what is in his best interests and what is not." But isn't that exactly what is being offered by the existence of the tree in the first place?