Hi VB. God gave Adam a language. Just as the DNA is a language code, the body has to be able to decode for the DNA to do all it's supposed to do. The language Adam was given would have been meaningless if God had not also put the ability to decode it (knowing the precise meaning of words) So although Adam did not experientially know the meaning of death he did know the meaning of it intellectually. Here is a God example:
God knows and knew everything about everything - including Abraham and Isaac.
After God stopped Abraham from plunging the knife into Isaac at the last second, God then told Abraham, "NOW I know that you fear God..." God knew it beforehand intellectually, now he also knew it experientially.
IMO, this is also how it was possible for Jesus to "grow in knowledge" because tho' he knew everything, he hadn't experienced it firsthand.
Hi ded, thanks for the update. If I may, I would like to request some clarification.
DNA is a code, but your called it a language code: are you sure? I am particularly worried that we may try to impose a structure which isn't there. Although it has what my be called a protocol, somewhat akin to word order, DNA doesn't appear to have a grammar for example. If Adam didn't have first hand knowledge of death, then he couldn't have been held responsible for knowing what it would do to him, so how could God hold him responsible for something if the only way he could truly know the consequence of the action, was to perform that act?
IMO, this is also how it was possible for Jesus to "grow in knowledge" because tho' he knew everything, he hadn't experienced it firsthand
You don't think it was because Jesus had become totally human and it was therefore necessary for Him to grow in a totally human way?
After God stopped Abraham from plunging the knife into Isaac at the last second, God then told Abraham, "NOW I know that you fear God..." God knew it beforehand intellectually, now he also knew it experientially.
This one confuses me the most; I also have to admit you have frightened me: in fact given me the willies. As soon as I read this my stomach did a flip-flop. If God cannot know something (in any capacity) before He has seen a human perform it, then God is not omniscient. In fact, man becomes God's teacher in your example. If this is true, then God didn't know Adam would eat the fruit, until Adam ate the fruit; God wouldn't know Adam would die, until Adam died: which makes His threat about the consequences of eating the fruit mere speculation on His part. If God didn't really know if Adam would die or not, how could Adam know? How could he be held responsible if the results were mere conjecture? Is God running some cruel experiment? Is He seeing if the world actually works the way He intellectually knows it should, but can't really be sure until He subjects it to some testing? I see you have received a lot of praise for this post, so I must be missing something.