Gabriella,
BHS - you have not demonstrated the logic here. Again it is only your assertion that "knew only good" means whatever you have interpreted it to mean.
We can get into the epistemology of logic if you want to, but either words have their plain, commonly agreed, dictionary codified meanings or they don’t.
If they do, then I'd have thought “knew”, “only” and “good” should be taken to mean, well, “knew”, “only” and “good” and nothing else.
If they don’t, then anything really.
Again - your idea of "plain meaning" and "face value" is not necessarily anyone else's "plain meaning" or "face value". And words usually have depth rather than one plain meaning and meanings and terms need to be explored or clarified during the discussion - something I learned in English, R.E. lessons at school and at the philosophy taster lecture I went to at Nottingham university - my daughter was checking out the course at the open Day.
Doesn’t wash. Of course words sometimes have ambiguities and nuances, and Vlad could at any time have said something like, “by “knew only good” what I actually meant by those terms was…”, but he didn’t. What choice have we then but to take them to mean what dictionaries tell us they mean?
As you say, that is up to Vlad to clarify.
Might be an idea not to hold your breath on that one.
One of the meanings of "know" is "experience". So the Quran story seems to be that they experienced only good but still wanted more than what they had and thought the tree would provide it. It's up to Vlad to clarify what he meant by the phrase "knew only good" and if his understanding of the Christian story includes A&E having a concept that disobedience of a command is wrong.
I have to say, that was the trap door way out I expected Vlad to try when he was rumbled – “by knew, I meant only the narrow sense of having practical, lived experience of rather than having knowledge of” but he didn’t. Even then though he’d have to posit his A&E parable as two people who knew about and understood all that bad stuff they saw happening around them, but who themselves weren’t touched by any of it (“only good”). It’d be casuistic and moreover it would give A&E a pretty warped understanding of risk I’d have thought (also rigging the game, though perhaps less egregiously), but a half-arsed answer to his problem would have been better than none.
(Incidentally, presumably sibling incest would have been thought "good" too then for the rest of our species to get started?)
The only warning in the Quran story was that if A&E disobey God's command to avoid the tree they would be doing something wrong and presumably this means they knew what the word "wrong" meant in order to know that they should avoid doing something God would consider wrong.
Presumably it would, but not if your premise beforehand is “knew only good”.
That’s the point.
