Frequently it seems that the pursuit of knowledge is put at odds with God. Whenever scientists in Sc-Fi movies attempt to discover a technology that puts humankind far into the future, the line that comes out is that “they’re trying to play God”. Knowledge often gives power and ultimate knowledge gives ultimate power, something that God is only supposed to have. Legaspi states that Genesis 2 -3 takes a very “dim” view of knowledge, when knowledge itself in other parts of the Bible is coveted. Therefore he figures that the knowledge that is learned by Adam and Eve is not the omnipotent and omniscient knowledge of God(obviously), but instead the ability to evaluate experiences in a subjective manner, to be able to very much know what good and evil are. Humans before were very much like the animals in that they did not understand this concept, and just like animals they previously knew nothing of their nakedness(something that changed once they ate from the tree). The act of eating is almost one that is performed in the frame of God’s relationship to humans. Humans have domain over the animals and thus are given the ability to consume them and fruits, instead of grazing on grass like simple livestock. He gives them plenty of sustenance in Eden, so the act of eating the forbidden fruit would never be one of necessity, but one of disobedience. It is a tree to again juxtapose itself with the other trees that God says that man can eat from(other fruit trees that may be in Eden), and with the tree of life that lay in the garden and that Adam and Eve are ultimately barred access to. The failure of Adam and Eve is something that is almost cruel. With knowledge of good and evil now comes the knowledge that what they had done was not only foolish, but a betrayal of their caretaker. Forever now humans would be using the knowledge that they would now have of attempt to regain what they lost, the power of everlasting life, but never be able to achieve it. I would say that this action makes them more Godlike in the way that it allows them to judge good and evil, even though their life is no longer everlasting. I would say that it was merciful that God banned them from the garden. If they forever were there, reminded of their sin and embroiled in everlasting life with the knowledge of what they had done, they would be forever miserable.

What is being converted in these first chapters in the story of creation is that everything that is being created is a creation of God, that everything in a way has its own purpose in the universe. The power of God that is being conveyed perhaps is feeding into the narrative that things are created with purpose, and therefore things happen for a purpose (leading to almost a form of acceptance for any negative events that may happen to the faithful). God creates everything, he sees that it is good, so therefore everything that exists in the universe is conveyed as good. God in this first account is primarily creating things and bringing life to the world, creating things in a way that he finds fitting and also creating humans in his likeness. While humans take the center stage in the other account of creation, they don’t actually “do” anything. Humans are rather just more so a valued creation of God here and are not yet expanded on (they will obviously be in the story of Adam and Eve). While God obviously doesn’t have to “rest”, the fact that he does at the end of his work I think serves two purposes. The first is to perhaps to serve as a demonstration that life is not something that is made for constant toil and creation, that settling down for a moment and rest/relaxing holds merit and is something that should be down every now and then. The second is to behold in his own creation, to again serve as an example to humans to do the same with his creation. While he creates for six days, he rests for only one. While life should certainly have rest, it should be mainly filled with creation, but still strike a balance between the two.