Actually, no. Before Adam ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, there was no sin in the world. Sin entered the picture because of Adam's disobedience and his eyes being opened to good and evil through eating of the fruit of the forbidden tree. After eating of the fruit, Adam opened the door to all sin. In that respect, a whole array of sins could have been committed. It just happened that lying occured before the other sins. Deb
maybe Adam was going to die regardless and eating the fruit just made him aware of the knowledge that he was going to die, therefore it makes it real to him after eating but not a part of his reality before he could be aware of death and that it was a part of living.
it could happen
If faith is a source of knowledge, what kind of knowledge does it provide?
could be just not eating enough could be just not eating enough
It could be nematodes or aphids eating your chrysanthemums.
depends on what your project is about (maybe you could start by telling us, if it's physics/chemistry/biology) It will also help us if you explain the level of knowledge or education in which you are setting the project.
The world. The amount of knowledge one could have about Earth is endless.
No it is not. But you could say that the character has much knowledge. For an essay as your PEE Plan you could take as point The character has much knowledge, this is shown in the quote...
When you have knowledge of the offense and fail to report it. If you have knowledge of it after it occurred it is known as being "An Accessory After The Fact." If you know about the crime before it is committed you COULD be charged as a "principal" (i.e.- you know that it is about to occur -maybe even helped plan it- but do nothing/did nothing to stop it or report it).
The opposite (lack of knowledge) is ignorance.The opposite or complement of knowledge would be imagination. The opposite resource of knowledge could be intuition.
How could you get a girl that has a boy to go with you? by telling how you feel about her
One chief argument that could be used to defend Napoleon is that he never actually committed a crime. Everything that was done was done by lackeys and he could argue that the acts were done without his knowledge or consent.