Garden of Eden, tree of knowledge

[chris4243]

You are creating an evil God from your imagination, not what is written there. Adam did die the same day spiritually. God did not lie. No, a good argument cannot be made that God does not have free will. God is not responsible for our sins and neither is Satan or the devil. We are responsible for our sins.

How am I creating an evil God from my imagination? All I said is that neither the serpent nor God told Adam and Eve the whole truth, but also they both spoke only truth. However I think you're cramming your idea of what God should be into the narrative to make it say something that fits the God you created in your image.

 

[razeontherock]

How am I creating an evil God from my imagination? All I said is that neither the serpent nor God told Adam and Eve the whole truth, but also they both spoke only truth.

I certainly don't want to come between the love fest you 2 are having, but how can you possibly hold to the idea that the serpent told Adam and / or Eve "only truth?"

"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Genesis 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her."

1) Notice the similarity / duplication of the blue parts to "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life."

2) Notice also the similarity / duplication of the blue parts to "the flesh, the world and the devil."

3) Notice the red parts:

a) Adam and Eve both died. satan lied.

b) Their eyes were NOT opened via disobedience to G-d; rather that began the process of mankind's understanding being darkened. satan lied.

(2 Cor 2:11) "Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices."

As your Brother in the Lord, I am concerned that you express not being able to see satan's devices being spelled out clearly for us in these verses.

 

[seerly]

In the beginning, god gifted us with the Garden of Eden. He showed it to Adam and Eve and said they could take and eat anything they desired.

Then, he took it upon himself to place a large, pretty tree in the middle of it - the tree of knowledge - and said we were never allowed to consume its fruit.

Why would he do that? To me it sounds like a parent telling their children that they can have all of these bowls of fruits and vegetables, but can't ever touch this bowl of delicious sweets that's right in front of them - and expecting their children will follow that command? I've had a lot of trouble reconciling this with the god I've come to know and love. Can anyone help me to understand please?

sadism?

 

[chris4243]

a) Adam and Eve both died. satan lied.

By the same token, God also lied. Because "when" or "the day" that they ate of it, they did not die. Furthermore, if you give the serpent a little context, it is quite reasonable to conclude that the serpent was saying that eating the fruit would not kill them, not that they are immortal. For example, if I say I'm afraid to eat meat because it will kill me, someone can truthfully answer that I won't die... even though within the century I'd be dead. Furthermore, the serpent's response hinted at Adam and Eve's true cause of death; not the fruit but God's reaction to their eating it. Is this not an acceptable amount of benefit of the doubt and putting things in context?

b) Their eyes were NOT opened via disobedience to G-d; rather that began the process of mankind's understanding being darkened. satan lied.

How can you not have read the very next verse from the one you quoted, or the verse that I quoted? Denounce Scripture if you wish, but don't think that makes you a better person than I.

 

[oi_antz]

There's a phrase for this: "separated by a common language." The same word can have different meanings, and not all of them may be native to either of us. I can't find a single word of that post to alter to make it any clearer, and the content is directly relevant to the thread. If there's anything you'd like me to clarify, just specify. Thanks

Let me quote it:

That'll kill ya, if you "know it" in the Biblical sense.

But what's the significance of all this? "Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand." Isn't it interesting that that's what Jesus preached?

Hi Ray, I know it is difficult to receive correction especially due to the knowledge gap between you and I. This comment doesn't make sense to me. Can you please rephrase it if it has a message of importance.

 

[razeontherock]

By the same token, God also lied. Because "when" or "the day" that they ate of it, they did not die.

They did not die then and there in the physical sense only because G-d began enacting His plan of Salvation. Spiritually, they died then and there because they were separated from G-d.

Isn't calling G-d a liar blasphemy? Wouldn't it be better to seek an understanding that harmonizes all of Scripture?

Furthermore, if you give the serpent a little context, it is quite reasonable to conclude that the serpent was saying that eating the fruit would not kill them

Thank you for exposing the true concern here. "The wages of sin is death." satan said otherwise. That is a LIE!

This is our current application of the story. Along with the fact that satan is NEVER reasonable, and deserves to be given NOTHING except a crushed head. Under YOUR foot!

A little relevant Scripture that's apparently needed:

John 8:44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

No I'm not accusing you of what this verse says, I'm just bewildered why and / or how a professing Christian would choose to oppose Jesus on this point.

"according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began"


I hope that clears things up for you? The devil is a liar, and G-d alone is True. Simple stuff we all need to be very strong in our convictions about.

Denounce Scripture if you wish, but don't think that makes you a better person than I.

G-d is no respecter of persons.

 

[razeontherock]

Let me quote it:

This comment doesn't make sense to me. Can you please rephrase it if it has a message of importance.

First of all, repentance is always a message of importance; and one that you seem to get loud and clear which is why I thought my rather large jump there wouldn't lose you. (You may need to refer back to the original post #87 (or is it 89?) to put this all together)

Next, my first sentence you quoted (in the second quote, the one you're asking about) needs to be clearly understood. How did Adam "know" his wife? Clearly not merely in the intellectual sense. So sharing a bit of what the Lord has shown me that has proven so valuable in my life, I point out that the very thread title is a mis-statement that is dangerous, because it leads to the wrong idea.

A & E "knew" good, before sin. What they didn't have any experience with is evil. So when they ate of the fruit, they "knew" evil, which G-d warns us is a deadly mistake. I think this is a much more accurate understanding of what G-d is trying to tell us in this story rather than thinking He is somehow opposed to knowledge, which is an idea that just doesn't agree with the rest of Scripture.

I do like what you have to say about our conscience and G-d's voice, and think it fits in beautifully. (Also I hope it goes w/o say that I'm not advancing the idea that pursuing knowledge that opposes G-d is somehow ok.)

So all that just clarifies the first sentence of mine that you asked about: "That'll kill ya, if you "know it" in the Biblical sense." (i.e., the wages of sin is death) My next sentence is separated by a blank line, because that's the closest thing the formatting here allows to a paragraph break. I did this to show there is a jump from one idea to the next, and hoped readers would see the connection. Looking back at the first of the 2 sentences in the light of what I wrote to clarify it so far, I see only one logical conclusion to all of this:

REPENT, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand, which is exactly what we're told Jesus came preaching. In other words, I see this POV as tying together vast amounts of Scripture, over a great deal of time, and see that it's every bit as relevant today as when it was first uttered. "The Word of the Lord endures forever." I find that to be worth the effort it takes to understand it.

 

[chris4243]

They did not die then and there in the physical sense only because G-d began enacting His plan of Salvation. Spiritually, they died then and there because they were separated from G-d.

Isn't calling G-d a liar blasphemy? Wouldn't it be better to seek an understanding that harmonizes all of Scripture?

Did I call God a liar? But hold the both of them to the same standard and they either both lied or both told the truth. Why go so far as to say the death is metaphorical in the case of God but in the case of the serpent he couldn't possibly have meant that eating the fruit wouldn't physically kill them "when" or "the day" that they ate it? Even more so, what the serpent said is translated as they will not surely die, which if God has free will is certainly true.

Furthermore, in Genesis 3:22 God confirms word for word what the serpent said.

Thank you for exposing the true concern here. "The wages of sin is death." satan said otherwise. That is a LIE!

This is our current application of the story. Along with the fact that satan is NEVER reasonable, and deserves to be given NOTHING except a crushed head. Under YOUR foot!

A little relevant Scripture that's apparently needed:

John 8:44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

No I'm not accusing you of what this verse says, I'm just bewildered why and / or how a professing Christian would choose to oppose Jesus on this point.

"according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began"


I hope that clears things up for you? The devil is a liar, and G-d alone is True. Simple stuff we all need to be very strong in our convictions about.

Sure, the devil is a liar. But that doesn't mean that it has to lie all the time. In fact, the most accomplished deceivers hardly ever lie, for they know how to speak some truth in a way that accomplishes the deceit. Hence to testify in court people must swear to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

This also is why to tempt Jesus the devil quoted scripture at Him. The only example I'm aware of the devil actually lying is in Job where he says Job will curse God if nasty things happened to him, and even there it is arguable because to be a proper lie the devil would have had to know Job's future actions.

G-d is no respecter of persons.

And do you hold everyone to the same standard?

 

[razeontherock]

The only example I'm aware of the devil actually lying is in Job where he says Job will curse God if nasty things happened to him, and even there it is arguable because to be a proper lie the devil would have had to know Job's future actions.

Correct, that wouldn't count as an outright lie; he's also the accuser of the brethren, as seen in that instance. Either way he's bad company, and I'm very worried you can't see the lie in EVERY one of his statements! I suggest we need to, and that's why they're included. You are correct, he's smart enough to include some truth in every lie, but next I'm afraid I'll be hearing you defend him by saying he has blue eyes to hide behind. [/Mick Jagger]

 

[elman]

How am I creating an evil God from my imagination? All I said is that neither the serpent nor God told Adam and Eve the whole truth, but also they both spoke only truth. However I think you're cramming your idea of what God should be into the narrative to make it say something that fits the God you created in your image.

Although I believe the story is allegorical, even if one takes it literally, God did not lie about Adam dying the same day. Sin kills the soul. Adam, like the rest of us, kills himself spiritually by disobediance to God. The Serpent did not tell the truth. He lied.

 

[chris4243]

Although I believe the story is allegorical, even if one takes it literally, God did not lie about Adam dying the same day. Sin kills the soul. Adam, like the rest of us, kills himself spiritually by disobediance to God. The Serpent did not tell the truth. He lied.

And why exactly is speaking something that is true in metaphor but false literally without giving a clue that you're speaking in metaphor, more honest than speaking something that is true literally but false in a certain metaphor?

 

[HisHomeMaker]

And why exactly is speaking something that is true in metaphor but false literally without giving a clue that you're speaking in metaphor, more honest than speaking something that is true literally but false in a certain metaphor?

Just because it may have been written in metaphor doesn't mean it was spoken that way at the time. Remember that The Bible is a collection of books with different authors and written in different genres.

 

[elman]

And why exactly is speaking something that is true in metaphor but false literally without giving a clue that you're speaking in metaphor, more honest than speaking something that is true literally but false in a certain metaphor?

The spiritual death is real, not just metaphor. The soul really does die if we kill it with our sin.

 

[razeontherock]

Although I believe the story is allegorical, even if one takes it literally, God did not lie about Adam dying the same day. Sin kills the soul. Adam, like the rest of us, kills himself spiritually by disobediance to God. The Serpent did not tell the truth. He lied.

Glad to find something we agree on!

 

[oi_antz]

First of all, repentance is always a message of importance; and one that you seem to get loud and clear which is why I thought my rather large jump there wouldn't lose you. (You may need to refer back to the original post #87 (or is it 89?) to put this all together)

Next, my first sentence you quoted (in the second quote, the one you're asking about) needs to be clearly understood. How did Adam "know" his wife? Clearly not merely in the intellectual sense. So sharing a bit of what the Lord has shown me that has proven so valuable in my life, I point out that the very thread title is a mis-statement that is dangerous, because it leads to the wrong idea.

A & E "knew" good, before sin. What they didn't have any experience with is evil. So when they ate of the fruit, they "knew" evil, which G-d warns us is a deadly mistake. I think this is a much more accurate understanding of what G-d is trying to tell us in this story rather than thinking He is somehow opposed to knowledge, which is an idea that just doesn't agree with the rest of Scripture.

I do like what you have to say about our conscience and G-d's voice, and think it fits in beautifully. (Also I hope it goes w/o say that I'm not advancing the idea that pursuing knowledge that opposes G-d is somehow ok.)

So all that just clarifies the first sentence of mine that you asked about: "That'll kill ya, if you "know it" in the Biblical sense." (i.e., the wages of sin is death) My next sentence is separated by a blank line, because that's the closest thing the formatting here allows to a paragraph break. I did this to show there is a jump from one idea to the next, and hoped readers would see the connection. Looking back at the first of the 2 sentences in the light of what I wrote to clarify it so far, I see only one logical conclusion to all of this:

REPENT, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand, which is exactly what we're told Jesus came preaching. In other words, I see this POV as tying together vast amounts of Scripture, over a great deal of time, and see that it's every bit as relevant today as when it was first uttered. "The Word of the Lord endures forever." I find that to be worth the effort it takes to understand it.

Ok, it still goes way over my head, which means that God is not speaking to me through what you said. Perhaps this message was meant for God to speak to someone else, or if you think I need to repent of something specific I would appreciate your contact. So perhaps just have a think about why you are building with those materials and whether it isn't just speaking for the sake of speaking, and you could very well be right while I am wrong.

Also I want to comment on something else you said in that post, that Adam and Eve did in fact gain something good. Look at Genesis 3:6

6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Notice the emphasis, these are good things. Also notice, if Eve had found the fruit was only bad then she would not have shared it, but she obviously found it was good and so partook and shared it. So the question is, what did they gain and what did they lose? We know that the fruit caused the human's eternal soul to die, and that humans are born eternally dead by default. Only by being born again (born of the spirit) can we have eternal life restored. So what did they gain that was good? The knowledge and perspective of carnality that produces fruit of iniquity in the human (greed, fame, lust, anger, all the sin that comes from the heart of a human being spiritually dead).

@Chris4243: are you going to answer my questions or have you decided to ignore me?

 

[oi_antz]

Although I believe the story is allegorical, even if one takes it literally, God did not lie about Adam dying the same day. Sin kills the soul. Adam, like the rest of us, kills himself spiritually by disobediance to God. The Serpent did not tell the truth. He lied.

I'm curious about how you can read something that is stated as a literal story to be allegorical. Can you please answer one question first so I understand you better: What is the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

 

[razeontherock]

If you think I need to repent of something

Nope But repentance is the central theme of this story, and we can never see that idea too clearly! Also, we don't see A & E having any idea of it at the time. It's a wonderful thing that is set before us. This whole sub-forum exists for the benefit of the OP, and this idea is not something that should be skipped in this thread.

Also I want to comment on something else you said in that post, that Adam and Eve did in fact gain something good. Look at Genesis 3:6

"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat."

Notice the emphasis, these are good things.

Below you will see yourself contradict this notion, so allow me to show you the similarity in Scripture so you will be armed with knowing this verse is speaking under the influence of the liar, since that is how Eve was influenced:

"Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 1 John 2:16 For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof"


Do you see clearly that these 3 things I bolded are exactly what is in Genesis 3:6? It's a perfect parallel.

2 Cor 2:11 Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices."

Here they are, on display. Now let's look at your own words, revealing the Truth about exactly what A & E "gained" by sinning against the Lord:

So the question is, what did they gain and what did they lose? We know that the fruit caused the human's eternal soul to die ... So what did they gain that was good? The knowledge and perspective of carnality that produces fruit of iniquity in the human (greed, fame, lust, anger, all the sin that comes from the heart of a human being spiritually dead).

That is an accurate representation; they gained NOTHING and lost everything, just like we do when we sin. And when we come to the Lord, we give Him nothing but our mess, and He gives us everything pertaining unto life and godliness.

 

[chris4243]

Now answer me a question. Has anyone ever lived who has mastered sin?

There's Jesus, but he died too. Then there's Enoch, who didn't die but most likely sinned.

 

[oi_antz]

Below you will see yourself contradict this notion

Did you see my point though, that some things that are considered to be sin are actually material things of this world that people happen to like? My point is that before the fall, the humans weren't persuaded by these things, just as repentant born again Christians aren't persuaded by these things. However, at the time for Adam and Eve who had not known the pleasures of sin, these would have appeared to be "good" things, at the very least you would agree that they were new delights never before known to them.

Obviously we have the gift of hindsight that we can now see why breaking God's law is not good and this explains a question I always had: why was the serpent ever allowed to tempt them in the first place?

Ask a sinner though Ray, is masturbation a good thing? Is homosexuality a good thing? Is mammon a good thing? Likelihood is that if they are honest they will say "yes, and God is horrible to deny us those rights". That was the point I wanted to make, not that breaking God's law is good, but that some of the effects of the fall can be considered beneficial and so the humans suddenly became aware of some things about the world that humanity considers to be "good" (In other words, they like it).

Whether God says it is lawful is another topic, but here we are discussing the impact that the fall has had on humanity, speculating what it was like before, and the change that took place. Remember too that God's law only came on the scene with Moses.

 

[oi_antz]

There's Jesus, but he died too. Then there's Enoch, who didn't die but most likely sinned.

Did you just say that Jesus mastered sin? I'm not grading you on your answer, I just want to know what and how you think. Moreover I am keen to see you think more about the real truth than what you happen to like and dislike. If God tells Cain that he has to master sin, doesn't it seem as though God is training him to master sin? Why do you think God would tell him to master sin unless He thought Cain was capable of mastering sin? Does the same expectation apply to us today? There's a lot to think about from that one verse. I'd like to know your thoughts about my other questions too.