Garden of Eden, tree of knowledge

oi_antz · Apr 13, 2011

chris4243 said:
If one has a conscience, then one knows good and evil. You can't have your conscience telling you "what you're doing is evil" without you knowing what evil is.

I'm not a mind-reader, but it says what motivated them was that the fruit was good for food, pleasant to the eye, and desirable for gaining wisdom. In Genesis 3:22 God Himself confirms word for word what the serpent told them.

Yes, but He also says "you will surely die", to which the serpent argued "you will surely not die". So God and the serpent are at odds. One of them must be wrong. Since it is God's garden it is His finding that the serpent was wrong and thus received a hefty curse. Etc...

chris4243 said:
I don't know. I still don't know why God didn't mark some other tree instead of trying to deprive them of morality.

I can't guess God's thoughts but I can ask for understanding about these things. As I currently understand it, that tree was the only one which was harmful. I doubt it would have made a difference if it was on a side or corner of the garden, the serpent would still have tempted them. The point of the story is that the knowledge of good and evil is something only God can master. Anyone else who tries to master that of his own effort will fail. Lucifer, Adam, Eve, Cain, Moses, David, Me, we have all been unable to remain perfectly holy due to the fact that we are spiritually dead and our minds are preset at birth to worship the things of carnality. Only by being born again can you deal with past sin to God's satisfaction and change into the human that was originally intended. But it's a reformed human that has been victorious over sin by having followed Jesus' instruction. If He is not your shepherd, then I don't know if you'll be able to conquer sin and live with Him in the new earth.

elman · Apr 13, 2011

razeontherock said:
This is a great Truth! Not easy to discuss ...

The bolded part is objectively false. I do think it's VERY important to recognize that G-d began unfolding His plan of Salvation with them, via blood sacrifice, in order to make them clothes. And even in these simple things, deeper meaning takes form; whether we choose to call that allegory or something else.

So yes they did have G-d's Grace and forgiveness extended towards them, and it seems to me that the primary purpose of the OT is to show us how that was accepted and also rejected, and how G-d kept advancing His overall plan anyway. WOW is that ever applicable to us!

And yet "the way" Grace is extended to us was unprecedented before the Cross

It seems to subjective not objective if it is in fact false. I think we are the same as Adam and he was dealing with the same God as we deal and in both cases God was loving and wanted us to be loving also.

oi_antz · Apr 13, 2011

elman said:
It seems to subjective not objective if it is in fact false. I think we are the same as Adam and he was dealing with the same God as we deal and in both cases God was loving and wanted us to be loving also.

Hi Elman, can you please respond to #116, thanks!

elman · Apr 13, 2011

oi_antz said:
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?

How do you determine the story of Adam and Eve is stated as a literal story? Are not all the parables of Jesus stated as a literal story? Is the story of the prodical son not stated as a literal story? It is not clear what the tree of knowledge of good and evil is, but I think the tree of life was and is Jesus.

razeontherock · Apr 13, 2011

Interesting the things in the Garden in Genesis, that we also see in the new Jerusalem in Rev; the tree, the river ...

elman · Apr 13, 2011

oi_antz said:
Fair enough comment, but we are only speculating what an amoral human would be like. From my understanding, the serpent was not able to tempt them since the only sin was eating of that specific tree. So there was only one sin they could commit. Lying, stealing, killing just weren't even options because these things didn't even exist yet. There were no fallen humans that had introduced those sins to the world, and no other creature had done it either. So I would say that your speculation that humans were originally "amoral" is probably quite a far cry from a human not knowing good and evil, since they were sinless and the only sin they had to deny was the fruit of one tree and we can see how easy it was until the serpent came along and told them that God had lied. Once they ate the fruit however, the humans began discovering a whole new world of pleasures that lead to sin. So I don't believe Adam and Eve were "amoral" sinners before the fall. I believe they were blameless and holy, completely without the knowledge of the capacity for sin.

I also believe Adam and Eve were blameless and holy before they ate of the tree, but I do not agree they were completely without the knowledge of the capacity for sin, because they had the knowledge that it would be sin for them to eat of the tree. I also think one can get side tracted on the details of a story such as this and spend too much time on things that do not matter. In other words I belileve it best to look for the overall teaching being proposed and having found it, not get too worried about the side issues.

oi_antz · Apr 13, 2011

elman said:
How do you determine the story of Adam and Eve is stated as a literal story? Are not all the parables of Jesus stated as a literal story? Is the story of the prodical son not stated as a literal story? It is not clear what the tree of knowledge of good and evil is, but I think the tree of life was and is Jesus.

Thanks Elman, I can't see that this is the way the story is meant to be read. My faith is founded on the belief that the story is literal and because God says so then it must be true. I can see the metaphor with humankind taking Jesus out of the garden "the forbidden fruit", but does that suggest that He was eaten, and how does this fit with Judaic texts that can't recognize Jesus as the forbidden fruit? Are you really serious that the story shouldn't be read literally, if so, can you demonstrate how the story fits with your own faith.

oi_antz · Apr 13, 2011

elman said:
I also believe Adam and Eve were blameless and holy before they ate of the tree, but I do not agree they were completely without the knowledge of the capacity for sin, because they had the knowledge that it would be sin for them to eat of the tree. I also think one can get side tracted on the details of a story such as this and spend too much time on things that do not matter. In other words I belileve it best to look for the overall teaching being proposed and having found it, not get too worried about the side issues.

If you read it again, I said there was only one sin they could commit: to eat the fruit. Besides this, they had no knowledge of things such as murder or beastiality or anything else that is regarded sinful by humankind who has a conscience. They would just be like every other creature of earth, living a rather peaceful life a bit like if you were to watch cattle, they're pretty happy chewing their cud and thinking about whatever a cow thinks about. So I think the original world God made was very good indeed, with all the sin humanity has discovered being locked into one simple commandment: don't eat from that tree!

elman · Apr 13, 2011

oi_antz said:
Thanks Elman, I can't see that this is the way the story is meant to be read. My faith is founded on the belief that the story is literal and because God says so then it must be true. I can see the metaphor with humankind taking Jesus out of the garden "the forbidden fruit", but does that suggest that He was eaten, and how does this fit with Judaic texts that can't recognize Jesus as the forbidden fruit? Are you really serious that the story shouldn't be read literally, if so, can you demonstrate how the story fits with your own faith.

I am not suggesting Jesus is the forbidden fruit. I think Jesus is the tree of life, both here and in the book of Revelation. I am serious I do not believe the story is literal. I believe almost all spiritual matters are not something we have a language to discuss and thus when we do talk of spiritual matters we have no choice but deal in symbolism using the material world to represent the spiritual. I think it is a mistake to try to take the Bible as literal and much better to look for the symbolism that would indicated what is being said about the spiritual.

oi_antz · Apr 13, 2011

elman said:
I am not suggesting Jesus is the forbidden fruit. I think Jesus is the tree of life, both here and in the book of Revelation. I am serious I do not believe the story is literal. I believe almost all spiritual matters are not something we have a language to discuss and thus when we do talk of spiritual matters we have no choice but deal in symbolism using the material world to represent the spiritual. I think it is a mistake to try to take the Bible as literal and much better to look for the symbolism that would indicated what is being said about the spiritual.

I think what you are describing is milk and meat. I'm still quite a baby so I can't see all the symbolism you can see. I know in Revelation 2:7 Jesus says "To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.", so I would not agree that Jesus is the tree of life without seeing some scriptural support. Do you have some scriptures that state Jesus as being the tree of life?

Also, I just want clarification from you because maybe I have misunderstood your faith, do you believe that Adam and Eve were physically in the garden of Eden and they ate fruit from a tree that gave them godly wisdom of good and evil, then were banished from the garden and cursed for their sin?

elman · Apr 13, 2011

oi_antz said:
If you read it again, I said there was only one sin they could commit: to eat the fruit. Besides this, they had no knowledge of things such as murder or beastiality or anything else that is regarded sinful by humankind who has a conscience. They would just be like every other creature of earth, living a rather peaceful life a bit like if you were to watch cattle, they're pretty happy chewing their cud and thinking about whatever a cow thinks about. So I think the original world God made was very good indeed, with all the sin humanity has discovered being locked into one simple commandment: don't eat from that tree!

Even with only one sin available to them, it seems to me they had the capacity to sin.

oi_antz · Apr 13, 2011

elman said:
Even with only one sin available to them, it seems to me they had the capacity to sin.

Yes, and it is hard to imagine how a world that is completely free from sin would look. The best we can possibly get to see now is a world that has been redeemed from sin, and I would peg a bet that it isn't going to be like the original. Of course, with lessons learnt it ought to at least be a bit more robust and perhaps that is why God spared the world on account of Noah's faith. This passage is always my inspiration when I see a world desolate of faith:

Isaiah 11:6-9 (New Living Translation)

6 In that day the wolf and the lamb will live together;
the leopard will lie down with the baby goat.
The calf and the yearling will be safe with the lion,
and a little child will lead them all.
7 The cow will graze near the bear.
The cub and the calf will lie down together.
The lion will eat hay like a cow.
8 The baby will play safely near the hole of a cobra.
Yes, a little child will put its hand in a nest of deadly snakes without harm.
9 Nothing will hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain,
for as the waters fill the sea,
so the earth will be filled with people who know the Lord.

Notice the setting for this is still a sinful, fallen world but one where God is worshiped by the world in what is described as something of a "full" potential.

chris4243 · Apr 13, 2011

razeontherock said:
This does NOT pertain to morality.

There are many ways of discussing this point, but it has no bearing on this thread.

Shame then. Adam and Eve were naked and felt no shame, after they ate they felt shame. This relates at least somewhat to conscience and morality, neither of which can exist without shame.

chris4243 · Apr 13, 2011

oi_antz said:
Fair enough comment, but we are only speculating what an amoral human would be like. From my understanding, the serpent was not able to tempt them since the only sin was eating of that specific tree. So there was only one sin they could commit. Lying, stealing, killing just weren't even options because these things didn't even exist yet. There were no fallen humans that had introduced those sins to the world, and no other creature had done it either. So I would say that your speculation that humans were originally "amoral" is probably quite a far cry from a human not knowing good and evil, since they were sinless and the only sin they had to deny was the fruit of one tree and we can see how easy it was until the serpent came along and told them that God had lied. Once they ate the fruit however, the humans began discovering a whole new world of pleasures that lead to sin. So I don't believe Adam and Eve were "amoral" sinners before the fall. I believe they were blameless and holy, completely without the knowledge of the capacity for sin.

There was no commands for man other than concerning the tree, and if sin is violating a command then that was the only sin. However if sin is itself bad without being against a command, I suppose there would still be sin. I think however that shame might be more relevant; there's no shame in something if it is not known to be wrong. Interestingly, nakedness is the first thing brought to attention, which seems to be more a shame thing than a sin thing.

chris4243 · Apr 13, 2011

oi_antz said:
Yes, but He also says "you will surely die", to which the serpent argued "you will surely not die". So God and the serpent are at odds. One of them must be wrong. Since it is God's garden it is His finding that the serpent was wrong and thus received a hefty curse. Etc...

No, the serpent said "you will not surely die", and even then it's a translation that replaces two different words for die with one for surely and one for die. You only changed the order of the words but that drastically changes the meaning. And if you consider a little context, you could easily see God and the serpent making different but not mutually exclusive claims.

I can't guess God's thoughts but I can ask for understanding about these things. As I currently understand it, that tree was the only one which was harmful.

If the tree was harmful, what of God's proclamation that it was very good?

I doubt it would have made a difference if it was on a side or corner of the garden, the serpent would still have tempted them. The point of the story is that the knowledge of good and evil is something only God can master. Anyone else who tries to master that of his own effort will fail. Lucifer, Adam, Eve, Cain, Moses, David, Me, we have all been unable to remain perfectly holy due to the fact that we are spiritually dead and our minds are preset at birth to worship the things of carnality. Only by being born again can you deal with past sin to God's satisfaction and change into the human that was originally intended. But it's a reformed human that has been victorious over sin by having followed Jesus' instruction. If He is not your shepherd, then I don't know if you'll be able to conquer sin and live with Him in the new earth.

Didn't the rest of the angels also not succumb to sin?

razeontherock · Apr 13, 2011

chris4243 said:
Shame then. Adam and Eve were naked and felt no shame, after they ate they felt shame. This relates at least somewhat to conscience and morality, neither of which can exist without shame.

You're getting closer! But conscience can certainly exist w/o shame. Observe:

1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God"

IOW, this is like THE most basic aspect of Christianity. And it was also promised:

Isaiah 45:17 [But] Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end."

Isaiah 49:23 And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with [their] face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I [am] the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me."

Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."

Great things to contemplate here!

razeontherock · Apr 13, 2011

chris4243 said:
There was no commands for man other than concerning the tree, and if sin is violating a command then that was the only sin. However if sin is itself bad without being against a command, I suppose there would still be sin. I think however that shame might be more relevant; there's no shame in something if it is not known to be wrong. Interestingly, nakedness is the first thing brought to attention, which seems to be more a shame thing than a sin thing.

Either that or ... A & E actually changed upon their "original sin."

oi_antz · Apr 13, 2011

chris4243 said:
No, the serpent said "you will not surely die", and even then it's a translation that replaces two different words for die with one for surely and one for die. You only changed the order of the words but that drastically changes the meaning. And if you consider a little context, you could easily see God and the serpent making different but not mutually exclusive claims.

Of course they are mutually exclusive. You have God saying "will" and you have the serpent saying "will not". How can it be any clearer? Why are you even arguing about this?

chris4243 said:
If the tree was harmful, what of God's proclamation that it was very good?

Are you asking, was it good to wrap sin up and stuff it all into one tree so the others are harmless? Or are you asking whether God thinks the potential to sin is good? Not sure what you are hoping for me to say. Perhaps your question can be restated to reflect what you are trying to make me think about.

chris4243 said:
Didn't the rest of the angels also not succumb to sin?

I don't know. If you find it in the Bible, please show it to me. I think our business is to worry about the humans, let God worry about the angels because only He has the required immortality to instruct them. Of course, the angels can learn by observing the humans. But it's not really our business to learn about the business of angels, we are expected to just spread the word of salvation by Jesus Christ to the souls that are lost.

razeontherock · Apr 13, 2011

chris4243 said:
If the tree was harmful, what of God's proclamation that it was very good?

This is actually a very deep question, that G-d HAD to answer for me, before my Faith ever got off the ground. I wonder if this was really what the OP was asking? Anyway I'd be surprised if I could convey it very well, but it comes down to G-d's Faithfulness.

oi_antz · Apr 13, 2011

chris4243 said:
There was no commands for man other than concerning the tree, and if sin is violating a command then that was the only sin. However if sin is itself bad without being against a command, I suppose there would still be sin. I think however that shame might be more relevant; there's no shame in something if it is not known to be wrong. Interestingly, nakedness is the first thing brought to attention, which seems to be more a shame thing than a sin thing.

I honestly don't know what it was like before and after, I wasn't there to see it happen. God was though, Christ was too, and all the angels saw it happen, so it's not exactly a mystery to all of us. It's more a matter of how much knowledge does God wish to inject to the world and at what stage do all the mysteries become known? So we can only speculate, and we can choose which, if any, comments we might believe from each other.

Garden of Eden, tree of knowledge

Opposed to Untruth.

elman

Opposed to Untruth.

elman

Well-Known Member

elman

Opposed to Untruth.

Opposed to Untruth.

elman

Opposed to Untruth.

elman

Opposed to Untruth.

Advocate of Truth

Advocate of Truth

Advocate of Truth

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Opposed to Untruth.

Well-Known Member

Opposed to Untruth.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency