The Tree of Knowledge

[PaladinValer]

I just have one question; If Adam and Eve were ignorant and innocent before eating off the tree then where did their knowledge (being that they obviously disobeyed God's command to not eat from the tree) Come from? The fact that the thought to go and eat off the tree entered their minds must surely indicate they had a knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong before they ate the fruit.

They had intelligence, but they didn't have comprehension of good and evil. In addition, as they were innocent, they couldn't tell deception (although the snake didn't lie, as I've shown above, it did trick through crafty means [its "nakedness"] Adam and Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit.

 

[mark kennedy]

Adam and Eve allready had a conscience and where are of the difference between right and wrong. An insight into meaning of 'knowledge' as being closely related to 'crafty cunning' has allready been offered. Let us not forget that Satan offers wisdom as well as God, but of a different kind and origin.

"Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. "
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.​

"yada- “to know.” Essentially yada means: (1) to know by observing and reflecting (thinking), and (2) to know by experiencing. The first sense appears in Gen. 8:11, where Noah “knew” the waters had abated as a result of seeing the freshly picked olive leaf in the dove’s mouth; he “knew” it after observing and thinking about what he had seen...Consequently yada is used in synonymous parallelism with “hear” (Exod. 3:7), “see” (Gen. 18:21), and “perceive, see” (Job 28:7). Joseph told his brothers that were they to leave one of their number with him in Egypt then he would “know,” by experience, that they were honest men (Gen. 42:33). In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat of the tree whose fruit if eaten would give them the experience of evil and, therefore, the knowledge of both good and evil. Somewhat characteristically the heart plays an important role in knowing. Because they experienced the sustaining presence of God during the wilderness wandering, the Israelites “knew” in their hearts that God was disciplining or caring for them as a father cares for a son (Deut. 8:5). Such knowing can be hindered by a wrongly disposed heart (Ps. 95:10)."

(W.E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger and William White, Vine’s complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1996.)

 

[Lee Fey]

alright, well, I've calmed myself. As I read through the beginning, I wanted to come straight here to give my opinions, but I forced myself to read through the rest of it. God was right when he told Adam and Eve that they would die if they ate the fruit. The New Testament says the original fall brought death into the world. So, even if they didn't die right there, they did die eventually, which they would not have done before the fall. Also, they died in spirit. All who have sinner are dead to God, until they become forgiven, which means they are born again. So they died spiritually right away, and physically later on, which would not have happened otherwise.

Also, pertaining to the nature of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. My opinion is that the fact that they were forbidden to eat the fruit in the first place that made the tree particularly capable of revealing good and evil to us. Innocence, which is what Adam and Eve possessed, is a beautiful thing. But when innocence is lost, it is often replaced with wisdom, which I believe is truly understanding why God imposed the rules he did, in this case, not eating of the fruit. They felt shame because they were no longer the perfect creations God had made them, they had ruined themselves through their own free will. I just recently lost a facet of my innocence, and now I know more of the nature of God, I understand more of God than I used to, which is the nature of wisdom. So yes, eating of the fruit brought knowledge of evil, a true understanding of it, and good too, as it brought wisdom of why God knows best. Does any of this make any sense to anyone?

 

[Andry]

The reason why God did not want for us to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was because it brought death. But what does that mean?

It means that when we begin to measure our life with a criteria of good and evil, right and wrong, it will always bring death. Because we could not measure up to that. Once we got down that path, then for everything we do we needed a rule: is this right, is that wrong, is that right, is this wrong....or in others words, we needed rules for everything.....ie., the law. And so we could never do all that's contained in the law (and the Jews got all the way up to some 600+ laws of varying sorts).

God wanted us to eat from the Tree of Life.....because there's no death in it, and had we eaten from the Tree of Life, it would not have been about laws, but about relationship...God's life. And so we don't need to have rules. Our one criteria would have been: does this activity bring life? Or does this activity bring death. I don't need a law to tell me that jumping of a 10 story building would bring death!

The 10 Commandments isn't about right and wrong. It's about life and death. Deutronomy 30:19 says I have set life and death (and to choose life) ....not right and wrong. Jesus never came to teach us right and wrong. He came to bring us life, and have it more abundantly. So life brings relationship. Right and wrong brings rules and ritual....so we missed the point.

So our criteria in life should not be whether it's right or wrong, but whether it's life or death. We could be 'doing the right thing'...a currently popular phrase even amongts Christians, and it would still bring death. It happens to all of us at some point...we do the right thing, but in the end it didn't bring us what we thought it should bring us.

So in everyday applications, the question is not, "Is drinking alcohol right or wrong." It should be, "Does drinking alcohol bring life or death?"

Is it right or wrong to go to a nightclub? That's the wrong question. Does it bring life?

Is it right or wrong to watch horror movies? Again, wrong question. Does it bring life?

So the moment Adam and Eve chose of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, it brought death, because good and evil, right and wrong needed rules and regulations. It brought the law. And no one (except Jesus) could stand by the law. And what did Jesus do? Did he not come to abolish the law and establish life?

And how do most Christians live by? What do most Christians have a criteria of? And what do we stress teaching our kids? Right and wrong. If that is the case, we're also guilty of eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

We need to choose the Tree of Life. And life can only come with right relationship with God. Then our criteria will change accordingly.

Personally, as I began to re-read the Bible through the perspective of life, rather than of right and wrong, it brought a deeper level of understanding and meaning, and things falling into place. Try re-reading just the 10 commandments with a criteria of life and death instead of right and wrong. Replay in your mind Jesus' life and ministry on earth....it has always been about life.

 

[KleinerApfel]

Also, pertaining to the nature of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. My opinion is that the fact that they were forbidden to eat the fruit in the first place that made the tree particularly capable of revealing good and evil to us. Innocence, which is what Adam and Eve possessed, is a beautiful thing. But when innocence is lost, it is often replaced with wisdom, which I believe is truly understanding why God imposed the rules he did, in this case, not eating of the fruit. They felt shame because they were no longer the perfect creations God had made them, they had ruined themselves through their own free will. I just recently lost a facet of my innocence, and now I know more of the nature of God, I understand more of God than I used to, which is the nature of wisdom. So yes, eating of the fruit brought knowledge of evil, a true understanding of it, and good too, as it brought wisdom of why God knows best. Does any of this make any sense to anyone?

Absolute sense -you've hit the nail on the head!

I do understand what you mean - it's better to stay innocent, but God brings goodness out of the situation by giving us wisdom through it.

Your relating of your personal experience here is helpful to those of us who want to understand the depths of God on this matter.

God bless, Susana

 

[KleinerApfel]

Andry, You are so right; it's all about choosing life.

God bless, Susana

 

[PaladinValer]

Death in the manner of spiritual death, sure; I personally doubt a literal biological death.

My proof? Lets presume just for a moment that the YEC are correct. Some species of life forms live for such a short period of time, that a whole generation would have died before Adam and Eve would have partaken the fruit. It comes to reason and logical conclusion that biological death had already occurred, but a spiritual death hasn't.

 

[Lee Fey]

Not necessarily. You assume that the universe as it was originally created was held by the same laws of nature that they are now. Personally, I don't think God would have created a universe where people and animals and life would suffer and die. He's too loving a God for that. The New Testament tells us that death entered the world through original sin. This tells me that the laws of nature were changed because of original sin, and that the universe as we live in it now is an abberation, a mutation, of his original creation. So, yes, by today's science, and laws of nature, death should have been very prevalent before Adam and Eve ate the fruit. But what if their original universe wasn't this one? What if the laws of nature were different, and there was no such thing as entropy?

 

[PaladinValer]

God created the universe. The universe works under the laws of the universe; this includes biological death.

 

[Lee Fey]

Now yes, God created the universe. And the laws of the universe were created by God as well. But how can you be sure that the same laws of physics now were the ones He put into place so long ago? Can you be certain that they did not change because of original sin? However, as intriguing as this debate is, I don't know if it has a place here on this particular thread, we were originally talking about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and such, right?

 

[KleinerApfel]

(This is begining to sound like the Creation/ Theistic Evolution forum. Might see you there some time.)

Are there any more unanswered questions on the tree of knowledge? I think we just about covered it?

Blessings, Susana

 

[PaladinValer]

Now yes, God created the universe. And the laws of the universe were created by God as well. But how can you be sure that the same laws of physics now were the ones He put into place so long ago?

The laws of physics don't change. In any case, you are now trying to fit in new doctrines and words into the Bible that aren't there. The Bible never said in Genesis that the laws of nature were recinded during Creation. Upon the Big Bang ("there was light"), the laws became into full effect as per God's design.

Can you be certain that they did not change because of original sin?

So God now punishes other species because of humanity? There's a new doctrine...

 

[Piano Player]

God was right when he told Adam and Eve that they would die if they ate the fruit. The New Testament says the original fall brought death into the world. So, even if they didn't die right there, they did die eventually, which they would not have done before the fall.

In the original Genesis story it is clear that the eating of the tree of knowledge by itself did not cause death. In Genesis 3:22 God expels Adam and Eve from Eden lest they eat from the tree of life and be too much like God. (What is meant by that?) Story is silent about whether they would eat from the Tree of Life. (Although it was clearly not forbidden.

Also, they died in spirit. All who have sinner are dead to God, until they become forgiven, which means they are born again. So they died spiritually right away, and physically later on, which would not have happened otherwise.

This is the standard interpretation. It is interesting in the original story that God does not use the term "spiritual" death. He just warns Adam that "on that day" you will die. Most folks would interpret that as a mortal death. Certainly Eve interpreted it that way based on her conversation with the serpent. Doesn't one assume that God knew Adam and Eve would interpret his warning as a mortal death? At the end of the story, God himself validates the serpent's statement about what would happen. God does say that man has now gained the knowledge of good and evil (just as the serpent said they would). We must add interpretation to make God be more honest than the serpent when the tree of knowledge is first described. Isn't it odd, that a story which introduces the relationship between man and God does so in this fashion?

Also, pertaining to the nature of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. My opinion is that the fact that they were forbidden to eat the fruit in the first place that made the tree particularly capable of revealing good and evil to us. Innocence, which is what Adam and Eve possessed, is a beautiful thing. But when innocence is lost, it is often replaced with wisdom, which I believe is truly understanding why God imposed the rules he did, in this case, not eating of the fruit. They felt shame because they were no longer the perfect creations God had made them, they had ruined themselves through their own free will. I just recently lost a facet of my innocence, and now I know more of the nature of God, I understand more of God than I used to, which is the nature of wisdom. So yes, eating of the fruit brought knowledge of evil, a true understanding of it, and good too, as it brought wisdom of why God knows best. Does any of this make any sense to anyone?

Excellent response.

 

[Lee Fey]

Spiritual death is a more potent death than physical death as it is anyway. Spiritual death means seperation from God's love and compassion, physical death is something minute that could actually bring us closer into His embrace. Perhaps God did not say "spiritual" death because for Him, the only real kind of death that could really be bad for Adam and Eve would be spiritual. I'm trying to write this as I see it, and this thread is helping me put my thoughts truly into order. I'm truly coming to conclusions as to what I truly believe pertaining to these matters.

 

[Piano Player]

Spiritual death is a more potent death than physical death as it is anyway. Spiritual death means seperation from God's love and compassion, physical death is something minute that could actually bring us closer into His embrace. Perhaps God did not say "spiritual" death because for Him, the only real kind of death that could really be bad for Adam and Eve would be spiritual. I'm trying to write this as I see it, and this thread is helping me put my thoughts truly into order. I'm truly coming to conclusions as to what I truly believe pertaining to these matters.

Given the semantics involved, why didn't God just warn Adam that eating from the tree would cause separation from God? Avoid all confusion about the use of the term "death." Surely God could do that? It would have also let Eve make a more informed choice when contemplating the serpent's statement versus God's statement. If God meant spiritual death, why would the story use the vague "you will die." Just as importantly, why did Eve eat the fruit when God said she would die? Didn't she believe God?

I too, find the story fascinating in its complexity. It is good to think and come to conclusions. Just be sure to always leave your mind open to further thought and conclusions as time and understanding accumulate.

 

[Lee Fey]

Well, that wasn't the only time God spoke to Adam and Eve. He used to walk in the garden with them. It is possible they did understand that death meant seperation from God. But if you could be like Him, why would you worry that he wouldn't want you anymore anyway? If you're like Him, than why bother trying to be His friend? That's the temptation of the Serpent.

 

[Piano Player]

Well, that wasn't the only time God spoke to Adam and Eve. He used to walk in the garden with them. It is possible they did understand that death meant seperation from God. But if you could be like Him, why would you worry that he wouldn't want you anymore anyway? If you're like Him, than why bother trying to be His friend? That's the temptation of the Serpent.

Interesting that you propose Eve and (later Adam) made an informed choice considering the consequences. That does indeed make the temptation of the serpent real.

While the story does imply that God walked in the garden with Adam and Eve, (by the way what an amazing concept!) don't we have to assume that the story gives us the relevant conversations between God and his first humans? Genesis allways tells a lot of story with just a few verses. While there are clearly other "lines" for the characters, we must assume that the story teller has given us the relevant lines to the story, and intentionally left the rest out. Seems hard to believe that if God gave a more detailed theological disposition about the consequences of the tree to Adam and Eve that would be left out of the story. This story works on a lot of levels. We have explored but a few of them.

 

[Lee Fey]

It's really cool that you bring that up. I wonder, does anyone know what the original translation for the death God referred to was? Because again, saying that they would die might have been enough of a show to us that they did make an informed choice, since the only real death to worry about in their eyes would be spiritual death. So, it does say that God told them they would die. Maybe that is our flag right there that tells us that they knew beforehand what that death entailed.

 

[Piano Player]

It's really cool that you bring that up. I wonder, does anyone know what the original translation for the death God referred to was? Because again, saying that they would die might have been enough of a show to us that they did make an informed choice, since the only real death to worry about in their eyes would be spiritual death. So, it does say that God told them they would die. Maybe that is our flag right there that tells us that they knew beforehand what that death entailed.

Ancient Hebrew is tough. A good on line source is http://netbible.bible.org/ If you click on the footnotes it usually tells you any translation concerns. The notes in this case say the translation is dying you will die. Note specifically states it is unclear whether mortal or physical death. They translate it as "you will surely die."

 

[Lee Fey]

So, that's how it is. We have to decide whether or not we believe that Adam and Eve did know that death meant spiritual death. The fact that they will surely die might mean to them that they will be seperated from God. Would they have thought that? I believe they probably could have. Simply put, being like God would have meant not needing Him, so they may have done it anyway. In this case, it's up to you to believe whether or not that's how they thought.

I also believe God would not have used such an underhanded way of dealing with them in the Garden as described above. Which is why I believe that they truly knew what they were getting themselves into. God never really does what's the worse for us, He always does what's best for us. And if you believe that, it may help in interpreting this passage.