The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and The Tree of Life (Lost /Reformed Thread)

Yes, I noticed those verses years ago. My first serious study of Genesis was done in the early 70s.I am not sure if the two passages can be reconciled to the satisfaction of everyone. However, I think that a possibility is that the second account of creation (Gensis2:4-25) is more local.And by local I mean pertaining to the garden of Eden. Although I have never read such, possibly this was the account passed on by Adam himself to his descendents - (pure speculation on my part).But notice verse 8 - "And Jehovah God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground Jehovah caused to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight ...etc."The phrase " ... no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up ..." could be local to the garden of Eden. In Adam's experience in the garden, maybe he saw a sample of what God had previously done elsewhere before man's creation.It may be the case that what God did before the creation of man, was partially demonstrated to Adam in the garden. That is that Adam could witness the formation of plant and animal lives in "the field" of Eden.But I don't know for sure. I permit each portion of Scripture to state its disclosure in the manner in which it wishes to. I trust God's word although there are some contradictions or paradoxes difficult to reconcile.I consider any paradox or contradiction there to be a test not to the veracity of Scripture as much, but as a test to my own trust of God.I will review some other opinions. And if I think they are significantly helpful, I may submit them. I do not think that two different first men are being spoken about. I think that introduces far more problems than it could possibly solve. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Hi jay, Well lets see.In the account given in Genesis 2:4-Genesis 4:26.The man in Genesis 2:7.Was formed from the dust of the groundIt does not say he was created in the image/likeness of God. Body, mind and spirit.This man was formed before anything else.God planted a garden.And out of the ground made every tree to grow and every plant, and every herb before it was in the earth.This man named all the animals.This man had a rib removed and a woman made from it.This man was placed in a garden.This man was given a command not to eat fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.This man disobeyed God and ate the fruit.By this man sin entered into the world.This man's firstborn son's name was Cain.There is a list of Cain's firstborn and his firstborn etc. But no years or ages are given.His second son's name was Abel.His third son's name was Seth.None of these people had ages attached to them.This man was never told to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.Every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air God formed out of the ground.I wonder why there was no water creatures.In Genesis 1:26, 27, God created mankind, male and female in His image/likeness. Body, mind and spirit.This man was blessed and told to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.He was never placed in a garden.God said: "I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."He never was commanded not to eat of the fruit of any tree.He was created after all the animals.Even the fish that was created.In the account given in Genesis 1:2-Genesis 2:3.The earth was told to bring forth plants from the seed which were upon the earth.The trees likewise.The water was told to bring forth the moving creature that hath life, and fowl. But in the other account there was no water creatures and the fowl was formed from the ground.Then the earth was told to bring forth cattle and etc. Nothing was formed from the ground. The earth brought it forth. Note: The same Hebrew word is used for Adam and man in this verse.This verse declares the generations of the man created in the image/likeness of God. Body, mind, and spirit.This man's firstborn son's name was Seth.Seth was born when this man was 130 years old.This man had no son named Cain nor did he have a son named Abel.If you go through the names given it says X lived so many years and begat Y and Y lived so many years and begat A etc. (letters representing a name).A life span is given for each.This man that was created in the image/likeness of God lived 930 years and died.A couple of the largest questions I always had was how did the man in Genesis 2:7 die the same day he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?And what happened to the light portion of the first day that God declared in: God starts off in the evening because there was darkness over the earth in Genesis 1:2 and declares the next morning the end of the first day. So what happened to the light portion of that day if it did not take place in Genesis 1:1.God's eternal day has been interrupted by our time from that evening until we have the New Heaven and the New Earth at which time His eternal day will continue on.So it solves a lot of problems for me and I can not think of one it creates.I have an old eternal universe and earth that will never go out of existence.I don't have to come up with some weird accounting of time to have my eternal universe.I don't have to do any crazy interpretations to try and make the two stories in Genesis chapter 1-5 into one story without contradictions in it.So to me the man eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil took place a very long time ago.The man that was created in the image/likeness of God was not very long ago.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Yet in Chapter 4, at the end, it says:

quote:

---

25And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

​

26And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

---

It creates the problem of two consecutive chaters that both involve a man named Adam, who had a son named Seth, who had a son named Enos having to be two completely different people with no explicit mention of it whatsoever. and another problem you have is that we know that the earth has not been around since the beginning of the Universe (and we don't need to know about before T=0+ to know that).Also, we also know that the Earth will go out of existence when our sun turns into a red giant.

Hi CS,If you would like to discuss any of your post why don't you take it and put together an OP and start a thread and we can discuss it in detail.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I don't really have a claim to make.
It takes a lot of time.
You're too shallow and pedantic.

Thanks for the exchange. Who??Jews, you, athiests, Gentiles, agnostics, me - lolThe 'acceptable' scriptures are freely available; if there is a point to the comment, please state it. What do they say it says; what do you say it says??You and jaywill, apparently 'conservative christians', appear to constantly refer to the garden incident as 'the Fall'. Yet, Eve does not 'willfully disobey' or 'phall' as is so often said; Eve is Pushed and Deceived into deciding to take from the fruit of your 'evil' tree. This is why 'the Fall' is predisposed religious dogma, and 'the Push' or 'the Deception' would be actually Truthful. Yet, the latter do not give Satan the victory and Guilt he so desires (speculation).Anyhoo, what are you bickering about ... 'knowledge'?Can we agree to draw from Strong's numbers? If so check 1847, da'ath (dah'-ath); from yada'; knowledge -- cunning, (ig-)norantly, know(-ledge), (un-)awares (wittingly). 3045 yada' (yaw-dah') places us within these parameters ... The present opinion suggests relative knowledge and awareness of diametric forces of both 'good' and 'evil' were established within the species by the serpent's deceitful maneuvering (Gen 3:1-5). ICANT claims "they already knew 'good', as God is good"; shall we suppose doubting the Father is 'good' (Gen 3:6)? Hardly fellas, tho you decide. The Truth is, the species/Eve was able to succumb to deception (Gen 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 ...) before enacting any decision to partake of any fruit from any supposed 'evil' tree (Gen 3:6 ... she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.).The story does not tell us Eve first ate the fruit and was then deceived; it says the exact opposite. The Eden scriptures tell us Eve was first deceived, and effectually took of the supposed 'evil' fruit. It appears she thought a possibility the Father may be mistaken or dishonest is 'good', before she takes of the fruit of the 'evil' tree. Her concept of 'good' is inherently deceivable, appearing a side effect of freewill. Had the Father made the couple more like Star Wars clones this may not have happened. Be thankful for what He has done.Actually, it seems wise to note when Eve realizes the Father was not mistaken or dishonest (Gen 3:7,13); after she takes of the fruit from the supposed 'evil' tree (Gen 3:6). As the 'evil' fruit/tree/decision/act/poison enters Eve's being (Gen 3:6), her 'eyes are opened' (Gen 3:7), and she realizes she has been beguiled (Gen 3:7,13); she realizes the Father was not dishonest or mistaken (Gen 3:7,13) and becomes more like God (Gen 3:22). Therefore, if you believe it is 'evil' to realize the Father is not dishonest or mistaken, you can easily assign an 'evil' label to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Calling it 'evil' because your pastor said it was, is no different then Eve believing words that did not come from the Father.I will not likely join that train of thought; the Father referred to the knowledge of the tree as 'good and evil'. Is omitting the Truth in systematic religious theology somehow less deceitful than straight lieing; is it not still deception whether intentional, malicious or otherwise?Additionally, those who suggest it is 'good' to entertain a possibility the Father may be mistaken or dishonest, and enact aggressive decisions based upon such motivating impulses, may then suggest Eve knew 'good' before taking of the fruit of the 'evil' tree. It may also be helpful to realize just because you think something is 'good' does not make it necessarily so, or universally 'good'; it simply makes it seem 'good' to you.The Truth is, the first man's 'obedience' never waivered to the standard decree (Gen 2:24) issued after he assigned a name to his bride (Gen 2:23); well before any 'evil' fruit was partaken of (Gen 3:6). Yet, religion has stripped him of any credit for keeping his Father's will. Granted, the first man did not begin to fill Jesus sandals, but you guys are real sickos sometimes - lol. The man faithfully stays with his wife through sickness and in health, nigh to her death, and is endlessly ridiculed by Jews and Christians for not bailing on his sick wife. Nice job religion - real nice.ICANT acknowledges this, but seems conservative in doing so. Jaywill may have problems with this as the Father's Truth again does not jive well with his theologically predisposed religious philosophy. Put away the theology and break out your Golden Ruler to measure his 'sin' ...Nevertheless, the present opinion asks: was Adam's decree in rebellion to the Father? If you think so, you can rightly accuse him of being disobedient to the Father in deciding to partake of the fruit from the supposed 'evil' tree.Adam's 'disobedience' stems from Eve's deception. Perhaps he should have been 'obedient' and divorced and separated himself from the most beautiful gift of Life his Father ever gave him.Care to investigate under what circumstances the Father justifies divorce?
He does not; he allowed Moses to permit sin because people are stubborn - lolOne LoveEdited by Bailey, : spellingEdited by Bailey, : soften title

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, I'm just a fool playing with ideas.
My only intention is to tickle your thinker. Trust nothing I say. Learn for yourself.
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

I see.Did you notice that Paul refers to Adam as "the first man"? - "So also it is writen, the first man Adam, became a living soul..." (1 Cor. 15:45 compare Genesis 2:7).And the Lord Jesus refered to "created from the beginning, male and female" - man, created in the beginning: "And He answered and said, Have you not read that He who created [them] from the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall be joined to his wife; and the two shall be one flesh"? (Matt.19:4,5)Notice that the phrase "created them from the beginning male and female" is a reference to Genesis 1:27 while the phrase "for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife" is a reference to Genesis 2:24.Christ combines the two portions of Scripture under the subject matter of humanity created "from the beginning," ie. the first of men and women.I think this would shatter your theory. Christ understood the two portions to refer to man created in the beginning. And Paul confirms that this Adam in Genesis 2:4 is "the first man."Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

An excellent book all on the Tree of Life.Titles A-Z | LSM Online PublicationsEdited by jaywill, : No reason given.