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

Thank you for the exchange ... lol - btw, no particular reason for "the" Jesus or "the" God.Why do people say "the" Holy Spirit, instead of Holy Spirit?One Love

Thank you for the exchange Bertrot. Interesting.Why or where are the Lovebirds punished within the narrative.Please provide a verse and brief explanation to clarify your position.Thanks in advance.One Love

Hi jay, If God's purpose was to have a being that had a choice to choose to obey Him, why did the man need to take the tree of life?All that man had to do was obey. "It is better to obey than sacrifice." What does God need?OK. But man had eternal life until he chose death. I agree that for man to be restored to the relationship the first man had with God in the Garden he must be born again.But that was brought about by the first man choosing death rather than to obey. You can't blame God for the first mans choice. But you just did. The man could not be allowed to eat of the tree of life in his sinful condition and be in the presence of God with sin in him.God can not have sin in His presence that is why He turned His back on Jesus when He took my sins upon Himself on the cross. "My God, My God why hast thou forsaken Me?" I have a little illustration I use when I teach juniors (10-12 year olds) I will share here.I have a friend that has a ranch of several thousand acres with a beautiful mansion on it.If he was to invite you to come live on his ranch in his mansion and gave you one rule to obey. That rule was that there was one room that you could not open the unlocked door too. If you did you must leave the ranch. You would be allowed to stay on this ranch as long as you did not break this rule. Everything would be supplied. You would want for nothing. All you had to do was look after the ranch and not open the door.Let's say you enjoyed this ranch for several years but one day curiosity got the best of you and you had to open the door to the forbidden room.When you opened the door an alarm went off. A couple of hours later a moving van pulls up at the front door and the men get out and start loading all your stuff in the truck. When everything is loaded you are escorted to the front gate all your keys are taken to the ranch and you are deposited outside.Now my question is whose fault is it that you are outside the gate?Was it my friends fault because he put the requirements on you not to open the door?Or was it because you opened the door?Does any of your children or their descendants have any rights to come and live on my friends ranch?Now if my friend came to one of your descendants and offered him/her a way to live on his ranch they could do so if they were willing to meet the requirements of my friend.This is exactly what God did with the first man.
He put him on His estate.
Made one rule.
Man disobeyed.
Man was evicted.
Jesus came and paid the price for readmission to God's estate.
God then offered to let anyone come and live on His estate.
All you have to do is accept what Jesus did to pay your sin debt to pay the bill created by your ancestor and restore you to fellowship with God.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."

Bailey writes:Copy that. "In the day you eat of it you will surely die"Being banished from the garden.Toil and labor.Pain in child bearing.D Bertot

Hi Bailey, Actually the first part the man did not have a choice in.The only choice he had was to eat and die.Now I would be interested to know where a season is hinted at. That depends of God.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."

Thank you for the exchange autumnman. This would be enlightening and also quite an undertaking.
The narrative seems to sustain many corresponding layers.
Jaywill has pointed this out as well ... This should prove very insightful to those less versed, such as myself.Is it true one Hebrew term is employed to indicate "tree" in the Tree of Life,
and a separate one is used to indicate "tree" for the Tree of Knowledge?One Love

Hi Bertot, Below is a few passages that hint they do what they are told. Evil angels obeyed. The devil knew what the scripture says about angels. It makes no difference where they were evil angels or good angels they did what they were told to do.I can find no scripture that says they had a choice.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."

ICANT writes:ICANT thanks for posting these passages. I suppose I would see this as a commander directing his troops that still have free will. But it does not matter, everyone is entitled to thier opinion and this certainly is not a matter of fellowship. Thanks for you exchange in this discussion brother. We will put a fork in it and call it done, unless you hav someother comment for me.D Bertot

Thank you for the exchange Bertrot. How is this death to be interpreted as punishment from the God?
He plainly states a choice and a Tree are responsible for the ailment.How can we blame Him in good conscience?
lol - that is just plain ol' wrong of us.Death seems more appropriately interpreted as living by human moral authority, than actual loss of organic life anyway.
Else the God may be perceived as a liar ...
Such is not the case.So a choice and specific tree (cause) punish us by causing us to live apart from the God's moral authority (effect).The present opinion cannot blame the God for death.It will continue to blame the serpent as the God does. This specific precaution saved countless lives.
How is this effective punishment?? This was always the case, as Adam was created a dirt tiller.
Now he has to till while pickin thorns out of his backside.
And, again, he is warned ahead of the fact.Yet, even Adam's punishment, though for a separate infraction, is literally deflected to the ground.
The God said the ground is cursed because Adam did not consider the God's Words appropriately.The God was displeased Adam considered Eve's words more than His - correct? It is not easy to perceive as a punishment, the God foretelling the woman childbirth hurts more when He is not present.The present opinion perceives the species accountability regarding some displeasing events to the God.
However, it may be difficult to perceive any punishment declared by the God resulting from such events.
At least in relation to the human species introduced within the Garden narrative.Even you state, within post 105, that it is true the God knows the results, but that it is not the same as saying he dictated them.As far as can be currently reasoned, the God ...
* cursed (or punished) the serpent (not the woman) with mutative qualities.
* cursed (or punished) the ground (not the man) with mutative qualities.
* blessed (or covered) the bride of the species with prophetic expectations.
* blessed (or covered) the groom of the species with prophetic expectations.

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thank you for the exchange ICANT. Not if he was to become educated and learn to believe the God's Love.Yet, his choice to sustain stupidity and naivety is short lived.It is finally eradicated by a decision. lol - this was not his choice!This was his decision.The present opinion forgot you think the Jesus did not have choices either.All have choices, and most culminate in decisions.Reality is served well when the two are identified independently of one another.
Though they are interrelated, they are certainly not the same.A choice between red and blue is not equivalent to blue as a decision.
Blue as a decision is the effect; the cause is the enactment of choice. Good point - the Lovebirds do not reject the God's provision; the season is short lived.Yet, to clarify, the season begins the moment they were born unto knowledge.
Respectively, it ends when they respond to the God and are reborn unto Life ... His honesty perhaps ...One LoveEdited by Bailey, : spelling

ICANT, How do you feel about this passage then? If the angels only obey as a programmed automatons then why does Scripture say here that God charges them with error and is reluctant to sometimes trust them ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Bailey writes:Forgive me but these seem as odd responses. It seems you have taken a clear declaration in each instance a simply rearranged it to fit yours or a different perspective.This is like saying that a man that robs a bank and then is thrown in prison is NOT being punished because he now has a roof over his head and is getting three square meals a day, plus free medical care, wieight room and library.Yes, but now he is seperated from his family and his freedomYou do understand that the tree was responsible for nothing, as it possessed no qualities of intelligence. Reference to the tree is simply an application of illustration.You do understand that PUNISHMENT has less to do with where you end up or what conditions you are in, than it does, that it is simply right or wrong in the first place, correct? Yes, God could have kicked them out, strapped them to an electric fence, then had the angel gouge both of them with his pointy sword for three months straight, then finally had them cut into small pieces. Its right or wrong based on the objective moral right and wrong of Gods principles in the first place and that is all that really mattered anyway.Gods dealing with the punishments and what they were for each free will character involved was based on Gods eternal perspective. It was one thing for Satan another for the humans. I dont know about you but I would like to be hanging around in a garden right now, with no problems and everything provided for me.Its easy to simply rearrange the circumstances and the text to fit a theory. "As far as can be reasoned", then reason harder. I could rearrange each one of your thoughts above to make them say something totally different than what you intended, but would that be correct or justified. Or I could simply respon to what you have provided without rearranging your words. Is is correct to rearrange Gods specific edits in relation to thier punishment.I know there are many people sitting in prisons right now working on apppeals doing the same thing, but that does not make it right.D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Thank you for the exchange Bertrot. No apologies necessary, though your offer is humbly accepted.
Thank you for patience, as a religious background is lacking.Can the Truth be stranger than reality?
The present opinion would assume so. Those who believe their respective shamans rather than actual scripture and evidence before their very eyes can make such a claim.Please point out what has been rearranged or "made to fit"; perhaps, if the declarations seem to fit, they are accurate.
The present opinion does not find such logic inpenetrable, simply more reasonable and accurate than traditional dogma. We know the God is not malignant and does not pick on the handicap.
That said, how can we reasonably assume he punished the Lovebirds?Here is another analogy. We must keep in mind, the species does not realize the God is absolutely sure of His advice.
Unless one can provide some premise that allows the assumption the species knows otherwise.The same people who accuse the God falsely must interpret this scenario accordingly.
To them it is not the hot coals, or the act of touching it, that causes inflammation.It is the God that comes and punishes them for not understanding what hot coals do.
It is not bad enough that they are burned; religion calls more justice to be served.Religion often serves the human moral authority that instills death, mind you.
The Jesus has vouched.A creator that forms a species inherently obeying him is an ego maniac; not god.
To suppose the God created a species that He knows will not obey Him is one thing.That the God premeditates harsh punishments to counter this end is heretical.The God does not punish the ones He loves because they are retarded at birth and inherently uneducated.
He is the one Who has ordained such realities ...This is not to imply that a Loving Father does not reprimand His children.
Such an interpretation is approaching a severe departure form reality.Simply, that if they burn themselves on forewarned hot coals, the burns received will serve as reprimand.
There remains no need to kick the child in its face because it was stupid and did not believe the advice.Nice try - the God does not roll like that.
A common jackass behaves this way.
Perhaps Cain or the likes ... Quite obviously, as religion has been doing such for years.Please do not suppose an interpretation is proper because it is traditional.
The Jesus called out a handful of Pharisees for doing this.The most religious people of the day.Learning this will help understand your position.
Do you agree or disagree with the statement below.The God understands the species cannot distinguish the validity between His and the serpents word. Thank you for the encouragement.
The present opinion will continue to search for Truth. Yes, I am aware.Again, the Pharisees did this continually.Yet, perhaps it is closer to the Truth than some may think.
We may do well to set preconceptions to the side, just in case.We can always pick them back up if we get skeered. In the case of an innocent, such behavior may be the only thing that is right.Is it not better to take responsibility for our actions, than blame the circumstances on the God.Who can believe He desires to be accused falsely? Poison does not need to possess intelligence to kill you.
Do you suppose that "sin" is intelligent?It kills.Do you suppose it was not the fruit from the tree that caused the ailment (within the illustration)?The God allows the fruit to poison; but, does He cause it to poison?Why would the God employ the Tree as the vehicle of death, if it was Him?
Chances are, the God authorized parameters, but was not directly responsible.This also explains His apparent confusion and limited ability after the fact.
Most contributors like to ignore this ...What say ye. The God accuses the serpent of causing deceit and, accordingly, death to the God's beloved creation.The God does not accuse the bride (though she admits fault), nor does He ordain punishment to her.The God accuses the groom of listening to separate advice, and the ground's curse corresponds.The serpent, bride, and groom are all clearly reprimanded for separate infractions.The present opinion only percieves innocence as applicable to the God. This is very agreeable ... This is not.Many available insights may be overlooked when such a belief is established.
Perhaps, that the God's actions are quite limited, even if by His own Word.The present opinion believes He would like this acknowledged. Hang around the garden, clueless, unable to know the God's awesomeness?
Maintaining inherent ability to question Truth, while being employed as a scarecrow ...lol - no thanks.
I'd rather be human than angelic, or "neutral".
Apparently the Jesus would opt for this too.Seems better to distinguish the serpent's words from the God's.Better to know and Love the God, than not know or Love at all.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : addEdited by Bailey, : add

bertot [qs] You would have to know te author himself to know if the metaphor is based on an actual situation or not. If you are satisfied that the Eden narrative is metaphorical then I believe you have your reasons for doing so. As a matter of fact, I remember asking you why you did not believe it to be real and you said, "think about it Bertot a talking snake.[/b]My good friend: Let me reiterate the author’s terminology regarding the field in Genesis 2:5. The author states, “all plants of the field”, and “all herbs of the field” will begin to grow when “God causes it to rain”, and where “humanity will work the ground”. When the author of the Hebrew Eden Poem is taken at his word, the field that is being described is the natural field where God clothes the grasses and feeds the birds (although in Gen. 2:5 “flying creatures” have not yet been formed from the ground (see Gen. 2:19). The author of the Hebrew Eden Poem composed his narrative using a language and written script that dates to after the last Ice Age, and therefore, the terminology - “the field” - would be referring to the (actual) field that literally existed at the same time as his language, and, as it turns out, continues to exist to this day. It is the field where “rain” falls and all plants and all herbs sprout from “the ground”; the same ground that human farmers continue to work at this very moment.The author then introduces all creatures of the field in Gen. 2:19. Then the author introduces the serpent (who was) sensible/cunning above all creatures of the field which were made by yhwh God (Gen. 3:1). So now, the author is employing terminology that further defines the field as not only being where “all plants” and “all herbs” grow, and where “God causes it to rain”, and where “humans work the ground”, but also where “all creatures of the field” reside, and where “the serpent” is the most “sensible/cunning creature” God had made to reside in “the field”.If we take the author of the Hebrew Eden Poem at his word, the author is describing the field that at least most of humanity is familiar with and is regarded as being real. It is then from this literal, real, and actual place on planet earth that the author devises the metaphors he uses to compose the Hebrew Eden Poem.Since literal, real, and actual serpents of the field have never been able to speak any human language. it is safe to postulate that “the serpent of the field” that carries on a conversation in human language with a human woman in Gen. 3 is a figurative, metaphorical, and/or symbolic serpent of the field. It is how the author employs and contextually defines the terminology “the field” that lends credence to the above stated postulation.I hope the above reiteration helps move our discussion along. I would suggest reading the JPS Torah Commentary, Genesis, by Sarna; The Anchor Bible, Genesis Commentary, by Speiser; review the Illustrated Dictionary and Concordance of the Bible, and Larousse World Mythology. These texts share a number of “different interpretations” of the Hebrew Eden Text. An interpretation of the Hebrew Eden Narrative’s context, (e.g. “the field”), that is based on “physical and natural factors”, (as opposed to traditionally accepted dogmatic and superstitious factors), would most certainly appear to be the most reasonable and logical method of comprehending the content of an ancient Source Text. It would also be quite prudent to research the cultural and social lore that was prevalent at the approximate time when the ancient Source Text was composed and/or written. I employ the factors of relevant folklore of the time, as well as physical and natural phenomena when interpreting the Hebrew Eden Narrative’s context. I will quote the Judeo-Christian Messiah in an attempt to answer both of your questions:Matthew 18:3, Jesus said, “Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (KJV)Compare the above excerpt to Deuteronomy 1:39 ... little ones ... and ... children, which not they know this day good and evil ... they shall go in ... (Torah).The tree that is partaken of in the Garden In Eden is said to be, the “tree the knowledge of good and evil”, correct? Read what I have shared with you directly above.Since the Hebrew Eden Narrative speaks directly to the origin of humanity, and in doing so describes the partaking of a certain unhealthy knowledge which would be passed on to all succeeding generations, the Hebrew Eden Narrative certainly appears to supercede all that transpires after the unhealthy knowledge is partaken of.Due to the manner in which the Torah is composed, it certainly appears as though the Hebrew Eden Narrative lays the foundation of the Torah and the dogmatic religious thought that has been inspired by the Source Text. I am not certain I understand your question. Let me just say that in my opinion from the moment those words were spoken they have been pertinent to the human beings who have heard or read them. Absolutely, the “tree of the life” has considerable application outside merely being content and/or happy. In my opinion, the fruit of “tree of the life” possesses the wisdom that will expand one’s mortal consciousness beyond the confines of mortality, and enable the human mind to embrace the infinite aspects of the Sublime-Divine Creator (a.k.a. yhwh God).In my opinion, the Hebrew Eden Poem’s applications pertain to the past, the present, and the future, as well as the Sublime-Divine aspects of the One Infinite that holds us in Its Embrace.AM

Bailey: That is not true! There is only one Hebrew masculine noun used for both; that is 'etz which lexicographically denotes: "a living tree or trees, wood as raw materials, instruments or articles of wood, a gallows and/or cross employed for capital punishment".AM