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

Thank you for the exchange autumnman. Thank you for this.I have seen interpretations that incorporate the translation of the ToKnow as wood, while the ToLife is tranlated as tree. Wood does not bear seed or fruit. The present opinion agrees with you and cannot identify a reason to distinguish them separately within the available meanings.That is to imply, they are both representative of figurative, metaphorical, and/or symbolic trees that "bear fruit with seed in them according to their kinds". In this fashion, Gen 1:10-13 and 28-30 do not have the potential to discard their valuable insight regarding the Two Trees.One Love

Thank you for the exchange Bertrot.
Lengthy response ahead - lol Not sure what is meant by your employment of "unique", but I am obviously not wise and strong - lol
Nevertheless, the present opinion processes this as a compliment, as many said the same of the Jesus.The God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise and the weak things of the world to shame the strong. I agree with this.That said, I am inclined to ask why you do not interpret scripture in this way?
lol - I'm just bustin' yur chops (I stink at figurin this stuff out)
Seriously though ...After the God's provision of atonement is accepted and reconciliation of sin is established, He does not continue to punish you.
This is not to imply consequential punishments are not afforded to the species that has procured the knowledge of good and evil.Why shall we say the God punishes those He loves, when the opposite is true?
I see no reason to overlay imaginary punishments within the Garden narrative.
The disciplines that the God presents clearly should serve their task proper.In addition, what is the gain of assigning One a punisher if we evidence it is another?The present opinion does not deny ...A series of consequences surely unfold after the ToKnow was partaken of.The God cannot even see you if you are in a state of unreconciled sin.The relationship between the God and the Lovebirds increases in value.The God continually provides needs to those who acknowledge his voice.These too can be twisted and shaped in anyway, but they can all be evidenced clearly within the narrative. Again we are in agreement.That said, I do not know exactly what has been twisted.I do not wish us to twist anything, except if to potentially twist straight what has previously been twisted.
Thus, would it not be better to test if those before us, whose logic we inherit, may have been led astray.Numerous dogmatic assumptions seem too potentially contradict the text as is plainly written.
Without a fundemental background, or direct conference with the God, I rely on His Holiness.If an interpretation does not represent Him as such, it certainly cannot lead the Way to Truth.I do not know much, though I desire to learn; that said, is there not a chance we may agree?Some things are bound not to make sense when contemplating mysteries of the God.
People have been misrepresenting the God's Words since the beginning of mankind.The God deals with people, to their own measure, who represent the Word falsely.
There are plenty of examples we could share. Consider Luke 17:1-2.The present opinion believes such behavior must carry penalty.
It seems to even apply to those who follow as well at times.Much in the same fashion as all missing recess for the shenanigans of one class clown.Something jaywill shared encouraged the present opinion to establish such consideration.
If you can see, a historically proclaimed “great man of the God” also shows us an example. The present opinion percieves a sobering example of a great snare.
This applies directly to walking in spiritual power and authority.Representing the God proper, thus leading the Way to Truth ...There is much quarrelling taking place amongst the Israelites.
They quarrell with the God and Moses, as well as Aaron ...Moses and Aaron are pressured greatly by the people complaining of no water.The God commands Moses to take his rod, a symbol of authority given to him by the God.
He proceeds to tell Moses to simply speak to the rock to bring forth water.Whether he misunderstood the Words the God spoke, was on a power trip, or was simply
frustrated and disobeyed, instead of speaking to the rock, Moses struck it with his rod.Even so, by the Grace of the God, water came forth in abundance.Yet, does it not seem at a grave cost?
The God's discipline was most severe ... If the God gives us a staff, we cannot lead the Way to the Truth of the God's Love unless we Trust in Him enough to honor Him as Holy.Understanding is not served well when the God is misrepresented as wielding motivating impulses of malignant aggression.
Imagine what a wanker the Israelites must have been thinking the God was; meanwhile, their perception is fully hijacked.Must we bring you water out of this rock?Moses and Aaron also take credit, even though the God actually performs the miracle.
They guilt up the crowd real good and proceeds to tell them what the God thinks of 'em.
Moses makes sure he raises his hand and hits the rock twice too, so he looks extra cool.The God didn't call the Israelites names, but Moses calls them rebels...
Yet, Moses is supposed to be bearing the responsibility of representing the God ?!Not a very accurate representation if you ask me.Moses seems condescending in his tone and even more so by hitting the rock.
Not once, but twice, instead of simply speaking to it like commanded.Not that I would have likely had the patience to afford them either, but ...Maybe a better representation of God’s Word and Grace could have been relayed to the Israelites by Moses simply saying ,
”Rock, in the Name and the Power of the God of our Deliverance and Provision, please release water for those who God loves.”This is not to imply any of us will live up to the potential we possess to display our gratitde.
Nevertheless, here, a penalty is accrued for misrepresenting the Word and Heart of the God's Love.The Israelites would not have only received the blessing of the provision of water ...
Moses would not have been forbidden to lead the community into the God's promised land.If great men of the God misrepresent His character, how much more so are we inclined?Just sayin' ...A desire remains to establish a clear understanding of the first text chosen by the God.The present opinion assumes the serpent would have confused it long ago.
In this way, less of the species will offer the Words of the God credence.Why give the serpent the satisfaction? The God Loves, disciplines, and does not sin.
The serpent hates, punishes, and does sin.
The human loves, disciplines, hates, punishes & sins.I honestly do not think we are that far from common ground.
The God is not malignant and does not pick on the handicap.
Complete surprise is present if that is not agreed upon ...As far as I can reason, below is the extent to which we do not share Truth.Where you see direct punishment from the God, I see consequences of direct enslavement to a foreign spirit.We would do well to decide if we agree the God visibly exercises limited authority over this particular event.Fundamentally, it seems we are to percieve the God as the punisher within the narrative.
Yet, in doing this we deny that we struggle against spiritual forces and powers of evil.I believe the effects of the slavery of sin, recognized or otherwise, punish us.
Is this not the substance truly responsible for human separation from the God?
It can be evidenced that the God loses His ability to see us the first time we sin.
It is not until we respond to Him that He may further employ His Love.Why ignore the limits of the God, when He has chosen to share them?
They are surely not His weakness; rather, a source of His strength.In this light the God does not punish us, but rather the opposite of the God; sin.
Clearly, the God is directly responsible for the opposite of sin and its punishment.Do you see?We pit ourselves in opposition to the God by blaming Him for the consequences afforded by the serpents authority.In doing this we struggle against spiritual forces and powers of Love.An unnecessary and unfruitful contest. It is equivocally easy to make such an assertion when a proper value has been assigned to learning to Love the God, as opposed to avoiding life. Although I find this agreeable, should we not be thankful for the Son and thankful for the rain?
Anybody can be pleased with their situation when it serves them well; yet, the God desires more.The present opinion assumes the God desires us to be thankful, and at least content, in all matters.A challenge certainly ensues. Honestly, though my life has not transpired in the same fashion as Job's, I feel we know, as much if not more, why things are.
That said, I have tasted cold blue steel on more than one night and am rather ashamed of it; Truth is not always comfortable.I am thankful to be able to draw from the same well as Job, as it has allowed me to have this exchange with you. I do not wish to appear callous, as I know these are serious matters, but not to love and laugh is to not live ...
Perhaps you think Bailey lives within the digital landscapes of the interwebz as a curious strand of energy - lolI, too, am of spirit and flesh and have been subject to the spiritual and physical properties within the sphere.
Rest assured, many suffered greater than I, and suffering affords wisdom and insight otherwise unavailable.
We are told early on giving birth will be a painful experience, lest we should not be surprised.My hope is no matter how hard it rains on us, our foundations are established in such a way that erosion cannot occur.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : spelling

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thank you for the exchange ICANT.
I used to hug trees for a living. Apparently, it may become difficult not to when separating sin from Love.The God is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in Love.
Unless undermined, His testimony is bound to come across as permissive.Love is patient, love is kind.It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the Truth.
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.Love never fails.What do you prefer??Shall the God come to you with a whip to punish and hate you ... * delight in evil
* easily angered
* self-seeking
* envy
* boast
* proud
* rudeOr in love and with a gentle spirit to discipline and Love you? * rejoices with the Truth
* no record of wrongs
* always perseveres
* always protects
* always trusts
* always hopes
* never fails
* patient
* kindLove is not the substance of the law and sin, but rather the opposite of such.
Love does no harm to its neighbor, thus, Love is the fulfillment of the law.lol - they cannot even stand to be in the same room together.Further consider, if you will ... There is likely a reason we are told the God sees and knows, and not accuses and punishes.
The God sees and knows our affliction and anguish, and even rescues us from it.
It would be a departure from reality to suggest He causes it though.Note ...
The God's teammates are often referred to as disciples ...Not punishables - lol.The God disciplines His children in the ways of locating snares.
Accordingly, the God frees his children from traps.Somebody else sets them though.
This one punishes the catch. Thank you for this.It also tells us all partake of chastisement, yet you ignore that.Skewed truth ensues ...Let us include verses 7 & 9 and continue searching Truth in this passage. If by chastise, you mean the God does not bless decisions that are not based upon motivating impulses of Love, than I agree.He does not have a choice ... No choice means no decision ... No decision, no punish.In what way is sin enforced by the God not making a decision?We can see it is sin, and its CEO, that punishes if we acknowledge the God does not partake in sin.
If we suppose the God is capable of sinning, we can accordingly assume He employs punishments on its behalf.There is a spirit who does; it has authority to establish and enforce sins boundaries.The present opinion does not suggest the God partakes of sin.
The God does not enforce sin; rather, He salvages agape Love.True Love cannot be forced.
Its principles can be.
And are.A Holy process and waiting period ensue.
Hence, the salvation of the God's Love.We know the spiritual authority afforded to the species through sin is an evil force.
So are we to think the God is an evil force, because He enforces the "penalties" of sin?Such a grandiose stretch of the imagination may lead to a collapsed reality, my friend.Are the wages of sin not death?The God pays his children in Life.
He has the authority to do this.The serpent robs the others of life.
It has the authority to do this.The God does not.If so ... dead snake.
Not simply mutilated.Do you see?Someone else will slay the serpent.
Someone who the God gives authority.Someone who Loves you and your species.Jaywill wisely tells of a mechanism of deputy authority utilized by the God to sustain Love.
Appears the God's deputy, in charge of punishing, is the most cunning and deceitful serpent o' ol'.Please stop accusing the God falsely brother.He does nothing but Love you. Fairly perverted statement, in context.
Unless you have been misunderstood ...Redundancy is employed to drive the Truth home.All are chastised, as all are His children.
One who does not accept the provision denies their birthright.
They become His illegitimate children.As the God is the Father of all, all are chastised.
The verse you provided clearly states the Truth.If ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers ...All are chastised.
Some don't respond.They do not grab ahold of the Life Saver.
Their contentment lies in troubled waters.
They have drowned in confusion.
These ones may not evolve.They become illegitimate children of the God.
Though some display Him as such, He is not a tyrant.The God will not force one to live.
Much less with Him. lol - obviously correct.The serpent does not have children to chastise.
It has slaves to punish and manipulate with hate.The slaves are the God's children.
Of whom, the God does chastise.That is, the God blesses any decisions they enact based upon motivating impulses of Love.
We can evidence the God chastises the slaves of the serpent if we believe the God's Words.If the serpent had children that rebuked eternal sin, would the God not chastise them too? Wow - po' lil' buggas ...Oh wait - you say anyone without chastisement belongs to the devil?The God says, "... chastisement, whereof all are partakers,"!!None of the God's children or the serpents slaves can evade chastisement.The present opinion suggests one who commits eternal sin will sustain eternal punishment.What does the God say about eternal sin? Again, a tree is recognized by its fruit ... lol - did you miss the whole point?When the God is misrepresented as an asshole, the forfeiture of blessings occurs.
Thus, authorizing the serpent to inflict a penalty, or "punishment".If you are implying they were punished by the God, the present opinion suggests "or not".Moses and Aaron experienced discipline, and the forfeiture of a potential blessing.
You cannot reasonably blame the God for Moses authorizing the effects of sin.Well, I suppose you can, but it is rude and unnecessary. What was said?
That is surely what was meant.The present opinion does not consider discipline and punishment equivocal.
Understanding is served well when corresponding meanings are distinguished from one another.Who puts the children through painful exertion and inflicts penalties?
Which is the one that handles the species severely & roughly?
What spirit inflicts pain, loss, confinement, and death?
Is this not the spirit that punishes and hates?Respectively, who provides activities and exercises that develop and improve our Love?
Which is the one that employs a state of order and obedience by training us up?
What Spirit provides reprove by way of correction and affection?
Is this not the Spirit that disciplines and Loves?The serpent punishes and tortures the ones it hates.
The God disciplines and chastises the ones He Loves.
The serpent hates the ones the God Loves.
The God loves all.Easy math ...The present opinion evidences the God simply does not have a choice when we sin.Not until we give Him one by answering His voice.
Authority to bless and discipline are immobilized.
It is out of His Hands until reconciliation occurs.The serpent ascertains authority to inflict penalty.Thus, if the God does not have a choice, how can we reasonably state it is His choice to punish us???
When Moses and Aaron strayed from the narrow path of Truth, that opportunity for a blessing was forfeited.Two points for the serpent.
Though it will not win ...If the God could bless us when we sin, He would have provided this for Moses.
Unfortunately, He would no longer be the God, as He would be promoting sin.Do you see?The present opinion asserts one can consider the God's ability to not bless you, when you sin, a punishment.
As long as it is realized He could not do it even if He wanted to, and for this reason He should not be blamed.Respectively, all you would be stating is that the God has no choice but to punish you.
Thus, a more accurate statement would be, the God does not have a choice to bless you.One cannot reasonably blame the God for Moses authorizing the effects of sin.One can blame Moses or the other spirit that he struggles against.
They are both the immediate cause of the loss, or "punishment".Not the God.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : grammar

Thank you for the exchange. Jaywill has presented a strong case ...The majority of evidence suggests a minor portion of angels enacted decision based within a choice to live at Home with the God or die elsewhere without Him. The present opinion does not put much stock in defective chimeras.This is not to imply they cannot serve usefully as tools when contemplating a literal, figurative or metaphoric process that attempts to defy Love of the God. That said, the possible existence of angels is not dismissed.Jude tells of those who might talk smack about angels and illustrates how Michael may have debated with the serpent over Moses' ... He also informs us, the God has held in eternal chains those angels who did not keep their own position but abandoned their assigned place. They are held in deepest darkness for judgment on the great day.It is often debated whether Jude 1:14 cites the pseudepigraphical book of Noah's great grandpa, Enoch. Being found first in Noah's great grandpa's book, it reasonably follows the author of Jude, at least, was reading Enoch and believed in the prophesies given within the text ...Constantine, and perhaps others, seemingly did not ...The messengers, or "watchers", spoken of through out Enoch are mentioned also in Daniel 4 ... Authoring within apocryphal books of Enoch expound, in part, as to what has taken place.The word "apocrypha" acquired a negative connotation, at times employed as a synonym for "spurious" or "false" as sixteenth-century controversies over biblical canon developed. The present author feels such does not make it so, or otherwise. These texts are of uncertain authenticity and, falling outside of canon, the authorship may be duly questioned.That said, below are some potential illuminations from equally potential darkness ...The ones spoken of seem to be the same angels who are referred to as the Sons of the God in the Book of Genesis. Accordingly, their "sins" filled the Earth with violence and spherical existence was purged as a result of their intervention. Richard Cavendish, amongst others, supposes a portion of the watchers are fallen angels which magicians call forth in ceremonial magic. Cavendish mentions that the watchers were so named because they were stars, the "eyes of night." In his book, The Powers of Evil, he makes references to the biblical giants possibly being in relation to the Giants or Titans of Greek Mythology. He refers to the Nephilm in Genesis ... Enoch, a direct descendant of Adam and ancestor of Noah, is believed by many to have been taken away by the God and became known as the angel Metatron.lol - Metatron went on to play a small role in the movie Dogma.The introduction to the Book of Enoch tells us that Enoch was "just man, whose eyes were opened by God so that he saw vision of the Holy One in the heavens, which the sons of God showed to me, and from them I heard everything, and I knew what I saw, but [these things that I saw will] not [come to pass] for this generation, but for a generation that has yet to come." It discusses the God coming to Earth on Mount Sinai with his hosts to pass judgement on mankind. It also tells us about the luminaries rising and setting in their order and in their own time; never changing. And now, free will ...The first section of the text depicts the interaction of the fallen angels with mankind; the kingpin Smazz compels the other 199 fallen angels to take human wives to "beget us children" ... This results in the creation of the Nephilim (Genesis) or Anakim/Anak (Giants) as they are described in the text ... It also discusses the teaching of humans by the fallen angels, namely Azzl ... Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel appeal to the God to judge the inhabitants of the world and the fallen angels. Uriel is then sent by the God to tell Noah of the coming apocalypse and what he needs to do. The God commands Raphael to imprison Azzl ... The God commands Michael to bind the fallen angels ... Again, it is good to note these texts are of uncertain authenticity and, falling outside of canon, the authorship may be duly questioned.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : grammar

Thank you for the exchange brother ICANT. For the record, the present opinion does not percieve Enoch as an angel.He was truly a man after the God's own heart. The written account of Adam's line will testify to the former.
Noah, the ark builder, is his great grandson correct?Enoch remained within the sphere for one year of years.He walked with the God; then he was no more, because the God took him away. lol - is this a trick question?Like all, they have two tasks.
Show the Heavens and earth how to Love.
Love, themselves, as the God's neighbor.The serpent opted for self employment; yet, not in the beginning.In the beginning, all is One.Lucifer's job is to display how the God can be Loved.
Michael's job is to encourage it from doing elsewise.He is extremely busy ... The serpent displays how, all but, the God can be Loved.
It could convince many to worship Moses ol' bones.
No need for an additional denomination.Very insightful ICANT.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : grammar

Acknowledged.May you, in the Jesus name, continue to pray for your brother. Jaywill has provided a strong case, soley from canonical sources.
The present opinion finds such behavior highly commendable. Noted. This is absolutely correct.Nor does it bring the book of Jude into alternative resource texts of pseudepigraphal or apochryphal nature.Not the present opinion, or Nicea, can alter reality.The Holy Spirit will place His Words of Truth where He sees fit. He quoted non religious Truths to non religious people.
Paul understood the confusion within religious thought.
It almost killed him; how could he employ it? Not in the least. The present opinion assumes you thankful of all things.Glory to the God.One Love

Thank you for the exchange. The present opinion finds this a very agreeable, as well as note worthy. Jaywill, autumnman, and ICANT have consistently provided tremendous insights within this thread. Perhaps we can regroup some of the most prominent and controversial examples we have contemplated as Truth.For instance, it is also difficult to evidence that the Adam, personally, was told of the Tree of Life; until he left the Garden.* The man is told of specifically of trees that provide harm (even if with benefit)
* The God was not hiding anything from the man in a malignant fashion.
* Adam did not choose the 'wrong' tree; serpent cannot accuse of such.What are the initial, and lasting, impressions and ramifications of these various bits of Truth?In what way does the garden narrative introduce us to the character of the God?One LoveEdited by Bailey, : grammar

Thank you for the exchange jaywill. It would be a shame for you to inadvertently present a case the serpent would employ. Please do not feel pressed to reach outside of the Truth, on my account, to 'prove' something that cannot be evidenced. The present opinion suggests concepts not plainly evident in scripture are likely irrelevant to salvation or simply parting from the Truth and potentially effecting such processes adversely.Jaywill's hearts desire is close to the Truth, no doubt. This is very creative, yet seemingly reflective of the Truth. Then you turn around and step in the same hole - lol Yes, this is half of the Truth.Above man Two Trees are mentioned ... not one. First, they are both mentioned to the reader and no indication of choosing between them is evident. Second, the Tree of Knowledge is presented to the Lovebirds so their awareness of harm is more complete. The God does not inform the Lovebirds of the benefit's contained within either tree until Genesis 3:22. At that point the God concedes their corresponding benefits and eliminates another, yet new, impending danger. This is in stark contrast to simply warning of the other tree's properties. We can evidence the danger of the species being prone to deception around 3:13... And are shortly informed of man's newly acquired ability which is better left to mortals early in Genesis 4 ... In conclusion, two trees are first presented equally to the reader. Next, one tree, containing good and bad, is specifically mentioned to the man in the garden. The 'good' properties of both Trees are witheld likely in an attempt to reduce bias. Finally, human reality is begun and the species is enlightened regarding the Tree of Life; and told of the various benefits both trees possess.Basically, in the beginning of the Garden they are informed of the tree of knowledge ... at the end of the garden they are informed of the Tree of Life. That is what this copy of the NIV says anyway.The present opinion finds much humility within the God's reasoning. Any 'god' can tell ya what is 'good' about His 'special' trees. Apparently, it takes the God to tell us what is unfortunate regarding them though. He must not offer the lil' ones candy to gain their trust. The present opinion believes the Tree of Life represents the One that established everliving Life and the remnant that clings fast to His Love.They, too, are the first fruits of a new creation when the Gospel is known. Man must partake of the Tree of Life to become a unified and more fulfilled creation. But, what can be fulfilled that does not first exist? Mankind must first partake of the former Tree, as well, to become a unified creation. The human species cannot unite with the Tree of Life without first partaking of the Tree of Knowledge.We know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, symbolized within the Tree of Knowledge, we have a building from the God, an eternal house in heaven, symbolized within the Tree of Life, not built by human hands. Meanwhile many groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked like the Lovebirds. For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by Life. Now it is the God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.Therefore, the present opinion is always confident. It is known as long as we are carbon based, we are away from the God. This school of thought lives by faith; not by sight alone. Within Genesis, both Trees are presented as food to be taken in and ingested and assimilated into the body; unless we force bias.
The present opinion will attempt not to force bias, as the God did not present any additional bias regarding either tree; excluding the species well being. Supposing both trees are not to be considered 'good' is a direct impartation from the Truth. This is not meant to imply the that one tree does not contain 'bad' as well. The Tree of Knowledge obviously contains both; yet containing both does not cause one to shine brighter than the other. It must reasonably contain good and bad in equal portions. Independence from the God provides contrast to His Love.The God later declares additional properties associated with the Tree of Knowledge, and we can evidence it is both good and bad simply by identifying its name. Yet no one can say it was not good for food without first claiming their truth's is greater than the God's. Also pictured here is the fact that no man will do such a thing without first partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. And jaywill provides more creatively valuable, and mostly agreeable incites. Adam is told of the Tree of Life's signifigance; just not until after he begins to break out of his 'neutral' cocoon.The God also provides a bias against deceitful murders. Thassa lotta minglin' - lol. We see what a difficult time 'neutral man' had co-minglin' with the God. Perhaps to take from the Tree of Knowledge should mean to enter into a semester of education, so the co-minglin' can eventually take place. The God likely does not get the same satisfaction mingling with scarecrows as he does minglin' with people that know and detest unfulfilled Love.One Love

Thank you for the exchange Jaywill. The point of debate here is not to argue semantics; rather to remove an invalid opportunity for the serpent (religion) to accuse.The conviction of guilt readily available towards the species in such an instance is simply not reasonable; or available. If mankind had a choice between the Two Trees, the species may, though hardly, be convicted by the serpent in such an instance. Yet, as we have proven together, such a dichotomy does not exist within the unmolested Words of the God. Any feeling of guilt or conviction within such an unevidenced dichotomy, appears contrived by man; not the Holy Spirit.This is not to imply mankind should choose one Tree and not the other, or vise versa. Simply that the God intended for the man to partake of the Tree of Knowledge and then, respectively, the Tree of Life, consecutively in that order. Through Adam and the serpent, all are obligated to partake of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. With this tree we have a choice to die, yet not a choice to dictate and experience our birth. Through Jesus and the Father, all may choose to partake of the Tree of Life. With this tree we have no choice to die, yet a choice to dictate and experience our birth.The present opinion suggests the undertaking and completion of the God's reality depend upon both Trees being assimilated by the human species.One Love

Thank you for the exchange jaywill. Thank you for keeping us to the same standard. It is not being asserted the Lovebirds are informed after the 'expulsion', rather after their deception. That is what was meant by 'breaking out of their neutral cocoon'. One can certainly evidence the trees being spoken of towards the end of the garden narrative; the verse is 3:22. Please provide a verse evidencing the God 'speaking' of the Tree of Life before the Lovebirds are deceived into partaking of the lesser tree (Gen 3:6). The Tree of Life was 'spoken' of before expulsion, yet not before deception. This is where hairs must be split; yet, there is no need for us to play with words. It is not explicitly written the Lovebirds were told before they were deceived into partaking of the Tree of Knowledge. There is a valuable verse telling of the Trees; however, they are not being "spoken" of. It is the same verse that states all trees, including the Two in the center, are good for food and pleasing to the eye. It is explicitly written the God speaks of the Trees directly before the expulsion from Eden. The God speaks of them directly after covering the Lovebirds. The God covers the Lovebirds, protecting their flesh from thorns and thistles, and then speaks of the Two Trees. It is explicity written, plainly. Please do not feel this is being done to derail you. It is done in hopes you will return the favor; which you do. It is appreciated, and not to pat you on the back, but I am thankful that you are proofing this opinion. The present opinion concedes. The present opinion concedes. Providing we are speaking in terms of expulsion from Eden. If we are speaking in terms of before or after the deception in Eden, than such speculation is not equivalent. The present opinion finds this mostly agreeable; not sure what is meant to support though. It does not change the fact that a dichotomy choosing between the two trees is not supported within the Eden text. It appears contrived by religion, whether maliciously or otherwise. I am not a religious fella, and I am not attempting to insult anyone. The present opinion simply does not perceive benefit in beholding text in opposition to how it is plainly written. It is plainly stated both Trees are good for food and pleasing to the eye; why is this ignored? No. I am simply trying to make sense of it. The God would not reasonably say the Tree of Knowledge was good for food and pleasing to the eye, much less confirm it, if it was not the case. It is plainly stated both Trees are good for food and pleasing to the eye. The present opinion is, simply, not willing to ignore that. There is no reason, other than religious assumption, to suppose the tree did not offer great benefits, as well as great consequences.For instance, the fact that we became more like the God knowing good and evil seems to place us in a better position to judge the serpent. Additionally, we can know verify the God's wisdom, as we have a basis of comparison. The present opinion beholds faith as important, yet not where evidence is readily available.Again, adversely, we can now dispute the God's wisdom; then again we were able to be swayed in our 'neutral cocoon' as well, or we would not have been able to be deceived. Regardless, it is the tree of good and evil ... This is what I have been telling you - lol. Teaching that Adam chose the wrong tree is a fallacy, as he knew of only one tree at the time of his deception (according to the Eden text). The present opinion agrees - just not sure we are understanding what is written as He intended. Thank you for posting this verse. How shall we reconcile it unto the former verse for the Truth to be more completely revealed (Genesis 2:9)?We know according to Gen 2:9 the Tree of Knowledge is good for food and pleasing to the eye.We know according to Gen 2:17 the Tree of Knowledge is also a tree that promotes adverse consequences.An accurate interpretation must not discard these facts; you disagree?? The God does Love Life. Yet, you will humor the notion that the Tree contains no benefit, although it is plainly stated it is good for food.I want to show you something ... Yes, the God was not aware of the man's actions at first. Granted the following is speculation, yet I think the God would not have lost sight of the man, had the man partaken of the Tree of Knowledge while employing proper motivating impulses. It appears the motivating impulses behind the decision to partake from the Tree of Knowledge were the seeds of our reality.Perhaps if the Lovebirds ate out of Love and understanding of its harsh consequence, as a sacrafice of sorts, reality would become Love and understanding. The serpent knew this, and deceived the Lovebirds to foil their chance at true love, and in turn planted seeds of deception and disobedience. Adam and Eve's motivating impulses were manipulated by the serpent. Remember, the pharisees said the same thing to Paul and the Jesus. Nevertheless, I thank you for your proof reading and prayer on my behalf; I am in debted. Literal interpretaions serve well. The present opinion is not supposing the infallibility of such an interpretation, yet all Truth seems to pass through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident.Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) Yes. Let us please stick to the facts as plainly presented ...We know according to Gen 2:9 the God declares the tree of knowledge is one of Two Trees among the those He considers good for food and pleasing to the eye; no bias is revealed to the Adam.We know according to Gen 2:17 the God predicts man's decision - first prophetic utterance.
Utilizing the tree of knowledge, the God again promotes a bias towards mankinds safety and well being. The fruit from the tree of knowledge promotes adverse consequences such as death/human moral reasoning. It is also wise to note that Adam was created as a mortal being, if for no other reason than to vindicate the value contained within the Tree of Life. A dichotomy between man's relative human moral reasoning and the God's absolute supreme wisdom seems quite prominent. Being created within the bodily mortal confines associated with death, however, appears to lessen the dichotomy between life and death temporarily, although not completely; spiritual life and death must also apply. It appears the majority of dissension between our interpretations remains within this verse; this should be clarified in the next post.Next, it is confirmed the tree of knowledge is good for food, pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom according to Gen 3:6.We know according to Gen 3:7 when we eat it of the Tree of knowledge we will have our eyes opened.We know according to Gen 3:22 when we eat it of the Tree of knowledge we will become more like the God.There are more adverse consequences that we shall certainly move on to, such as the adverse effect of 3:22.It appears we cannot take hold of everliving continous Life without some form of guarantee that we will not employ/serve human relative morality.This is nothing less the unfulfilled Love alternately identified as 'sin'. Anyone that thinks relative morality/sin/unfulfilled Love will serve mankind forever is more bizarre than I; it will eventually serve the species extinction, or death as you say, as it almost already has.lol - well it won't really, but it could have if the Jesus did not decide, based upon motivating impulses of agape Love, to partake of the fruit that killed Him on our behalf. That cross was the fruit from the Tree of Life! And now you, and all who Love Life, get continuous everliving Life with the One who Loves you the most! Let us interpret considering the facts above, as well as the others.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : spelling

Thank you for the exchange jaywill.
This post is brief - to be continued.
Happy Holidays brothers ...This snippet will be addressed first ... Thanks, but no thanks; I'd rather not. It cannot be done successfully anyway. That is the point being expressed in the previous post - lolYou will not follow me there, as that path will not be traversed by my spirit. However, the general spirit of religion goes there frequently; becareful to follow the Jesus and not religion. Me either brother jaywill; not in the least. Perhaps this is why my spirit is able to hold yourself, ICANT, and autumnman in high regard; regardless of our differences in understanding the God's Love. You may be correct jaywill. When interpreting scripture, it seems good to consider the passages before and after the verse you are interpreting. In Gen 3:21 the God protects the Lovebirds with durable coverings; directly following this action the God speaks. The verses are consecutive and within the same paragraph; considering this, it seems rather likely they heard His discussion. The God has not made a habit out of keeping the ones He Loves uninformed; quite the opposite actually. Whether we listen or hear what we are being informed of is a horse of a different color - lol Upon careful scrutiny, you will likely find our presentation of the time line in agreement. Read this sentence and ask yourself what value we may assign to the God's unspoken Word. The present opinion does not evidence an element of secrecy, as much as irrelevancy. The Tree of Knowledge was for the first Adam/knowledge. The Tree of Life was for the only Jesus/everliving life. Why would Adam, who was designated to provide the reality of knowledge, need to know of the Jesus tree. It simply does not seem to pertain to the God's purpose for the Lovebirds. The Truth is, Adam was not meant to die for my chance at survival, rather the Jesus; it appears Adam was meant to die for my chance at knowledge. Adam did not and could not ever die for our 'sins'; therefore, he did not need to know of the Tree of Life. The present opinion assumes Adam was not informed for this reason. Adam was not meant to die for sins belonging to the ones the God loves.Perhaps the God wanted Adam to form his decision to die for mankind's knowledge (not salvation) of his own accord, with full understanding that he would suffer, though less than the greater One, for mankind's benefit (not salvation). Instead, the plan was corrupted by the serpent. This would be comparable to the serpent attempting to persuade the Jesus to rule the world by its authority, instead of the Father's. Remember, the serpent tried to sell the Jesus a similiar line of shit ... First, Adam had all the information he needed to live out his days as the God purposed for him; without being privy to the Tree of Life. The God did not purpose for him, but rather the Jesus, to supply the population with salvation/survival and everliving life contained within the fruit ot the Tree of Life.Secondly, the God does not reveal the greater benefit's within a fruit until after the fruit as been chosen. He does not initially tempt with sweet candy, but hardships. When the hardship is chosen, the God begins to reveal the greater benefit associated within.Third, there are many benefits contained within the tree of knowledge, contrary to popular opinion. Like anything else, we miss valuable insight when we are not thankful for all things.The fruit from the 'evil' tree immediately allowed the God's words to become evident Truth to the woman, who formerly did not recognize them as such. That is some pretty strange 'evil' fruit - lolWe know she found the good in the good and evil, and accepted the God's Love. Her son found the evil in the good and evil and did not accept the God. Yet, without the fruit from the tree of knowledge, the God's Words were not accepted as Truthful by the woman He created. lol - let us ignore the Words of the God some more (not really), instead of trying to make sense of it.We will continue to pray and earnestly seek and discern the Truth; where two or more are gathered in His name, He is in the midst.Jaywill, ICANT, autumnman, onifre, and everybody reading this post before Dec. 26 - Have a Merry Christmakwanzahanukkah !!Much love from the Bailey !!Edited by Bailey, : spelling

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thank you for the exchange. Such an assertion seems partially valid and a more complete understanding appears readily available. The present opinion suggests the serpent's act of deception remains the primary cause, initially allowing the couple a comparative basis to the God's Words. The deception concerning the God's Words is indeed coupled with actual disobedience and disregard when Adam listens to another person, Eve, who encourages him to disregard the advice of the One who loves them the most. This second mechanism is not delivered as deception; as ICANT as shown, it involved being 'disobedient', or enacting a decision based upon destructive motivating impulses.Primarily, the seed of knowledge/awareness of evil gets planted within reality by the serpent's deception of (Eve, the mother of) all the living. Secondarily, the 'evil' seed is watered by Adam's decision to serve his companion's advice, instead of his Father the God's advice. The knowledge/awareness of evil was a seed planted by a lesser creature in mankind's reality; not to be confused with disobedience on mankind's behalf. The two appear quite distinct and seem consecutive of one another.Mercy trumps judgement.One Love

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