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

Many times when communicating to each other the idealism of the Genesis, the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil alone takes the focal point.
Yet, there were two trees in the Garden.
When Adam and Eve ate of the tree of Knowledge, they were destined to perpetuate the fruit of that tree; consequently, death spread to all their descendants. But God said if they were to eat from the Tree of Life they would live forever.

• What does this imply?

God’s first act of creation was to bring forth light. The very next thing He did was separate the light from the darkness. There cannot be cohabitation between light and darkness. When a person seeks God, God begins to separate the light from the darkness in their life. Many times we, as people, take over this work and perform it the only way we know how - through the knowledge of good and evil.

• Is this struggle between law and grace and between flesh and spirit the source of inner dischord afflicting many?

In the Garden of Eden there were two trees that challenged the course of the entire human race - the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life. Metaphorically these same two trees seem to continue to challenge many of us. Whether you become a “Christian” or not these challenges do not end - they may well increase. Many times we will have to choose between the fruit of these trees.

• Could it be, that between them lies the focal point of the dichotomy between the Kingdom of God and the present “evil” age?

Understanding the difference between these two trees may help us to understand the most common errors besetting the entire human race, including those which have repeatedly misled the “church”.

• Is it significant that these two trees were in the center of the garden?
• Could it be, that we must each make a choice which of these trees will be in the center of our life?

Anybody interested in taking a moment and examining the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil??Bible Study, please.

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thank you for the reply jaywill.
I will try to behave ... This is certainly debatable.
Though he may have known how to operate a mexican backhoe, he was not quite Einstein.As we've evidenced, ignorance of the Knowledge of Good and Evil did not choose the Tree of Life in the story.
Mankind's ignorance of the Knowledge of Good and Evil does not contain the Tree of Life's value within its reality.The man is surely not yet wise jaywill.
Contrary, I would suggest uneducated.You seriously disagree? The child often names the pets. lol - great mental prowness ... a stretch jaywill.
It likely required the ability to grunt a plethora of phonological syllables. A long time ago, our cat was named Midnight.
As a child, I was employed to name her ...
She was a black cat.I did not know calculus at the time ... lol - I agree he was a fine human specimen ...
Nonetheless, his carbon based form succumbed to the effects of nature within the sphere. I do not follow.Let's veiw this causally ...
I suggest mankind's brilliance cannot be immediately evidenced, tho rudimentary concepts form as he becomes educated.In your assertion, mankind's exclusivity caused him to be brilliant.
The exclusivity is the cause, and brilliance is somehow the effect.His brilliance is certainly not evident within the Garden account ...Please expound. Now we're cookin' with Mrs.Dash! We concede ...
This can be clearly evidenced by our inability to circumvent the laws of physics, and the likes.
Though gravity's effects can be manipulated for a season, everything must rejoin the sphere or it will expire.Seemingly, no amount of intelligence can successfully defy the governing Laws of the God's universe ...Potentially, all things are accountable to Gravity and Love.What goes up, must come down. Again we concede ...
Though I would say, a high or low IQ can cause a human to "graduate" to trusting the God.Respectively, guilt and lies often make a human "graduate" from wanting to trust the God ...The Son knew this, as evidenced by His interactions with the holy rollin' Pharisees. Concede ... Concede ...
The God's Spirit and the God's Word alone maintain the duty to convict.
It is not the duty of His employees to attempt such feats.
Check with your manager if you don't believe ...Also, in its root, convict equates to convince - not guilt.
Repeat, guilt is not synonymous with convince and convict.The Good One employs Truth to convince.
A jerk employs guilt to the same end. I concede ...Respectively, many feelings of guilt derived from defective interpretations of the God's Word are destructive, not constructive. I concede the God never convinces man of the Truth simply to make him depressed and saddened for His own sake.
However, religion often employs guilty convictions to make one depressed and saddened for its own ends.I'm sure this will continue until the beginning ... And yet, molestations of the God's Word's are wielded callously, in turn driving many away from spiritual and human evolution ... I do not stake that complaint jaywill.
Moreover, I suggest the opposite is true ...In declaring the Truth, if I complain, it is the Word of the God that is not represented truthfully by religious zealots.Pharisees employ guilt for convictions ...The God employs Truth to convince ...You disagree? Are you sore at the God because you were born stupid - lolThis stupidity of man can be equated to the naivety of a newborn baby jaywill.Babies don't know much ... yet.The Truth does not need guilt to convince ...
Life can be very convincing when the facts are openly laid out.You assert the man was brilliant and so, in his brilliance, he chose the Tree of Knowledge.
You then suggest it was the wrong Tree for him to choose.
Where is the logic in this?I assert it was the right choice, though I do not claim man's brilliance as the motivating factor.Ironically enough, this unregretable choice was motivated by a lack of education.You suggest it is a newborn baby's fault it does not know algebra ...Then you assert the newborn baby knew algebra.Which is it? On the contrary brother jaywill ...Now, do you see how words play a bias concerning people's interpretations and emotions?Is it a newborn babies fault it is not yet wise?
This is proposed as nothing more or less than a defence for the human species.
The species is not to blame, any more than you would blame a newborn baby jaywill.If you don't believe me, check Romans 8:19-21.This does not somehow alleviate individual accountability within the human species regarding the God's Law of Love.It remains possible ...
The God allowed His purpose to be written down by men, so that people employing knowledge could more clearly evidence religious misconceptions regarding Him.That's about where I'm at - lolThank you for your time & thought jaywill.
More appreciated than you know ...Edited by Bailey, : spelling

Thank you for the exchange jaywill. Yes, I concede ...
Adam was the envy of all the wild beasts, although it does not somehow negate his inherent lack of knowledge and wisdom.
Being the envy of a racoon does not seem to strengthen the defense of Adam's intelligence, or lack thereof ...The God created the species without knowledge or wisdom.
The "magic" fruit did not give it either of the two.
It simply gave us the ability to assemble some ...Please demonstrate otherwise. It only becomes a problem when one injects a "pre-intelligence" factor that does not actually exist. Not really a good question, so to speak.It is obvious, for all intents and purposes, that the Lovebirds did not possess intelligence to begin with.This all but explains their choice, and so there is little, if any, reason to suppose otherwise ... I find it hard to imagine you believe the Tree of Life contained any value to the Lovebirds.
If you have any evidence to support this notion please submit it accordingly with a chapter and verse.
Though the evidence of its lack of value to the Lovebirds is very plain, follow closely below ...
All who discount the Truth will not see it. Exactly my point jaywill.The Tree of Life is "unguarded" and the Lovebirds do not associate any value to it. If they did it would be evident by them choosing it.
Seeing as they didn't, it seems safe to assume they associated an arbitrary value to another tree ...The Tree of Knowledge.You disagree? I concede ...Yet all who associate a value with the Tree of Life are welcomed to partake.
It is simply those who do not, that may not.You disagree? I never stated such a load of bullocks - lol
I asserted that, prior to the Lovebirds choosing, the appointed time for the Tree of Life had not been fulfilled.Also, I asserted that measures were taken to promote a value to the Tree of Life.
And it was indeed done after the uneducated man chose the Tree of Knowledge.You assert the God enacted measures that alienate mankind from Him.
I simply state your "alienating measures" serve better as an emergency beacon to the distressed. I do not know of any way a Tree of Knowledge can survive, apart from evolving into a Tree of Life.
It is the God's plan and I had little, if anything, to do with it.
You will have to take this matter up with Him. It is not neccesary for mankind to consider The God's plan's novel.
Whether they are deemed so or not will not effect their implementation. And, to the God's credit, Adam was not careful, nor prevented from making his own choices.On the third day of creation the God established an important Law.
He declared that trees would only bear fruit and produce seeds of their own kind. (Genesis 1:11,12)
If you are born into the human species you are of Adam's lineage, and so you are a Tree of Knowledge.
I'm not trying to offend you, though it remains, this is our inherent family Tree like it or not.
Forgive Adam in your heart if this bitters you ...So it is not whether the God wants you to partake of the Tree of Knowledge, but rather ...
He knows the human species must if there is any hope of a remnant of them evolving into Trees of Life.Without knowledge, there can be no Wisdom.
Without Wisdom, one cannot survive ... You have implied I know better than the God.
I assert that I am wiser than religion.A result of paying no mind to the Pharisees.
I credit the Wisdom to the God ... That's the standard dogma I'd assume ...We must be a "neutral man" for this scenario to apply for us.
Adam was the only "neutral" and so, he has prevented this end.Respectively, the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life are symbolic of two lineages or "family trees".
Two separate species that the God loves unconditionally and has caused to evolve from one another. The Tree of Life will exemplify Wisdom. The Tree of Knowledge will exemplify relative knowledge. I concede ...
As well, it will provide Wisdom and Survival ... though it will not be fulfilled apart from its correspondent. Your "forbidden" tree will provide knowledge and value regarding the Tree of Life. Do not be decieved.Both trees belong to the God and both will remain forever in His Love.
At the appointed time you will see the Two Trees live peacefully side by side.
The Relative one will try its best to cut them both down ...Yet it will not succeed. Any alienation of the God regarding man can be attributed to mankind's Pharisees, as well as mankind's lack of certainty. This I concede to whole heartedly. I cannot, in a good conscience, abandon the reality of the God's survival techniques jaywill.Perhaps you found an alternate method of survival.
I do not see any other way.Knowledge must evolve to Wisdom. Again, any "alienation" can be credited to uncertainty regarding the God's Wisdom or Pharisees.
The Tree of Knowledge will ultimately result in the fulfillment of the Tree of Life. I am pleased the God has given you some confirmation regarding our discussion.
He has offered me the same courtesy on your behalf. One within the sphere will not evidence this reality without first employing knowledge.
There is no other way for our species to conclude this.Without this conclusion, our species cannot survive.Thank you for your time jaywill ...
I know it can be a rare commodity.As well, thank you for your thoughts.
I'll continue as time permits ...Knowledge = Death
Wisdom = SurvivalOne LoveEdited by Bailey, : greetingEdited by Bailey, : grammar

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Greetings jaywill ... In the God's wisdom, if He desired Adam to take the Tree of Life exclusively,
The God would have been forthright with Adam and asked him to take of it.
Cutting down the "poison" Tree apparently would not have been a wise move.
Otherwise, the God would have done it.All I know is the first mans choice, leads to The Second Man's choice, which leads to my survival.
Each of these men's choice will be responsible for the evolution of their corresponding species.The God's Law of Love has circumvented any other possibilities.
It's forces are not defiable.We can debate ...* whether the Lovebirds were uncertain regarding the counsel of the God.
* whether the God knew of their uncertainty ahead of time ...Or ultimately, whether the God intentionally created the human species with inherent uncertainty regarding His counsel and the Law of Love. Good verse jaywill ...
This can assist in building our faith in the God when we cannot accept that He does not oopsy. Nor would I ...
I would also assert, the wiser among us will evolve, physically and spiritually, unto the Sons of God.
It is the only way to live two times. What is different is how we interpret the account.
In reality the God's Law of Love exclusively motivates His decisions, and thus the forces of the universe.A good portion of religious zealots, as well as others, suggest the God is motivated by other means ...Love proclaims the God layed charge upon the human species not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge.
Guilt proclaims He "forbade" them. This is pharisidical and it alters the Truth.Love proclaims the God prophecied the effects the Tree of Knowledge would afford the human species.
Guilt proclaims He "punished" them. This is pharisidical and it alters the Truth.Love proclaims the only way a member of the human species can choose to survive is to evolve into something that is more than human.
Guilt proclaims " you must choose between the Two Trees or you are damned to 'hell' ". This is pharisidical and it alters the Truth.I suggest the God desires the human species to understand the legacy of the Two Trees.Regarding relative knowledge, there is no universal witness to the effects absolute Wisdom can cause.
Regarding absolute Wisdom, there is no universal witness to the effects relative knowledge can cause.Their relative merits and values cannot be accessed apart from one another.
The Trees of Knowledge must too exist, aside the Trees of Life.
Each is only partly evident without the other.The God has employed The Trees of Knowledge to multiply and subdue the Earth.
As well, we serve to document the events taking place in the universe.Rest assured, it is not a coincidence that ...
Science and religion each serve their purposes very well.
Humans do very well at reproducing and commanding possesion of the sphere.
Many within the species are, beyond question, exceedingly great at documenting the events within our reality.
The God does not oopsy.Although they expire after a season, I am not willing to assert the human species is less beloved to God than His other species.
They simply don't last as long. This is not a surprising fact when you compare the life cycles of animals within the sphere.
Tho the life spans are quite variable within carbon based forms, it is not common for them to survive long.Even 980 years is a speck in the universe ...I assert the God desires us to choose, and implement, the good from between the good and evil knowledge we assemble.
He also wants us to decide if we want to evolve from the human species and live twice ...Once within our sphere, and then within His cosmos.
Some are not interested and that is their choice.If the God was going to force our hand He would have done it by cutting down the Tree of Knowledge.
Then we would have no choice in the matter.Who will contently serve a God that gives no choices, when many won't serve The One who does?Do you see?As evidenced, only one choice was required for our species to establish a corporeal existence ... be uncertain regarding the God.
In the same way, only one choice is required to evolve from it ...Be certain regarding the Son of God.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : grammar

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thank you for the exchange ICANT. In the midst of the garden ... As this tree was not appointed to the human species, the God did not tell the first man where it was, nor of its existence. Same as the rest of the species ...Be certain of the God's Words, or be uncertain of the God's Words.Be good ICANT.

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Quick reply to jaywill ... I'm not sure how these statements contradict one another.The former statement supposes a God that imposes His choice.The latter supports the God that allows you to adopt your own choice.Hope that helps ...One LoveEdited by Bailey, : grammar

Thank you for the exchange ICANT. No, this assertion does not represent my position well.As jaywill pointed out, the man was in the process of naming the lot of animals within the sphere.
He was employed to farm the lands, which would have likely advanced the knowledge of agriculture.
I assert these tasks require various forms of knowledge ...As well, these very acts are establishing what will become existing knowledge. I am not religious, so maybe take what I say with a grain of salt.That being said, as intelligent or ignorant as the Lovebirds were, they were lacking in one crucial area.
Mankind did not have the ability to be certain of the God's Words when comparing them to someone else's ...And so it remains ... tho not for long.
Love never fails. It doesn't seem all knowledge would have evaded the human species though ...Mainly just the knowledge of the relativity of good ...
And the knowledge of the relativity of evil.The Lovebird's uncertainty in the Words of the God begin to establish another form of knowledge ...
This knowledge shall serve as an awesome backdrop for the God's Wisdom if ever they are compared.If one of them exists without the other, there is no basis of comparison between them.
Yet when they both exist, their relative values and merits can & will be accessed.The God separates the Lovebirds from the Trees, yet He does not separate the Trees from one another.
The Two Trees, and what they represent, will remain together for all of time.When the Lovebirds discard the Words of the God, it is the reality of the Two Trees that is separated from them.
Both Trees shortly become a mystery within the imagination of mankind.All they have left to show evidencing their account is a sacrafice and some prophecies.
And so it is for all within the species. Yep, you got it for the most part.
Though your choices are not choices, but rather consequences from the Lovebird's course of action ... (Cause - Choice) Be certain of the God's Words & (Effect - Consequence) live and keep the garden.or ... (Cause - Choice) Be uncertain of the God's Words & (Effect - Consequence) eat the fruit and die. And I don't think such a notion can be evidenced within the account.
It is my understanding that this account regards the human species. lol - I should have guessed by your screen name ... You love the Son and you are perfect to the God.
You simply have yet to come to your fulfillment ...One Love

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thank you for the exchange jaywill.
Feel encouraged to start a thread to discuss the two brothers ...
I will gladly participate (granted, that is not much incentive - lol) Not to imply the assumption is without merit, yet ...
It doesn't seem to be evidenced by the text.
Please demonstrate otherwise ... Not to imply the assumption is without merit, yet ...
It doesn't seem to be evidenced by the text.
Please demonstrate otherwise ... Not to imply the assumption is without merit, yet ...
It doesn't seem to be evidenced by the text.
Please demonstrate otherwise ... I'm not sure I understand what this is meant to convey.It remains, apart from faith, mankind did not have the inherent ability to be certain of the God's Words when comparing them to someone else's.
And so it still is ... tho not for long.
Love never fails.Please demonstrate otherwise ... Bob Marley may have been nearly as high ...
The difference is the Son of the God's buzz never wears off.It remains, Bob Marley accepted the Truth of the Son of the God because he adopted Wisdom that many discredit.Apologies for the drivel ... Not only did the Son of the God not live by the knowledge of good and evil apart from His Father ...
I suggest the Son did not live by the knowledge of good and evil at all.He lived with the relativity of the knowledge of good and evil, by the Wisdom of Love. To bolster your point ...
Seemingly, there need not have been any spoken words to communicate with the God prior to the Tree incident.
If you'll notice, Adam does not respond directly to the God until after he takes from the Tree of Knowledge.In reference to the bit about Eve and Adam's bones & flesh (Gen 2:23) one may consider him doing so, yet ...
The account does not directly infer the God as his audience as is done further into the account.Adam was likely talking to his bride while continuing his employment of naming things.I am hard pressed to demonstrate otherwise. What way is that ... perfectly uncertain? I concede Adam did not have the God indwelling within him from the beginning.
Yet, the other thing He did not have was certainty of the God's words.Tho I digress ...
I suggest, much like the Two Trees, one cannot be had without the other. I concede the communion with the God communicated to Adam all things the God shall expect of him.The communion did not originally equip him with the ability to be certain of the God's Words when comparing them to someone else's though.
That would have made mankind just another drone species.
We too are the God's children.
Not slaves to the grind.The remnant and knowledge that remains will provide that certainty of the God's Words, when uncertainty finishes committing species suicide.
This remains an effect of the Tree of Knowledge and, respectively, the human species.Having read the account now, and witnessing existence with the relativity of good and evil, both Trees will have certain evidence of the God's Words.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : spellingEdited by Bailey, : grammar

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thank you for the exchange ICANT. Your foolishness casts an interesting light.
It certainly adds at least two more choices ...* (Cause - Choice) Be certain of the God's Words & (Effect - Consequence) live and keep the garden.* (Cause - Choice) Be uncertain of the God's Words & (Effect - Consequence) eat the fruit and die.* (Cause - Choice) Be uncertain of the God's Words & (Effect - Consequence) live and keep the garden.* (Cause - Choice) Be certain of the God's Words & (Effect - Consequence) eat the fruit and die.Yours being the last one. Indeed.
He polished that terd up real good ...
That serpent sold his junker with bits of truth as well.It is not as if everything it told her was a deceitful lie - just the ...
"Aww naww, you won't die. I eat this stuff all the time. He prolly jus' mixed 'em up. This is da good one dat makes ya like Him." part.The other bits are confirmed by the God to be, in fact, truth. I imagine Adam as not present at the time, though as you point out, there is limited evidence in the text to support either view.
Also, we must suppose Eve was clued in on the scoop regarding the Tree of Knowledge.
She does not exist when the parameters are set. She likely got the lowdown from Adam.
It is evident she has been previously informed by the time she is questioned by the snake. Nice - Law of Love style.
I like it ...The possibility remains, she may not have told him at all tho.
She may have simply acquired the art of deceit straight away.
"Hey Adam, try this one. I found it by the edge of the garden ... tastes great too."I won't expound because I like your version better. Kind of a stretch ICANT.
At least in regards to comparing who gave excuses.
I'd say if you can consider one an excuse, the other can be equally considered as such.Adam simply blames it on Eve, tho as far as we know, he tells the truth ...
She gave it to him. Eve almost blames it on the snake, tho as far as we know, she tells the truth ...
It decieved her.She does seem to own up to her mistake when she admits that she was indeed deceived.
She has no reason, other than her newly found conscience, to assume she actually has been.
She immediately begins to gather good and evil knowledge and it seems she has not died.
Evidently, she would seem to have reason to assume the snake was not lying ...Yet Eve does feel decieved ...She was decieved, even tho she technically has no evidence to reach this conclusion.This seems to point in the direction of jaywill's successive levels of existence.
The woman's conscience is certainly evident.'Til later ...

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thank you for the exchange ICANT. Reasonable assumption ...Yet, that is hard to evidence with certainty.
We are informed of their awakenings in one sentence ... If you suppose Eve ate first without Adam's approval, then her eyes must be opened first.
Adam's eyes would have been opened after he decided to join her in death.I am not sure how keen you are regarding Jubilees.
It states that Eve indeed ate alone, and her eyes are opened first.
Then, after her eyes are opened, she goes ahead and poisons Adam ... She is sporting a fig apron before Adam even takes a nibble ... lol - Adam blamed it on anybody but himself.
He could have easily left off the, "The woman you gave me ...", part.Yet, like you point out, he doesn't only lay the blame on Eve ...
He goes a step further and identifies the God as a culprit too.Weak.I think they were both honest, yet Eve seems more responsible.
At least she doesn't first say, "The snake you created ...".
She just admits the snake got one over on her. So you consider Eve's reply an excuse, yet not Adam's tapdancing?
If Adam's longwinded explanation is not deemed an excuse, why is Eve's more direct response considered as such?Does not pan out. Either they both made excuses or both delivered the God explanations.
At least as far as I can reason ... Are you counting Adam as dying the same "day" by the God's days, instead of mankind's days?
Like the notion that he did not live 1000 years, so that means he died the same day?One Love

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Apologies for the delay & thank you for the exchange jaywill.
In following posts I may approach the paragraph you have provided, but first ... The paradox may iron itself out ...
This interpretation puts the cart before the horse jaywill.Before I began to perceive the depth of the Garden account, initially I too wanted Adam to partake of the Tree of Life.
For certain reasons, I have since retracted such a notion or desire ...I am very thankful that he did not choose this end and upon consideration we can clearly perceive why he could not have done so.You suggest ... This interpretation does not accurately reflect the parameters of the text we are given.
It renders Adam being placed before the Tree of Life, which is completely false.I am no authority on the matter, and I have assigned the greatest value to the Tree of Life.
If we are to gleam any insight we must stay truthful; this may require the ejection of dogma.That being said, Adam was placed before many trees that were contained within a garden.
The existence of one specific tree is revealed to Adam; the Tree of Knowledge.Only the reader is exposed to the existence and location of the Tree of Life; however, Adam is not.
Before the Incident, he is not afforded even a glimpse of the concept, much less the reality, of this Tree.Within the Garden ...
* The God creates the first man with the ability to decide & enact arbitrary choices.
* The God does not reveal the location of a Tree of Life to Adam, the first man.
* The God does not reveal the existence of a Tree of Life to Adam, the first man.
* The God does not reveal the relationship between the Two Trees.
I encourage anyone to demonstrate otherwise ...When it comes to the God, I am about as uneducated as they come.
Yet I suggest the Tree of Life was never intended for Adam, the first man.
This Tree of Life represents the lineage of a being that is more than human.
This latter species cannot even reasonably be considered a homo sapien; possibly a caelestis sapien?I digress ...It remains, Adam was placed before the Tree of Knowledge, if not simply placed amongst many trees.
Why does this not digest well with many fundies jaywill - because of a disdain for the Tree of Knowledge?
Yet, the Tree of Knowledge did not deceive the Lovebirds, but rather the serpent.
They need not be equated to remain within the scope of truth.The God cursed the serpent; however He did not curse the tree.I know many are troubled by how our species came upon the Tree, yet is it not salvagable?
I think you would agree it is ...The Relative one employs many distractive strategies.
When we are distracted we often miss important bits.
The disdain for the Tree of Knowledge distracts ...The God does not harbor bitterness towards it, nor will I.The God will continue to employ this Tree, or rather the species it represents, long after the Relative one is decimated.
The God has very important purposes for this Tree - I encourage you to try and find other ones.Although He may work through processes that appear to many as sleight of hand, the God is not a magician.
This is akin to ants understanding the processes involved in designing dynamic webpage’s referencing them.Be good brother,
One Love

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thank you for the exchange jaywill.
Buckle your seat belt ... Relativity will allow the assumption, as well as provide grounds to accuse the God.However, it is much easier to argue the God held the existence of the Tree of Life as a secret than it is to evidence this being a poor choice on His behalf. I would not assume the God withholding the specifics and general advantages of the Tree of Life from Adam as a malignant act.This interpretation supposes the God as an unstable Father; far from the Truth.Again, although the Tree of Life was in the middle of the garden, it cannot be evidenced that Adam had any reason to separate its identity from surrounding trees. To suppose otherwise demands some extraordinary circumstances that I cannot perceive as necessary.We cannot evidence the God revealing to Adam the Tree of Life's identity.
The God forewarns the first man of hazardous obstacles within the garden.
We can safely assume the fruit from this tree would not have harmed Adam ...
At least prior to the Incident.Again, let us present some evidential hypotheses ...Within the Garden ...
* The God creates the first man with the ability to decide & enact arbitrary choices.
* The God does not reveal the location of a Tree of Life to Adam, the first man.
* The God does not reveal the existence of a Tree of Life to Adam, the first man.
* The God does not reveal the relationship between the Two Trees.We would be wise to include more relevant insights available within the parameters of the text.* The God forewarns Adam, the first man, as to any potential hazards contained within the landscape.
* The God predicts the potential for Adam and the descendants of his species to experience physical death.
* The God predicts the potential for eventual condemnation of humankind by its own human moral authority.The last two may be considered comparable, depending on how "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" in Gen 2:17 is interpreted. Indeed.
We are told this of its existence; however, the Lovebirds are not.I concede it is mentioned FIRST and the forbidden tree is mentioned SECOND.
As is declared, "The first shall come last, and the last shall come first".
Jesus Christ, the Tree of Life, is the first fruit of the latter species that evolved from the first; humankind.
It is symbolized first within the Tree of Life and shall fully manifest itself in reality at a latter time.And so humankind, or the Tree of Knowledge, is manifest within the sphere prior to the Tree of Life, or Christkind.
Respectively, when the Tree of Life at last fully manifests itself, it shall be first in the orders of the species.I encourage all to test these hypotheses according to the God's Words and potential reality, rather than assume them prematurely. The God informs the reader of the existence and properties as relating to the Tree of Life.I think the reader is informed so that the relation between the two species, and respectively, the two trees can be formed.
The God does not express this to us in an evidential manner; it would work counterintuitive to His requirement of faith.
There remains an exceptional reason for us to learn of the Tree of Life's existence and importance.The God does not inform Adam of the existence and properties as relating to the Tree of Life..I do not see a problem with the God's disclosure of the potentially advantageous Tree of Life being withheld.
Can we safely assume the fruit of the Tree of Life poses no threat to the man while in his original state of neutrality?
I would say yes.As you point out, the God reveals specifics regarding trees when warning of ill consequences regarding their corresponding fruit.
However, we can evidence the God does not force feed His bias ideologies down the throats of humankind.
This is the way of the serpent, as is evidenced by its embellishments of "truth" as presented to Eve.Therefore, outward stimuli is not applied to the first man's neutrality by the God; rather, the serpent.
The God simply provides endless resources to live, including the revelation of hazardous obstacles. As the interpretation does not employ baseless assumptions, it may provide the most accurate assertions available.
This certainly remains to be seen, though as you point out, refuting it from the text of Genesis is not a simple task. I want to agree with this conclusion, yet before it can be reached, we must assert the God as speaking to the Lovebirds while safeguarding the Tree of Life.Consider the inference of the plural as the God asserts "Now the man has become as one of us - knowing good and evil ...".He is again making mention of the Tree of Life to someone; however, the Lovebirds need not be the intended audience.
This is not to imply they were not, but rather to promote the notion this information was not intended for them only.This too may have been inserted to the advantage of the reader.
Alternately, the God seems to be speaking to His triune-self.
It may simply be all three possibilities concurrently ... The need to explain WHY Adam did not first take of the Tree of Life does not need to present itself.
Of course, one's interpretation must remains within the parameters of the text for this to hold.It remains, there is no mystery as to why he did not partake from a tree that he had not yet learned existed.The motivating impulse behind Judas betrayal of the Son is another can of worms - lol
One that I'd love to open together at some point ... Nor do I.Yet this is an assertion supported within the account, and I see little need to sway from the given text.The position that Adam was informed seems, indeed, a noble one.
Is this interpretation not driven by compassion for the first man?Yet, inappropriately injecting our own concern for Adam's well being into an interpretation may not serve the God's Truth well.Doing this will not change reality, or the text given within the account. Indeed. The above assertion may have been formed by deeply buried fears of questioning religion.
As I've expounded countless times, the God does not ominously send His loved ones unwittingly into bear traps.
Nor does He pick on the handicap.I feel it suggests the God does not force feed His bias ideologies down the throats of humankind.
This interpretation allows for the existence of freewill as it relates to the first created "neutral man".
It also reinforces that outward stimuli provided by the serpent created an issue requiring certain measures. Exactly jaywill ... they cannot exist together.
The Father withholding sweets from the child need not be a malignant act of destruction.Would you not agree? Again, the reality of relative perception may weigh heavily on how one interprets different events.
The God's essence, as well as His Love in turning all things out for good must maintain one another.God going out of His way to assure that Adam commits sin is a great stretch of the imagination.
Moreover, it is not a necessary position for the interpretation to maintain validity. Not at all sir.Though I admit, I do not believe the Lovebirds truly perceived a difference in the two of them prior to the incident.
Nevertheless, I do not see as to where the God tempted the man and his wife.The God maintained them as they were originally created.
He did not tempt them with the fruit from either tree.
If I was to conform to such an interpretation I would say ...The God tempted the man to not die physically or by human moral authority.
Whereas, the serpent tempted humans with the God's own desire and intent.It employed a tactic of deceit telling Eve she would not die; and a truth foretelling they would be like gods.Basically, the serpent told her she would become as she already was.
She just did not realize she was like this because she did not have ego.We can evidence that the God warns the Lovebirds of all things that may cause them harm.
There is no reason to suppose they would not have lived forever; or otherwise, granted.As to the tactic of deceit the serpent employed.
We can safely make some assumptions; supposing they were mortal before they ate from the Tree of Knowledge.
For one, there is no reason suppose the Lovebirds would not have eventually stumbled upon the Tree of Life.
Accordingly, if by random chance they ate the Tree's fruit they would have certainly lived forever.As to the "truth" the serpent told.
We know from the early text we are created in the image of the God.
This infers we instinctively reflect His qualities - we are lil' gods.
Granted, not all lil' gods follow their instincts.We were lil' gods from the start, and we were lil' gods after the Incident; we are still lil' gods.
That serpent was sellin' people their own stuff; the people just didn't realize they owned it.Some still don't ... Hopefully I have provided you with some food for thought.
It remains, you must take what I say with a grain of salt. It was not secretive in the deceitful sense that some would assign it.For instance ...
Some would say the best presents are given as surprises; secrets are employed until the gift is revealed.
The notion that some knew the secret before you were informed, hardly ever outweigh the joy of the gift.Tho, I digress ...
I presume, it was simply irrelevant and unnecessary to eat from the Tree of Life when man was in his "neutral" state of commune with the God. The God's word need not be deemed logical by man to remain valid.This is not to imply your assertion of my position above is in any way accurate.Again, my best assumptions as to the God's motivation remain ...
He did not tell Adam, as it was simply irrelevant and unnecessary to eat from the Tree of Life when man was in his "neutral" state of commune with the God.
Additionally, the God simply enlightened Adam of trees containing poisonous fruit. It is not that the God did not want man to eat of the Tree of Life, but rather ...
The God desired for man to find the Tree of Life and recognize its value independently.This is to imply, He did not say "Hey this is the best Tree ever, come eat from it".The God does not force His ways upon the man; however, the man cannot survive without the God's ways. The God did this to prevent Cain from murdering any more people than necessary. He was never disqualified from it.
He was simply unaware of it.The Tree of Knowledge quickly afforded humankind the knowledge of hierarchy, envy, and murder.
Before the relative knowledge gained from the tree took root, there was simply no reason to dissuade Adam and his descendants from bodily immortality.I will address the remainder of the post asap.
I am pooped - lolOne Love

Does this not speak of the God sharing His consciousness and Wisdom with humankind?I consider the Life and Person of the Triune God a treasure, yet ...This "treasure" also speaks to me of the living spirit in a man.
This is the portion of a man that can commune with the God.
It is only a valuable treasure when the God is invited in.Yet, it remains a treasure even when the God is absent.
It is a treasure because it is a place Divinity will enter.Our biological make up is surely the earthen vessel.The living spirit within the man is a non valuable treasure when the God is not invited.
He will not enact eminent domain on humankind in order to inflate the spiritual market. I do not disagree, yet ...From a secular view, what does light do? I concede ...
The fruit from the Tree of Life will cause a man to dwell with the God.The early insertion of the Tree of Life within the narrative seems quite advantageous to the reader. The Incident caused the God to remove Adam from both Trees.
Granted, the first man was already infected at this point.
As well, only the Tree of Life was enlightened and guarded.It is rather interesting that He allows poisonous fruit in the Garden.
Can an insight be drawn regarding both Trees existing before the man?I believe it is important that the God never curses or harms the Tree of Knowledge.
Jesus cursed a fig tree that did not produce good fruit and it straight died.For these reasons, I assume it likely the God intends on curing the Tree of Knowledge so that its fruit may be safely eaten.
After all, He is the God; He can certainly enact a process that will cause the tree to become non poisonous.
Maybe He would design a bug to poop on it for a long time, until the excretion caused the poison to desist.Nevertheless, as you state, the possibility of Adam taking from the Tree of Life is all but removed without approval from the God. Do not kid yourself.As long as some remain in earthen vessels it will always be a biological matter.
Granted, it will not be a solely biological matter by any stretch of the imagination.Nevertheless, the God as chosen to establish a biological order and employs humankind to establish its borders.
Respectively, He has chosen to establish a spiritual order and its borders are established as well. I concede ...This is a matter of spiritual realities combining with biological realities.
Those who desire may perceive how the God enacts the evolution of reality itself. Excellent ... Interesting, is it not?They were located within close proximity.Adam and Eve must not have been aware of it or they would have likely ran right over to it.
As you've pointed out, the Lovebirds were not completely stupid; rather uneducated perhaps.Nonetheless, if they were enlightened by the God as to the Tree of Life's existence, location, and relating properties of its fruit they would have certainly partaken from it. Perhaps I could suppose otherwise if the story included a bit about the serpent at least mentioning the Tree of Life as the bad tree; but such is not the case.The serpent cannot deny the Truth; it can only manipulate His Love. lol - you got me there.Imagine the names one could assign my train of thought ... Your responses are well appreciated to say the least.
That you can wallow through my thoughts is a miracle ...The Tree of Life is certainly cast in an odd light.
I do not believe a superficial interpretation serves the account well at all.
It is mentioned for reasons; the Book calls out the Tree of Life consistently.
The Book speaks of His manifestation within reality, along with humankind.Nevertheless, the Tree of Life is mentioned 80% more often in the context of the Book.
And yet, a disdain for the Tree of Knowledge continually distracts many from His Truth.You would think the disdain assigned to the Tree of Knowledge would drive one towards the Tree of Life.
Unfortunately, in reality the distraction simply causes one to focus continually on the Tree of Knowledge.Many may not percieve the Truth until they forgive the Tree of Knowledge.Hate cannot cause one to Love.
Love can cause one to Love. I think it is important to note that the Tree of Knowledge was imperfect, or unfinished, before the ground was cursed.
I hold that the land within the Garden is separate from the land Adam and we now inhabit.
For this reason, I do not believe that portion of land within the Garden cursed. I would say you are on the right track ... This incident with Jesus you mention may provide some insight.I think it is also interesting that when Jesus causes the blind man to regain his sight, the man's vision is not originally perfect.The first time the Son places saliva on the man's eyes He asks, "Do you see anything?".
The blind man looked up and said, "I see people; they look like trees walking around."Once more Jesus put his hands on the man's eyes.Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly.
This continues to provide us many insights ... I am going to get nitpicky here.The poisoned, or unfinished, man did not come from eating of the Tree of the Knowledge alone.The act of eating poisonous fruit may not cast man out of the Garden, but rather the poison that entered the body.
It is easy for me to imagine poison being ejected from the Garden in the same fashion that a sliver is pushed to our skin's surface and eventually right through it. It simply does not belong and it is naturally rejected from, and ejected by, the body.I do not think the God holds Adam or Eve at fault for the actual act of eating the fruit though.
They truly had no reason to hold the snake suspect; why would the God fault them for naivety?
Doesn't line up ...Consequences fall on that which the God warns.
The poison was warned of, and so it stands.The God does not accuse falsely.
Serpents and deceit were not warned of.
And so, the accusations do not stand.Apparently the God does not commune with poisoned beings. I, for one, do not blame Him.
Nonetheless, Jesus entered the quarantined atmosphere long enough to establish a remedy. Nice ... This reinforces the notion that "neutral" man did not have a need for the Tree of Life.
This is likely why the God does not originally tell the Lovebirds about the Tree.
Couple this with the fact it was not poisonous and motivation becomes clearer. Yes He was and I enjoy this analogy quite a bit. I would certainly agree.Have some more studying to do.
Thanks for your time brother.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : spelling

Thank you for the reply Peg. If not mistaken, the Hebrew for "Life" translates gracefully to "immortality"; as in bodily immortality.
In context, I believe the Tree of Life offers endless communion with the God.Your symbolism achieves a reasonable reductionist interpretation.
We have employed a fairly literal interpretation of the account. Truthiness; it was the only tree that afforded them ill consequences.
Yet, if they were not allowed at all, the tree would not have been.So truly, they were allowed, but not without severe consequences.
The God explains when, not if, they eat the fruit, they will die ...
He does not elicit any threats or punishments on His behalf.Rather contrary, the God states that the fruit from the tree will poison them, effectually killing them.The God does not say, "When yoo eat that froot, omma killyoo for disrespektin' me".
This is not to imply that a superficial interpretation could not render such bullocks. The act of lending a benefit to a doubt does not equate to stupidity (ie. sin).
The God does not take a moment to explain that his Words are flawlessly on point.
The God does not recruit with bias propaganda; the serpent does (and now mankind).The God recruits with Truth, as can be evidenced by the effects of the poison as corresponding to the God's prophetic Words.
You roughly assert naively lending a benefit to a doubt is an unforgivable act of malignant disobedience punishable by the God.We must first suppose they knew there was a rule to not "disrespect" the God.
We can only safely assume they knew eating certain fruit could make you dead.To suppose they knew of rules, and so can be held accountable ... a grand stretch.
Nothing suggests the Lovebirds are "guilty" for supposing the God may have oopsied.Lending benefits to doubts may often lead to great Truth; providing it is not the God being doubted.
Yet, they had no reason to know this, as they were naive.What type of sadistic God kills you for disrespectin' him out of naivety?
The God assuredly does not do this; maybe some god, but not the God.The Lovebirds were deceived by a "most crafty" serpent that employed bits of Truth mixed with bits of crap.
Even when reduced to symbolism it is hard to argue the position of any purposeful disobedience on their behalf.Purposeful disobedience requires discipline.
Unpurposed disobedience requires education.We may no better and be held accountable, as we have access to a manual; they did not.They were wingin' it - inherently able to lend benefits to doubts as they saw fit.
It did not pan out every time and one time is all it takes to catch herpes. I'm not condoning questioning the God, but rather one who speaks of Him.That said, blind obedience would have been showing their respect for ignorance to the validity of the God's Words.
Gods right to rule and decide what is good and bad would have been equivalent with other orders of created drones.
"It is, because I say it is" apparently is not the invariable position of the God when relating to His children.Though employed within a family business, we are not simple slaves to the grind; we are His CHILDREN; He is the Father.A good father does not punish the children when they make naive mistakes.
Respectively, if his child gets AIDS, a father cannot cause the disease to desist.
Even if he told the child to wrap it up twice. Kind of a stretch don't you think?Seems they really showed they were unaware of the God's uncanny ability to be inerrant.Again, I could see the "respect" thing easier if Adam knew he had to respect the God or the God was going to punch 'em in the face. I suppose mixing these dichotomies is interesting ...I see your scenario remaining within the Tree of Knowledge, if at all.
But, to use the "Judge" interpretation we must apply obedience to it.If disobeying the command to not partake from the Tree of Knowledge represents death, due to independence from God;
Respectively, obeying the command to not eat from the Tree of Knowledge represents living, due to commune with God.I do not see a dichotomy between the Two Trees though.
One cannot evolve and be with the Jesus without first being a human, right?
Is not enlightenment of the Tree of Life derived from the Tree of Knowledge?That is, without knowledge of good and evil, one does not recognize Life; they simply serve it.In the God's garden, I would assume humans are now symbolized as the Trees of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
We establish the relative values and merits of good and evil knowledge.
When we are in the God's presence at the end, we do not serve blindly.The Jesus Christ's species, taken from the rib of humankind, has always been symbolized as the Tree of Life.
Jesus as always been the Tree of Life; the trees came before the man.The Two Trees are in the God's garden together; rooted very close to one another continually.
I cannot see a reason to separate them from one another; at no time does the God do so.
The man is removed from the Two Trees, but they are not separated from one another.So, to not choose the Tree of Knowledge is to suppose you must choose to not be human.
I believe this is fine as long as you realize you still have to be human in reality.
Even if only once.One Love

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thank you for the exchange Peg. Seems less defective than liberally applying an imaginary set of rules and punishments over the Truth of the God's Words. I'll give you that much ...
In context, the Tree of Life offered "life"; yet, the "life" is assumed within the God and His respective characteristics.
We may arrive on common ground providing you do not find that grandiose.The ancient Hebrew Eden narrative contains the revelation of two species {chayah} of Life {nepesh} that the God has promoted into existence.
They are represented in this fashion by way of the Two Trees.
The exist independently; yet, interdependent on one another.
This is to imply one cannot be realized without the other.The clause nepesh chayah employed at the conclusion of Gen. 2:7 is only used to describe a community {or species} of breath brute animal creatures. The clause nepesh chayah is never used to describe one male androgynous human being. Please demonstrate otherwise.A “species” or “kind” of breathing creature is always determined by it consisting of a “female” and a “male” procreative sexual gender. The Hebrew terms for “male” and “female” are never used anywhere in the context of the Hebrew Eden Narrative. Please demonstrate otherwise.Gen. 2:7 displays the mark of the accusative-definite article prefix form of the singular/collective masculine noun for “mankind”: {transliterated ’th-h’dm}, a form only used 10 other times in the Hebrew Old Testament and never used to denote “an individual male/androgynous human being, but only used to describe the human species as a whole or a community of human beings. Please demonstrate otherwise.Note, the verb is not used in Gen. 2:7.The clause {transliterated npsh chyh : “The becomes a living being; by God’s breathing {breath of life} into the nostrils of its ‘ {flesh}; of man Gen 2:7; by implication of animals also Gen. 2:19; so man is , a living breathing being Gen. 2:7; elswhere always of animals Gen. 1:20, 24, 30; 9:12, 15, 16; Ez 47:9” (BDB pg. 659)As for the application of the noun = noun feminine: community; living thing, animal (BDB pg. 312).When combined with religious dogma and pride, a superficial reductionist interpretation often looses sight of this.It is much deeper than most are generally encouraged, or care, to perceive.
Yet, the longer the Truth remains hidden, the worse off the ol' serpent is.Your interpretation produces a sadistic ego maniac god, driven by motivating impulses of malignant destructive aggression.
I assure you, this could not be any further from the Truth.
Perhaps a more careful analysis of the text is in order. Are you suggesting the God's ru'ach (breath of life/spirit) that is responsible for our ne'phesh (soul/life) expires?One is causal towards the other; yet, why are we to assume they are both finite.I do not see any reason to suppose the God is mortal.
How do you reach such a conclusion?Please expound ... Firstly, banishment and death are not equivocal.I am not sure anyone has asserted "disrespectin'" the God aroused immortality in the first species.
The result of eating the poisoned fruit was bodily death, or to "die by human moral authority".That said, the result of disobedience to the God was banishment from His Garden; not death.You suggest the God enacted a death penalty for those who are uneducated and inherently naive.
Baseless assertion - how can such bullocks be claimed?The God did not employ death; poison employed death.
Thus, death employed human moral authority.In the same way ...Poison did not employ banishment; the God employed banishment.
Banishment employed the inability to save one's own soul.So, poison ordained death by human moral authority.
The God ordained the inability to save one's own soul.This is speculation within the parameters of the text.There is little reason to overlay the God's vengence atop the effects of a poisonous fruit tree.
The God and poison are not the same.Yet, there is no reason the God must assume the responsiblities of a pre existing poisonous fruit.
This is not to imply you cannot serve a malignant god; rather that doing so is simply unnecessary.Please do not assert that banishment from the garden can be equivocated to death.It seems to hold more relevancy as to the species ultimately losing any ability to save their own souls.
No longer can the Lovebirds simply reach out, of their own freewill, and take from the Tree of Life.
Yet, they are breathing just fine ...Also, commune between the God and the species is not evidenced 'til they are poisoned.
There is not one reference of Adam or Eve communicating to the God before your "sin".
Nor is there a picture of worship either.
Please demonstrate otherwise.The relationship actually seems pretty bland.
Yet, after they "sin", the God graciously ...* comes to them
* chastens them (proof of love)
* graciously covers their shame
* keeps them employedThe Lovebirds could have rejected the covering the God offered and tried to maintain their own feeble coverings, as many do.
This seems to parallel how we maintain the choice of accepting the God's covering for our sin, Jesus death on the cross, or not.
We can either till the earth with a fig apron, or till it with some leather chaps ...I can percieve the God stating the poison from the fruit of the Tree will cause the species to die.
I do not see where the God asserts He will enact vengence on behalf of the fruit or tree though ...Please provide a chapter and verse where the God asserts eating poisonous fruit is a punishable display of vulgar disrespect.
Or, otherwise, please stop attatching your claims that the God sadistically punishes the ones He loves for being ignorant. Again, I am not aware of anyone positing eternal "life" as a result of poisonous fruit.
As well, you supposing the Lovebirds died as the God said they would gets tricky ...The God prophesied the species would die the day they ate the fruit.
The serpent assured them, with certainty, that this would not happen.After eating the poison fruit, they didn't die immediately or curse the God.
They lived out days in relative contentment; even got a free pair of duds.Who is the liar?If one applies a humanistic calendar day, they did not die the day they ate the fruit.
Henceforth, Relativity allows for the perception of the serpents assertion as a truth.The God often calculates a "yom" differently than Adam's species.
This simply allowed the mechanism of faith to begin evolving.So yes, the species was not granted eternal 'life' for eating of the Tree of Knowledge; and no one asserts otherwise.
Respectively, poison caused the species to die under the order of human moral authority; as the God said it would.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : spelling

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary