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

Mortal Life: I am in complete agreement with this comprehension of the Hebrew Eden Text.Within the context of the Hebrew Eden Narrative the clause nepesh chayah is used in regard to “humankind” in Gen. 2:7 and in regard to “all brute animals of the field and the air” in Gen. 2:19. The feminine noun is employed by the author in direct relation to the “breath of mortal life”, nishmat chayiym, that all “breathing mortal beings” must possess. Gen. 7:22 sheds some insight onto the “mortal” question; it states that “All which [had the] nishmat-rucha chayiym = breath-spirit of life in their noses ... died.” Thus, all these mortal beings drown and died because they were mortal.It is also important to point out that the masculine noun commonly rendered “life” in regard to the “tree of the life” is prefixed by the definite article, hachayiym, and the it is this definite article prefixed form of the plural masculine noun alone is used in direct relation to the clause —— vachay le’olam = and live in regard to continuous existence or and live for ever.In as much as the first humans were originally not in possession of “the knowledge of good and bad” they were also not endowed with “the life” because both of these attributes were possessed only by the “trees in midst the garden.”AM

Bailey as well as jaywill:I sense that we continually perceive our collective/objective reality as not being the key to our individual and collective salvation.This odd perception leads us into the realm of belief, a.k.a. “the spiritual realm”, and away form the facts of our shared mortal existence.The author of the Hebrew Eden Text employs natural imagery in his narrative: “plants, herbs, the field, rain, mist, irrigation, the ground, dust, trees, rivers, humans, and brute animals.” This natural imagery is figuratively and literally rooted within our collective/objective reality. Understanding this natural imagery is required, but belief is not.The human mental capacity of reason is defined as the mental faculty which enables a human being to distinguish between “good and evil,” according to Webster’s New Twentieth Century Unabridged Dictionary. Deuteronomy 1:39 describes “little ones” and “children” as being those who “do not know good and evil.”Humans are born with the mental capability of learning to distinguish between “good and evil”, but are not born or created “knowing good and evil.” The author of the Hebrew Eden Text makes it quite clear that the “tree the knowledge of good and evil” which is in midst the garden possesses “the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. 2:9), and therefore the newly created human entity does not possess this knowledge until the tree is partaken of (Gen. 3:6).What if the author of the Hebrew Eden Narrative is employing the Hebrew masculine noun that is commonly rendered “tree” as a natural metaphor?The Gnostic Gospel of Thomas describes the “living Jesus” as also making this suggestion:

quote:

---

“Indeed, you have five trees in paradise, which do not move in summer or winter, and whose leaves do not fall. Whoever is acquainted with them will not taste death.” (GTh 36:21-24)

---

AM

Peg:
It is 'C'.The Hebrew repetitive clause at the conclusion of Gen. 2:17 denotes "death by human moral judgement" a.k.a. capital punishment.
The Hebrew term used by the metaphorical woman in Gen. 3:3 denotes "a natural death."
The Hebrew repetitive clause used by the serpent in Gen. 3:4 is in direct reply to the woman's comment and denotes "a premature natural death."We would do well to go through the Hebrew Text together. This would allow us to confirm what the author was attempting to convey.
AM

Peg:
Thank you for sharing that beautiful quote. Humans and brute animals all have received the breath of mortal existence. What I am suggesting is the fact that “the life” is that which was before, during, and after any mortal experience. So often we employ the term “life” as if it only exists as the opposite to “death”. Perhaps a more accurate term would be “mortality”. I suspect that the author of the Eden Narrative employed the definite article to the “tree of the life” in an attempt to make the distinction between the “breath of mortal life” and “the life” from which and in which mortality must exist in order for mortality to be at all.Let’s examine the Hebrew terms for “death” employed in Gen. 2:17, 3:3 & 4 together and see what we might find.
AM

ICANT - and anyone else who may be interested: So, you are suggesting that “man” not God created the “Creation” (i.e. reality) that all human generations have ever been born into?
One flawed human being made a flawed informed “choice” thousands of years ago and consequently created the only “Creation” we have ever known?Is that what the religious belief you are studying and following is teaching you?AM

ICANT The author of the Heb. Eden Text employs the term “beguile, deceive”, (Gen. 3:13), not “tempt”. The concept of “free will” or “free choice” is negated by the application of deception. In Gen. 3:14 God says to the serpent, “Because you have done this...” The “this” that God is referring to is the serpent “deceiving” the woman.AM

bertot: “Satan” is never mentioned in the text. The term the author employs is, “the serpent”, and it is “a beast of the field” created by God (Gen. 3:1).Actually, the term “deceive” does in fact “help my case.” God agrees that the woman was deceived, according to the Text. If you read what the author of the Eden Text has written, the woman is not punished for what has occurred; if she has never given birth, (which she hasn’t), she would not be able to distinguish an “increase” of “pain”. Furthermore, in Gen. chapter 4 there is no mention of any “pain” when Cain and Abel are born. The man is supposedly punished for heeding his wife’s “voice”, but the author never composes a dialogue between the man and his wife.I think that reading the Text as it is written would be helpful to our discussion.Good to talk to you again, ol’buddy.AM

ICANT Gen. 3:1a reads, (and I translate the Heb.): “and the serpent was subtle/sensible surpassing all creatures of the field which was made by yhwh God”The serpent of the field that was made by God has always “crawled on its belly” and has never had the ability to talk. The concept of “Satan” is never mentioned or alluded to within the Eden Text. According to the Eden Text “the serpent” is never expelled from the Garden In Eden. The serpent is described as a “creature of the field” that God formed from the ground (no “dust” is mentioned) in Gen. 2:19, and remains a “creature of the field” that has a limited life span (e.g. “all the days of your life”) in Gen. 3:14. The serpent was not yet “formed from the ground” at the time God “laid charge upon the man” in Gen. 2:16 & 17. The serpent replies to “the woman” but does not contradict the divine command that the serpent was not privy to (Gen. 3:1b & 4 - 5); this is evidenced by the paragogic letter nun (suffixed letter of emphasis) on the word “die” attributed to the woman (Gen. 3:3b) and the word “die” attributed to the serpent.I do not claim to know what the author of the Eden Text is conveying, but I can read the Text as it is written.AM

ICANT:The “great red dragon with seven heads” mentioned in Rev. 12:3 who appears in heaven is none other than Leviathan (a.k.a. Lotan, the dragon/Tannin with seven heads) one of the powers of watery chaos spoken of in Canaanite/Hebrew lore (see Isaiah 27:1). The Greek term “devil” means, “false accuser”, and the Heb. term “satan” means “adversary”. The Greek does not capitalize the term “diabolos”= false accuser nor does it capitalize the term “o satanas”= the adversary. This signifies that these nomenclatures (designations) are not proper nouns or personal names.According to the Eden Text, the serpent of the field that God had formed from the ground does not “accuse” anyone of anything, and since God formed it it is unlikely that the serpent of the field was “God’s adversary.” Further, the serpent of the field is never associated with the “sea” and it has only one head.I am fully aware of the fact that your religious faith (and bertot’s) embraces a belief in there being a supernatural conspiracy against God, and that much of your interpretation of the Eden Text is influenced by this belief in a supernatural conspiracy. If for a moment you could suspend this conspiracy belief and examine the Eden Narrative with new eyes perhaps you could see that you may well be falsely accusing the serpent of the field, the man, as well as the woman who are depicted there.I say again, I do not claim to know precisely what the author of the Eden Narrative is conveying, but I can read the Text as it is written, and would very much like to explore with you and others as many possible interpretations of it as possible.Let’s keep talking and see what we can discover together.AM

bertot: I will attempt to choose my words as carefully as possible so when I “state plainly” what I perceive the author of the Eden Text as trying to convey I will not stifle further discussion by sounding as if I know for certain that my personal interpretation is the correct and only interpretation of the Text. I do not know for certain whether my personal interpretation of the Eden Narrative is correct or not! I am fully open to any and all discussion.I perceive the author of the Eden Narrative describing in poetic, proverbial, and metaphorical form the creation of the human species that is fully endowed with the mental faculty of reason (the knowledge of good and bad), and the mental faculty of creative intellect (the imagination). These two mental faculties enable humans to manipulate their God-given natural environment and in doing so human society becomes agrarian and urbanized -- humans till the ground from which they were taken (Gen. 3:23), and the first “tent-village” becomes the mother of all inhabitants (Gen. 3:20). These advancements, however, come with a price: 1. Humans begin judging God and God’s creation, thus causing them to believe they are separate from God, and 2. Humans begin judging one another. It is this implementation of the “knowledge of good and evil” that causes the human species to leave the Garden In Eden and leave behind any hope of reaching the “tree of the life.” Thus, mortal human existence begins spreading across the earth and eventually subdues it.The way back into the Garden In Eden is described by Jesus the Judeo-Christian Messiah and is also described by the author of the Eden Text in the final verse of the Eden Narrative. The keroobiym and the flame of the sword that turns every way both “keep” as well as “preserve” the way to the “tree of the life”.That is as concise and plain as I am currently capable of stating what I perceive the author of the Eden Text may well be conveying.Let’s examine the Text together and see what we come up with.AM

jaywill, you wrote: I shared no complaints. I am merely sharing my perspective concerning the Eden Narrative, and am hoping to discuss other perspectives as well. The following statement does not address the issues at hand: AM

kayn9878 wrote: Let’s keep this thread focused on the Hebrew Eden Text and the tree of the life and the tree the knowledge of good and bad.
I say that the Hebrew Eden Text conveys both poetic/proverbial folklore as well as fact. Now, lets discuss the Hebrew Eden Narrative’s content and see if we can discern what the author may actually be conveying.AM

Bertot:The following is Post #85

quote:

---

AM wrote: I will attempt to choose my words as carefully as possible so when I “state plainly” what I perceive the author of the Eden Text as trying to convey I will not stifle further discussion by sounding as if I know for certain that my personal interpretation is the correct and only interpretation of the Text. I do not know for certain whether my personal interpretation of the Eden Narrative is correct or not! I am fully open to any and all discussion.
I perceive the author of the Eden Narrative describing in poetic, proverbial, and metaphorical form the creation of the human species that is fully endowed with the mental faculty of reason (the knowledge of good and bad), and the mental faculty of creative intellect (the imagination). These two mental faculties enable humans to manipulate their God-given natural environment and in doing so human society becomes agrarian and urbanized -- humans till the ground from which they were taken (Gen. 3:23), and the first “tent-village” becomes the mother of all inhabitants (Gen. 3:20). These advancements, however, come with a price: 1. Humans begin judging God and God’s creation, thus causing them to believe they are separate from God, and 2. Humans begin judging one another. It is this implementation of the “knowledge of good and evil” that causes the human species to leave the Garden In Eden and leave behind any hope of reaching the “tree of the life.” Thus, mortal human existence begins spreading across the earth and eventually subdues it.
The way back into the Garden In Eden is described by Jesus the Judeo-Christian Messiah and is also described by the author of the Eden Text in the final verse of the Eden Narrative. The keroobiym and the flame of the sword that turns every way both “keep” as well as “preserve” the way to the “tree of the life”.
That is as concise and plain as I am currently capable of stating what I perceive the author of the Eden Text may well be conveying.
Let’s examine the Text together and see what we come up with.
AM

---

The characters in the Hebrew Eden Narrative Poem that you, jaywill, and ICANT refer to as “Adam” and “Eve” do not exist (according to my rendering of the Hebrew Eden Narrative Poem) within the Hebrew Text from Gen. 2:4 thru 3:24. The man (a.k.a. “Adam”) metaphorically represents the mortal human species as a whole as well as the brute animal consciousness of the mortal human species as a whole, and The woman, Chavvah = tent-village (a.k.a. “Eve”) metaphorically represents God’s divine helper that God bestows upon the human species brute animal consciousness and thus bestows upon humankind the human creative intellect.It is my understanding of the Eden Text that God did not “punish” humankind at all, but was “creating humankind”. Humankind attaining the power of reason (a.k.a. the knowledge of good and bad), however, did come with a price; as I state above in Post #58:

quote:

---

These advancements, however, come with a price: 1. Humans begin judging God and God’s creation, thus causing them to believe they are separate from God, and 2. Humans begin judging one another.
It is this implementation of the “knowledge of good and evil” that causes the human species to leave the Garden In Eden and leave behind any hope of reaching the “tree of the life.” Thus, mortal human existence begins spreading across the earth and eventually subdues it.

---

It is my understanding of the Hebrew Eden Poem that “Adam and Eve” were not punished by God, but that statement only addresses the dogmatic interpretation of the Eden Text. You did state:

quote:

---

I know how you approach the text and I promised when you returned we would discuss it as a metaphor

---

It is my understanding of the Hebrew Eden Poem that The Human Species was formed of the dust of the ground (which constitutes the field) as a mortal breathing creature (Gen. 2:7) prior to God establishing the metaphorical “Garden In Eden”(Gen. 2:8). Thus, mortality is not perceived as a “punishment”, but rather, as a gift from God.The idea that anything “died spiritually” after returning, “to work the ground from which it was taken” (Gen. 3:23), is not mentioned or even alluded to within the Hebrew Eden Text, and is merely the dogmatic interpretation that is generally asserted. I apparently did not make my point clear: Pain that has never been experienced cannot be increased or decreased. A baseline must be established. For example: The toil of chopping wood cannot be increased or decreased for someone who has never chopped wood; if one has never chopped wood one has no idea what the experience of chopping wood feels like or entails. The dogmatic interpretation of The Hebrew Eden Text tends to ignore this literal fact. As to your first two questions above: I am basing my above contention on the fact that the author of the Hebrew Eden Text employed the terminology “the field”. This is the same terminology used by the author when referring to “all plants of ”the field’ and all herbs of ”the field’, God causing it to rain, and humankind working the ground” (Gen. 2:5). I am a human being who works the ground of “the field” where plants and herbs (some being “thorns and thistles”) grow and where God causes it to rain, where all manner of brute animal creatures reside, and where the serpent of “the field” also happens to exist.The author of the Hebrew Eden Text did not employ supernatural or mythical terms when referring to “the field” and therefore, taking the author at his word regarding the plants, herbs, ground, rain, humankind and the serpent of the field would be the most appropriate manner of understanding the author’s words.This brings us to your final question above: It is my opinion that no one can “know exactly what the author” of the Hebrew Eden Text is conveying, but, having said that, the author does employ a terminology that is quite familiar to most human beings that exist on planet earth - all plants of the field, all herbs of the field, ground, dust, rain, humankind, and the serpent of the field - “So” being “specific about any of the particulars” of the situation the author described in a language which dates to after the last Ice Age relies upon merely taking the author at his word. No! No! No! The serpent of the field says to the woman in Gen. 3:1, “Is it that God said, ”Not you(plural) partake from all trees of the garden’?” The pertinent phrase in Hebrew reads “from all trees of the garden”. At this point in the Narrative no one has eaten from any tree of the garden, according to the word of the Text. Although the serpent of the field did not even exist at the time God lays charge upon the human archetype, according to Gen. 2:16 God says, “From all trees of the garden eat you must eat.” How does what the serpent of the field actually say in Gen. 3:1 imply that “God was lying” in Gen. 2:16 when God laid charge upon the human archetype?You are either reading a very poor translation of the Hebrew Eden Text, or, you are not reading the translation of the Hebrew Eden Text accurately. According to the Hebrew Eden Text God formed the serpent of the field (see all of the above) in Gen. 2:19 and the human archetype encountered the serpent of the field in Genesis 2:19 & 20.The dogmatic suggestion that a fallen angelic host corroborated with or took the form of the serpent of the field implies that the serpent of the field was not formed by God as a breathing creature of the field in Gen. 2:19. There is absolutely nothing in the Hebrew Eden Text suggesting that the serpent of the field was not formed by God as a breathing creature of the field.You state above that “A creature of free will could be an adversary of God at any time.” I am unclear what you regard as “a creature of free will”? In order to make an informed choice (a.k.a. “free will”) knowledge is needed. A creature that is subservient to instinct does not have “free will”, and the serpent of the field mentioned in the Hebrew Eden Text is a creature subservient to instinct otherwise it would have been referred to as either a supernatural or mythical entity; it is not, it is referred to as a the serpent of the field where all plants and all herbs grow.Furthermore, to suggest that a human being has innate “free will” is not supported by the facts presented by natural human existence. An infant does not decide to cry or to gain nourishment from its mother’s breast. Until an adolescent child is taught its culture’s and society’s “rights and wrongs” that child is regarded as an “innocent”, for that child does not yet have the knowledge of good and bad.The dogmatic speculation that innate “free will” existed once or continues to exist is a subject that would require a new thread. If anyone starts a thread addressing “free will” I would be happy to participate. My friend, in order to comprehend “a symbol” one must literally comprehend what is being used as “a symbol”. In order to comprehend “a metaphor” one must literally comprehend what is being used as “a metaphor.” The author of the Hebrew Eden Text is literally describing the field where all plants and all herbs grow, and the serpent of the field would literally be the serpent of that field where all plants and all herbs grow. However, the author of the Hebrew Eden Text is metaphorically alluding to what the serpent of the field represents: if anything “the serpent” represents the most basic natural aspects of “the heavens and the earth” that God, and God alone, has created. It is extremely important to literally comprehend the terminology the author of the Hebrew Eden Text employed. I am not sharing with you what I “BELIEVE”! Above I have shared with you what the Hebrew Eden Text conveys when translated in a lexicographically accurate and literal fashion. I am sharing with you my personal interpretations of the Hebrew Eden Text; which means I am not making “assertions and statements that ... are in conflict with the given text.” I am not making “extrapolations” or sharing “ideas that directly contradict the given text.”Show me that all the plants of the field and all herbs of the field described in Gen. 2:5 are not all the plants and herbs of the field that grow on planet earth to this day. Show me that the language the author originally wrote the Eden Text in was a language that didn’t really mean all plants and all herbs or the serpent of the field that exist on planet earth.I’ve run out of time so I’ll Post this response.AMEdited by autumnman, : set quotesEdited by autumnman, : trees, pluralEdited by autumnman, : or to ofEdited by autumnman, : your to youEdited by autumnman, : your to you

bertot: You first have to know why and how the tree of the life became distant to you. You will know that you have “arrived” when your worldview and the heavens and the earth become one.I do not imply that my “interpretation may not be correct”; what I stated is that my interpretation may not be completely accurate. There is a difference. As far as I know only Jesus the Judeo-Christian Messiah understood the Hebrew Eden Poem. No. I will give a few examples from the Synoptic Gospels:Luke 6:44, “For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.”Then Jesus interprets the metaphor of “every tree” into human terms. Luke 6:45 “A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil; for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.”Here is another example:Mark 10: 14 & 15, “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.”Compare Mark 10:14 & 15 to Deuteronomy 1:39 ... your little ones ... your children who this day do not know good and evil, they shall enter there ...Here is another example:Matthew 7: 1, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”Matthew 7:13 & 14, “Enter ye in at the strait gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” The quotes from Jesus the Judeo-Christian Messiah above should describe for you the “result, purpose, or reason for at least some of [my] conclusions.” The point of accurately translating and interpreting the Hebrew Eden Poem is to learn the wisdom of the ancients, and with that wisdom be able to bring one’s personal worldview into harmony with the heavens and the earth and the Deity that created and sustains them. The world is as our worldview dictates. When one’s worldview is altered the physical and ethereal world becomes altered as well. I agree that, “it is only by inspiration from God himself that we will ever understand ... the ultimate questions ... of life.” The journey begins with the Synoptic Gospel verses I have quoted above. The journey ends with partaking of the “tree of the life” in the Garden of Eden.In previous threads in this forum I have described to you my personal relationship with the Deity of these heavens and this earth. Your worldview being of a dogmatic nature, however, was incapable of comprehending what I was attempting to share with you. I do not have to “believe” that the sun will emerge over the eastern mountains tomorrow morning, nor do I have to “believe” in the Sublime Mystery of Life that allows me to experience the mortality that transpires beneath that sun in the heavens. The Deity of “the life” was, is, and forever shall be, for that Deity (a.k.a. “God”) is eternal.Yes, discovering together does mean that I am open to other views, and points of view that will move beyond the Hebrew Eden Poem to other parts of scripture and other ideologies. As I have been in the past, I am open to discussing other parts of scripture, points of view, and other ideologies, but in this thread I would really like to focus on the Hebrew Eden Text.
AM

bertot The very nature and physical characteristics of “the serpent of the field” can be used to conclude that the serpent of the field represents the most basic aspects of the natural heavens and the earth. Professor Sarna writes:

quote:

---

The serpent has always been a creature of mystery. With its venomous bite, it can inflict sudden and unexpected death. It shows no limbs, yet it is gracefully and silently agile. Its glossy eyes”lidless, unblinking, and strangely lustrous”have a fixed and penetrating stare. Its longevity and the regular, recurrent sloughing of its skin impart an aura of youthfulness, vitality, and rejuvenation. Small wonder that the snake simultaneously aroused fascination and revulsion, awe and dread. ... The serpent played a significant role in the mythology, the religious symbolism, and the cults of the ancient Near East. (JPS Gen. Com. pg. 24)

---

The serpent of the field is a cunning predator and a living alimentary canal: It hunts, eats, digests, and defecates. And all the while its movements appear to flow like a stream of water. The serpent of the field can hardly not be perceived as the most basic aspects of the mortal, natural world. The Hebrew Eden Poem is not to “be taken as a literal explanation of human existence.” The Hebrew Eden Text is to be understood as a poetic, allegorical, proverbial, metaphorical explanation of human existence. However, in order to comprehend the poetic, proverbial, and metaphorical passages, phrases, clauses, and words that compose the Hebrew Eden Text, their literal qualities must first be fully grasped; the author must be taken at his word. I personally perceive the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19 thru 31 as being a parable, but I do not perceive it as imparting “spiritual meaning”, but rather wisdom. If one cannot read the Torah, Prophesies, and Scriptures and learn how to treat someone of your own tribe, and/or your own humanity, you certainly will not be persuaded to do “good” to others by someone who has risen from the dead. That is what I perceive as the moral of this particular parable.If one’s community is impoverished and you are rich but you do nothing to help your community to prosper, then you are the one who is sick, for you have forsaken the exalted founder/father of your community. To me, such a parable conveys common sense, common wisdom, and common morality. If your “supernatural approach” does not actually embrace the terminology that the author of the Hebrew Eden Text composed, then I am hard pressed to understand how you can even suggest that you are reading or reciting the Hebrew Eden Text found in the Torah? Traditionally, the Hebrew Torah is regarded as the Pentateuch of Moses; thus if you cannot hear Moses, neither will you be persuaded by the supernatural act of one rose from the dead. I asked you to show me evidence of the things I state above, so that together we can come to some kind of agreement regarding the “literal” and “metaphorical” properties of the terminology the author of the Hebrew Eden Text has composed. In my opinion, you are incorrect. All discourse in the Hebrew Eden Poem represents the interaction between the various aspects of God’s creation. God’s command laid upon the human archetype represents the human consciousness becoming aware of its latent potential. God saying that the human archetype is in need of a “helper” denotes a still missing potential needed by the human archetype; God is creative, thus, the human archetype must be as well. This God-given creative helper is represented by the Hebrew term “woman” - woman being the procreative aspect of the human species. Once this divinely creative helper is one with the human archetype’s consciousness, it states, “this one is strength surpassing my strength, and flesh (senses) surpassing my flesh (senses) he shall be called “woman”. Thus, the metaphor is conceived. The sensible serpent of the field represents the most basic animal nature - it has no knowledge of informed decision or morality, but it is extremely wise in the ways of the natural world. The dialogue between the serpent of the field and the creative intellect (the woman), represents the human consciousness attempting to reconcile its basic animal nature with its newly established creative thoughts. The human creative intellect perceives all the trees in the garden as the raw materials that can be turned into: 1. Instruments that will benefit in the acquiring of food; 2. Raw materials that can be skillfully worked into objects of beauty; and 3. Instruments that can be employed in the process of preserving and teaching knowledge and wisdom.
So she partakes of the tree of the knowledge of good, benefit, welfare; and bad, distress, injury, calamity; and this knowledge is passed also to her carnal consciousness as well. This knowledge causes them to know that they are exposed to not only the good aspects of nature, but also to the bad aspects of nature. Thus, they together make protective garments from the leaves of the fig-tree (the fig-tree being the symbol of security and protection). Then, suddenly, the wind of God swirls through the trees and thunder cracks over their heads, and they realize that their protective garments are no match for the powers that now confront them; so the human archetype attempts to hid.Then God asks, “Where are you.”This one question marks the altered vision of Deity that accompanied humans attaining the knowledge of good and bad: One must be separated from God if God does not know where you are hiding.If God’s interrogation of the two human archetypes is read carefully; it becomes clear that all of God’s questions are answered honestly, and on one is attempting to pass blame. We can get into God’s interrogation of the two human archetypes as soon as we become as familiar as possible with the Poetic Content leading up to this point. An altered view of God, an altered worldview, and an altered understanding of the Eden Poem are anticipated by the Eden Poem itself. It is my opinion that all this is part of the divine creative process; the child must leave its father and its mother and make its own way in the world. But even Jesus the Judeo-Christian Messiah knew that eventually the child must find its way home, and he shared the steps one must take in order to accomplish this final goal”essentially, to pass between the keroobiym and the flame of the sword (the straight gate and narrow way) and return to God and the tree of the life and partake of that divine fruit.I’ll pause here, for there is probably a lot we need to examine and discuss.AM