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

Bailey:It is a pleasure to discuss these matters with you. I think you may find that the trees mentioned in Gen. 2:9a, “And out of the ground made yhwh God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food” (KJV), are the trees in relation to the trees mentioned in Gen. 1:10 - 13 and 28 - 30. Gen. 2:9b sets the tree of the life and the tree of the knowledge of good and bad as being only those metaphorical trees that reside “in midst” or “in middle” of the Garden.Wood, as a raw material that is harvested from a once living tree, is regarded as the “fruit” of a harvested tree. Wood is also regarded as the “fruit” of a woodsman’s labor. To partake of the “fruit” of the wood of the knowledge of benefit and calamity suggests that the skillfully harvested “wood” can be used for the benefit of humanity or can be used to cause distress and calamity to humanity.According to Gen. 2:9 it is the “tree of the life” that is specifically mentioned as being “in midst the garden, but, in Gen. 3:3 the woman states that, “from the fruit of the tree that is in midst the garden, God said, ”Not you partake from a portion of it...’.” Thus the Hebrew Text implies that both metaphorical trees occupy “in midst the garden.” No other tree are mentioned as existing “in midst the garden.”Read over what I suggest above and give me you insights.It might help also for you to know that the Hebrew term had’ath denotes knowledge, skill, creative skill, discernment, understanding, and wisdom. Thus the tree of knowledge could also be rendered the wood of the skill of welfare and distress.AM

Bailey writes:Well, I think it best to say you have a unique way of approaching, life, scripture, morality, and objectivity. I know no other way to interpret scripture than to take it at its word, as the God intended it."Though he is a fool or wayfaring man, he shall not therein" Unless it is complicated it with rehtoric and philosophising.I take the following expressions and statements as thy were intended:"The soul that sinneth it will die" (OT)"To him that knoweth to good and doeth it not it is sin" (NT)"The wages of sin is death"."But the gift of God through Jesus Christ is eternal life"."Woe unto him that calleth evil good and good evil"Now you can twist and reshape that anyway you want, to fit any ideology you wish. Or one can make it say less than it does through rehtoric and reasoning, but it will still say what it says in the end.I have enjoyed our exchange as you put it, but clearly you have much different way of approaching scripture than myself. A way that probably is unlikely to reach common ground. Example: It is in my view simply inconcieveable that one cannot see that they were punished for thier actions, unless one has a completely different way of viewing reality. Again thanks and I hope you enjoy your stay here on the site. Perhaps we will cross paths on another topic or thread at some point.There is one more I would like to address, before departing. Sorry I couldnt resist. Its easy to make such claims when you are not starving, destitute, racked with insurmountable pain day after day, watching your child suffer and eventually die only after months and years of pain or anyother imaginable and countless ways of suffering.You thinking may change in an instant were you or I faced with any of the many scenerios that life could throw at us. Talk is cheap. Take Job as an example. Not understanding why he was suffering he concluded that death would be better than his present situation. While he did not follow through,would we have had the same perspective, I doubt it.I remember watching an interview with a fellow that had a child kidnapped and killed, dont remember where it was, when it was, but it stuck in my head. During the interview he admitted that he had always been opposed to the death penalty, then his very next statement was, "but in this case I think it is justified, due to blah blah blah" While I could not imagine his pain, but it was interesting how quickly his position changed in an instant.Its easy to talk how great it is when there is nothing to cloud the issue. So lets see if your still laughing out loud when you are confronted with this wonderful worlds scenerios.Just a thought.See ya around the site.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Hi jay,Are you a student of the Bible?If so why do you ask? In chapter 1 all of Job's family except his wife die.
All his wealth is taken away.Job's famous words "the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; 1:21.In chapter 2 the devil is allowed to touch Job's body with boils.Three of Job's friends came and sit down to mourn with him.After 7 days of silence Job spoke in chapter 3.In chapter 4 Eliphaz the Temanite spoke.He spoke about many things and offered up the words we find in Job 4:18.Here are the verses preceeding: This is someting that was brought to this man in a vision in secret, when he was asleep.He saw a spirit, that he could not discern the form thereof: just a image that spoke the words you quoted.Are you saying this image was God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit?Concerning these words Job said: Job 4:18 does not say God charges the angels with error.A spirit that appeared in a dream, vision, that could not be discerned told Eliphaz the Temanite: Along with a lot of other things, which Job said you are saying trying to scare me.So what am I supposed to think of it?God didn't say it or God's man did not say it so I feel about it just like I do about anything you or anyone else says. I examine it according to what God says, if they match I trust it. If they don't match then I discard it.I ask you and everyone that read what I say to do the same.God Bless,

---

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

ICANT,I am a feaster on the Bible and a student too."Thy words were found and I did eat them, and thy word became the joy and rejoicing of my heart."I eat the Word of God for food and sustenance. It feeds my inward spirit. I also study it. I appreciate you talking about context. But I asked about the words themselves. Okay. You are saying that you are not so sure about those words, whether they are true and trustworthy or not.I'll accept that. So for you Job 4:18 is not too reliable to decide something about angel nature.Well, lets consider another passage then. Now here you have a creature created perfect from the start. Nevertheless he corrupts his way and is charged with sinning - "you sinned".Do you feel that this anointed cherub was only an automaton? Do you think no will of decision was excercised in this being corrupting himself and sinning against God ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Hi Bertot,I liked your statements you take as they were intended.My favorite's you did not mention are:"he that cometh to God must believe that He Is". "I am the way" "I am the door" Too many people don't want to believe that God Is. And they go about makeing Him what they want Him to be. Rather than accept Him as HE IS.Of those Jesus said: God Bless and keep you,

---

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

Thank you for the exchange 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

Hi jay,I teach 5 questions that is necessary in order to understand the Bible or anything that is written down.1...Who is speaking?
2...To whom or about whom is he speaking or writing?
3...About what is he/she/it speaking/writing about?
4...When or about what time is he speaking/writing?
5...Why is he/she/it speaking/writing?I know there are many who believe that the 28th chapter of Ezekiel is talking about the devil.Lets examine. Who = God.To Whom = told Ezekiel.About what = to say to the prince of Tyrus.About what time = a few hundred years before Christ.Why is he to do this. = It seems this man who God had made ruler over many had said: "I am a God," and God wants to set the record straight.In verse 12 Ezekiel is told to take up a lamentation against this ruler.Ezekiel did not change the subject here as he does in verse 20. In verse 12 it is just a continuation of verse 1.Because of things mention in the verses you quoted many assume that Ezekiel has changed the subject and is talking about the devil.But in verse 18 the lamentation says:

quote:

---

I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

---

If Ezekiel was talking about the devil, how could this part of the lamentation happen?If Ezekiel was talking about the ruler that God had put in place at that time that decided he was a God was brought down and his kingdom destroyed all those who were there could behold it.The closing verse of this lamentation says: This person/being had been a terror but would never be a terror again.If Ezekiel was talking about the devil that would mean that the devil has not been a terror since long before the time of Christ.The devil is still a terror therefore Ezekiel could not have been talking about the devil. He may have been alluding to this man being possessed of the devil. But he was talking about the man in verse 2.God Bless,

---

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

Hi Bailey,You sound like a billboard for permissiveness. In the book of Hebrews we are told: This tells me God chastises all His children.Anyone who is not chastised by God is not His child.God does not chastise the devils children.So anyone without chastisement belongs to the devil and is lost and will spend eternity in the lake of fire.Except they repent, and be born again of the Holy Spirit.You say God does not punish, and then go into a long example of Moses where you say: So was Moses punished for disobeying or not?You contend the first man was not punished for disobeying.God Bless,

---

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

ICANT,It seems that you are kind of evading the issue about the will of angels. Apparently you have good reasons - the verse you cannot trust. The other verse is not about an angel.It was not my intention to go into Ezekiel 28 in too much detail but simply seek your thoughts on the choosing will of an angel.But since I am not the type to ignore a challenge to my beliefs I will put the angel will matter aside for a moment and reply to these statements: First of all you are not examining the right place in Ezekiel. This section that you ARE examining ends at verse 11. Then another section starts, not on the prince of Tyre but on the king of Tyre. Ezekiel 28:12 - "Son of Man, take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord Jehovah, O you who sealed up perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty." So verses 1 through 11 concern the prince of Tyre. All the things mentioned concerning this prince indeed could apply to a human. Then another section is started, another lamentation, from verse 12. And from that beginning there are some things uttered which would not appropriately be applied to any mortal man. These utterances are more appropriate to a supernatural being.So .... Incorrect. The section I quoted was concerning the king of Tyre and starts in verse 12. You are refering to verse 2 which is in the first section concerning the prince of Tyre. I was quoting the second section starting from verse 12 concerning the king of Tyre. This is a second lamentation.I think what is going on here is that God is lifting the prophetic curtian to the past and exposing the root Rebel behind all earthly rebels.Even if the king of Tyre means a purely human personage, it should not surprise us that God would speak to a man and simultaneously be addressing Satan. For this is what Jesus Christ did in Matthew 16:23."But He [Jesus] turned and said to PETER, Get behind Me Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me, for you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of men."Peter, the man was being spoken to. But Satan the Devil behind Peter's actions was being rebuked. Likewise in Ezekiel 28, even if the king of Tyre was a mortal, God could be speaking to Satan. You have not explained why there should be a change in the person being addressed, from the prince to the king. And you have not yet explained why there should be a second lamentation. It is not credible to me that God would address a Gentile king in an idol worshipping land, " the anointed cherub that covers ". Why would God refer to a Gentile king with the illusion of one of the glorious angelic beings on either side of the holy ark of God ?I take this rather to be an instance of the prophetic past. God is revealing the ancient history of some great anointed cherub who was in the presence of God.There is a difference between the presumption of the prince in the first lamentation and the God appointed station of the king in the second station.It is one thing for a proud ruler to say that he is God. Pharoahs and Ceasars proclaimed this. But the king of Tyre was set by God in his glorious station."You were the anointed cherub that covered [the Ark]; INDEED I SET YOU, so that you were upon the holy mountain of God; you walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. (v.14)This was not then something that a man presumed for himself. This discribes a station which God ordained for him and SET him there.Additionally, in the second lamentation it says that this being was perfect from the moment he was created. There is no human being since the fall of Adam who was perfect from the moment he was created. So this utterance also in verse 15 is much more appropriate to an angelic creation and not a mortal man.I think the error is on the part of those who suggest that God is speaking of a Gentile king as being perfect from the day he was created and of his being the anointed cherub so close to God.The stones of fire may refer to the pavement that Moses and the elders of Israel saw beneath the feet of God in the divine appearance on Mt. Sinai -"And they saw the God of Israel, and under His feet there was [something] like a paved work of saphire, even like heaven itself in clearness." (Exo. 24:10)

​

"And the appearance of the glory of Jehovah was like consuming fire on the top of the mountain, to the eyes of the children of Israel." (v. 17)At any rate this anointed cherub was set by God close to God and in the realm of God's glory. This is a place of divine honor. It is incredulous to me that the prophet would be only speaking in this way concerning a Gentile monarch of a nation that didn't even recognize the God of Israel.So while there are some utterances which we could ascribe to any human being, there is something more going on here. Some things said would apply only to an angelic being.Now back again to the matter of the will of an angel. You have put this matter aside. But I think it is pretty clear that angels had a choice to obey or disobey God.And if you don't like the Ezekiel passage to demonstrate it lets find one which is more obviosly (to you) a reference to an angel's deciding will:"And the angels who did not keep their own principality but abandoned their own dwelling place, He has kept in eternal bonds under gloom for the judgement of the great day." (Jude 6) The only thing right now that is important here is that some angels apparently CHOSE to forsake the realm which they were assigned to by God and violate some boundary of thier appointed habitation. God punishes them by securing them in gloomy prisons until the final judgment.So this passage persuades me that angels could choose or choose not to be under God's ordinances for them.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Hi jay, I am not evading anything.I have stated I do not believe the angels have free will.They were not created in the image and likeness of God.No where can I find they had a choice.A lot of people believe they have a choice.Since it makes no difference in eternity as far as mankind is concerned I have already wasted too much time talking about it. We are talking about the same Tyrus. Eventhough you refer to it as Tyre.We are talking about the ruler of Tyrus.The man that is the prince is the ruler of Tyrus.The King is the ruler of Tyrus. In Ezekiel 28:2 Ezekiel was told to tell the prince of Tyrus some things.There was no lamentation mentioned.In verse 12 Ezekiel is not told to tell the King anything. He is told to take up a lamentation upon the King of Tyrus.Lamentation 1. Expression of sorrow; cries of grief; the act of bewailing. Definition taken from 1828 Websters dictionary.This was a physical act Ezekiel was to do. How he was to accomplish his task is beyond me.But yes he was to let everyone know this king was a devil. God is in control. God sets rulers in place. God bring countries to power and then He bring other countries to power to destroy those when they go wrong.The only purpose God has in the process is for mankind to find Him and seek after Him.He was refering to this man like Jesus was to Judas when He said: "He was a devil from the beginning."In other words Ezekiel was to lament and wail about this king being a devil as I see it.I could be wrong. That is fine by me.But I don't see the need of me seeing that they had a choice. I see that they left their residence and moved uptown.This turkey is done.God Bless,

---

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

ICANT writes:ICANT thanks for your comments and passages. There are truely a group of gifted people here, BUT, I truely enjoy your and Jaywills imputs,they are helpful beyond belief, even if we do disagree on a few small things.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Hi Jaywill and I CAN'T....Just my 2 cents worth on the idea of Angels and God.1) God never created a fallen Satan. God created a freewill Lucifer who chose to display unrighteousness. From this, I gather that the "fallen" angels initially chose to rebel and fall. I would think, however, that the fall/separation from the rest of the angels was a onetime thing, and that once corrupted, a "fallen" angel would be unable to discern truth...kinda like a compulsive liar becomes unaware of when they are lying or not. But thats just my belief...I don't really know exactly what scripture says since I don't study it as much as I should. That being said, nothing would suggest that God would not still level a charge against such a fallen angel for being unable to discern truth. The whole reason that these angels fell was by willfully making a choice to begin with.Edited by Phat, : fixed boo booEdited by Phat, : No reason given.

---

"All that we call human history--money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery--[is] the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy."--C.S.Lewis
* * * * * * * * * *
“The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.”--General Omar Bradley
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog." -GK Chesterson

Hi Phatman,Long time no see. What law or laws did the angels break? If there is no law there is no sin.Or am I reading that wrong?The man in the garden had a command (law) not to eat.To disobey brought consequences, death.So man had a choice.Where did the angels or the devil have a choice?God Bless,

---

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

Good question.On the one hand, we could deduce that God foreknew that Lucifer would become estranged.Some would argue that God created evil. Isa 45:7--
7 I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.On the other hand, we have Jude.
Jude 5-7-- Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home-these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.
This would seem to suggest that the angels abandoned their positions and that it was their will that caused this.Any further insights?