Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and The Tree of Life (Lost /Reformed Thread)
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 166 of 203 (491878)
12-23-2008 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by jaywill
12-22-2008 7:45 PM


Re: impressions and ramifications
Thank you for the exchange jaywill.
Adam is told of the Tree of Life's signifigance; just not until after he begins to break out of his 'neutral' cocoon.
Baily, I don't see how you can have it both ways. Now if you want to be strict to what is written there and point out that we have nothing proving that Adam was told of the significance of the Tree of Life, then be consistent.
Thank you for keeping us to the same standard. It is not being asserted the Lovebirds are informed after the 'expulsion', rather after their deception. That is what was meant by 'breaking out of their neutral cocoon'. One can certainly evidence the trees being spoken of towards the end of the garden narrative; the verse is 3:22. Please provide a verse evidencing the God 'speaking' of the Tree of Life before the Lovebirds are deceived into partaking of the lesser tree (Gen 3:6).
It is not explicitly written that he was told {of the Tree of Life} either before or after the expulsion from Eden.
The Tree of Life was 'spoken' of before expulsion, yet not before deception. This is where hairs must be split; yet, there is no need for us to play with words. It is not explicitly written the Lovebirds were told before they were deceived into partaking of the Tree of Knowledge. There is a valuable verse telling of the Trees; however, they are not being "spoken" of. It is the same verse that states all trees, including the Two in the center, are good for food and pleasing to the eye.
The Beginning 2 writes:
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground”trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
It is explicitly written the God speaks of the Trees directly before the expulsion from Eden. The God speaks of them directly after covering the Lovebirds.
The Beginning 3 writes:
21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
The God covers the Lovebirds, protecting their flesh from thorns and thistles, and then speaks of the Two Trees. It is explicity written, plainly.
If you hold my feet to the fire and say there is no passage telling us that, then be consistent.
Please do not feel this is being done to derail you. It is done in hopes you will return the favor; which you do. It is appreciated, and not to pat you on the back, but I am thankful that you are proofing this opinion.
Neither is there any passage telling us of an explanation after his expulsion.
The present opinion concedes.
If you speculate that he was told about it afterwards, I can with equal validity speculate that he was told beforehand.
The present opinion concedes. Providing we are speaking in terms of expulsion from Eden. If we are speaking in terms of before or after the deception in Eden, than such speculation is not equivalent.
The point of debate here is not to argue semantics; rather to remove an invalid opportunity for the serpent (religion) to accuse.
The conviction of guilt readily available towards the species in such an instance is simply not reasonable; or available. If mankind had a choice between the Two Trees, the species may, though hardly, be convicted by the serpent in such an instance. Yet, as we have proven together, such a dichotomy does not exist within the unmolested Words of the God. Any feeling of guilt or conviction within such an unevidenced dichotomy, appears contrived by man; not the Holy Spirit.
Life and Death are constrasted throughout the rest of the Bible.
There will remain a dichotomy until death, "the last enemy," is destroyed (1 Cor. 15:26).
The present opinion finds this mostly agreeable; not sure what is meant to support though. It does not change the fact that a dichotomy choosing between the two trees is not supported within the Eden text. It appears contrived by religion, whether maliciously or otherwise. I am not a religious fella, and I am not attempting to insult anyone. The present opinion simply does not perceive benefit in beholding text in opposition to how it is plainly written. It is plainly stated both Trees are good for food and pleasing to the eye; why is this ignored?
This is not to imply mankind should choose one Tree and not the other, or vise versa. Simply that the God intended for the man to partake of the Tree of Knowledge and then, respectively .....
God warned man not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. You are changing the content of the account.
No. I am simply trying to make sense of it. The God would not reasonably say the Tree of Knowledge was good for food and pleasing to the eye, much less confirm it, if it was not the case. It is plainly stated both Trees are good for food and pleasing to the eye. The present opinion is, simply, not willing to ignore that. There is no reason, other than religious assumption, to suppose the tree did not offer great benefits, as well as great consequences.
For instance, the fact that we became more like the God knowing good and evil seems to place us in a better position to judge the serpent. Additionally, we can know verify the God's wisdom, as we have a basis of comparison. The present opinion beholds faith as important, yet not where evidence is readily available.
Again, adversely, we can now dispute the God's wisdom; then again we were able to be swayed in our 'neutral cocoon' as well, or we would not have been able to be deceived. Regardless, it is the tree of good and evil ...
It is one thing to speculate about something which is not mentioned. It is more serious to teach the opposite of what is plainly written.
This is what I have been telling you - lol. Teaching that Adam chose the wrong tree is a fallacy, as he knew of only one tree at the time of his deception (according to the Eden text).
What God spoke is what He intended.
The present opinion agrees - just not sure we are understanding what is written as He intended.
And that was "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:17)
Thank you for posting this verse. How shall we reconcile it unto the former verse for the Truth to be more completely revealed (Genesis 2:9)?
We know according to Gen 2:9 the Tree of Knowledge is good for food and pleasing to the eye.
We know according to Gen 2:17 the Tree of Knowledge is also a tree that promotes adverse consequences.
An accurate interpretation must not discard these facts; you disagree??
God hates death more than He hates sin.
The God does Love Life.
I won't agree with any suggestion that God spoke for man not to eat but intended man to eat.
Yet, you will humor the notion that the Tree contains no benefit, although it is plainly stated it is good for food.
I want to show you something ...
When Adam ate, God speaks again "Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" (Gen. 3:11)
Yes, the God was not aware of the man's actions at first. Granted the following is speculation, yet I think the God would not have lost sight of the man, had the man partaken of the Tree of Knowledge while employing proper motivating impulses. It appears the motivating impulses behind the decision to partake from the Tree of Knowledge were the seeds of our reality.
Perhaps if the Lovebirds ate out of Love and understanding of its harsh consequence, as a sacrafice of sorts, reality would become Love and understanding. The serpent knew this, and deceived the Lovebirds to foil their chance at true love, and in turn planted seeds of deception and disobedience. Adam and Eve's motivating impulses were manipulated by the serpent.
Your exegesis of the passage is too wild for me.
Remember, the pharisees said the same thing to Paul and the Jesus. Nevertheless, I thank you for your proof reading and prayer on my behalf; I am in debted.
Though you thought through some things rather intently, still I find your treatment of the plain utterances to be wildly taking liberties.
Literal interpretaions serve well. The present opinion is not supposing the infallibility of such an interpretation, yet all Truth seems to pass through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
In understanding the Bible it is very important to master the FACTS presented.
Yes. Let us please stick to the facts as plainly presented ...
We know according to Gen 2:9 the God declares the tree of knowledge is one of Two Trees among the those He considers good for food and pleasing to the eye; no bias is revealed to the Adam.
We know according to Gen 2:17 the God predicts man's decision - first prophetic utterance.
Utilizing the tree of knowledge, the God again promotes a bias towards mankinds safety and well being. The fruit from the tree of knowledge promotes adverse consequences such as death/human moral reasoning. It is also wise to note that Adam was created as a mortal being, if for no other reason than to vindicate the value contained within the Tree of Life. A dichotomy between man's relative human moral reasoning and the God's absolute supreme wisdom seems quite prominent. Being created within the bodily mortal confines associated with death, however, appears to lessen the dichotomy between life and death temporarily, although not completely; spiritual life and death must also apply. It appears the majority of dissension between our interpretations remains within this verse; this should be clarified in the next post.
Next, it is confirmed the tree of knowledge is good for food, pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom according to Gen 3:6.
We know according to Gen 3:7 when we eat it of the Tree of knowledge we will have our eyes opened.
We know according to Gen 3:22 when we eat it of the Tree of knowledge we will become more like the God.
There are more adverse consequences that we shall certainly move on to, such as the adverse effect of 3:22.
It appears we cannot take hold of everliving continous Life without some form of guarantee that we will not employ/serve human relative morality.
This is nothing less the unfulfilled Love alternately identified as 'sin'. Anyone that thinks relative morality/sin/unfulfilled Love will serve mankind forever is more bizarre than I; it will eventually serve the species extinction, or death as you say, as it almost already has.
lol - well it won't really, but it could have if the Jesus did not decide, based upon motivating impulses of agape Love, to partake of the fruit that killed Him on our behalf. That cross was the fruit from the Tree of Life! And now you, and all who Love Life, get continuous everliving Life with the One who Loves you the most!
You have to start interpreting after you are clear about the facts which are presented.
Let us interpret considering the facts above, as well as the others.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by jaywill, posted 12-22-2008 7:45 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by jaywill, posted 12-23-2008 1:12 PM Bailey has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 167 of 203 (491884)
12-23-2008 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Bailey
12-23-2008 11:27 AM


Re: impressions and ramifications
One can certainly evidence the trees being spoken of towards the end of the garden narrative; the verse is 3:22. Please provide a verse evidencing the God 'speaking' of the Tree of Life before the Lovebirds are deceived into partaking of the lesser tree (Gen 3:6).
I admited that there is no explicit conversation. You say 3:22 is your ground that God spoke of its nature after his disobedience. I can only grant a "possibly" because God seems to be speaking to God and not to Adam.
"And Jehovah said, Behold tha man has become like one of Us ..."
I don't know that Adam was listening to that. So "possibly" is all I can say.
It is not explicitly written that he was told {of the Tree of Life} either before or after the expulsion from Eden.
The Tree of Life was 'spoken' of before expulsion, yet not before deception.
The expulsion occured AFTER the deception. Before either the word mentions to the reader about the tree of life.
The speaking to the reader - Gen. 2:9.
The deception to Eve and Adam - Gen.3:1-7.
The expulsion of Adam and Eve - Gen. 3:22-24.
This is what I mean by first getting the biblical facts right, before embarking on interpretation.
This is where hairs must be split; yet, there is no need for us to play with words. It is not explicitly written the Lovebirds were told before they were deceived into partaking of the Tree of Knowledge. There is a valuable verse telling of the Trees; however, they are not being "spoken" of. It is the same verse that states all trees, including the Two in the center, are good for food and pleasing to the eye.
The absence of such a conversation is no proof that it did not occur. It was not recorded.
Why the tree of life would be a secetive matter hidden from Adam, I cannot surmise. And that is the thrust of your opinion here.
The Beginning 2 writes:
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground”trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
It is explicitly written the God speaks of the Trees directly before the expulsion from Eden. The God speaks of them directly after covering the Lovebirds.
I don't know what this thing is that you have with "the Lovebirds"
But the covering of Adam and Eve with the coats of the slain animals occured AFTER the deception.
And the speaking of the trees from which Adam could or could not eat took place BEFORE the deception and the disobedence.
God speaks of the trees to Adam - Gen.2:16.
Eve is deceived and Adam disobeys - Gen. 3:1-7.
God covers Adam and Eve with the cattle skin - Gen. 3:21.
The Beginning 3 writes:
21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.
That is after they disobeyed the instructions and discovered that they were naked.
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
The God covers the Lovebirds, protecting their flesh from thorns and thistles, and then speaks of the Two Trees. It is explicity written, plainly.
The TWO TREES first spoken of together only appears to the reader in Gen.2:9.
We see no explicit mention of them both together until after Asam's disobedience.
You have some point about this?
Please do not feel this is being done to derail you. It is done in hopes you will return the favor; which you do. It is appreciated, and not to pat you on the back, but I am thankful that you are proofing this opinion.
Neither is there any passage telling us of an explanation after his expulsion.
Okay.
We certainly can find the explanation. It begins with the word "Therefore" in verse 23. And it begins with the word "So" in verse 24.
As a friend told me that in the Bible when you encounter a "Therefore" you have to find out what the "therefore" is there for.
"THEREFORE ... Jehovah God sent him [EXPULSION] forth from the garden of Eden, to work the ground frm which he was taken." (v.23)
"SO ... He [God] drove the man out, and at the east of the garden of Eden He placed a cherubim and a flaming sword which turned in every dirrection to guard the way to the tree of life." (Gen.3:24)
If we look back to see what the words "Therefore" and "So" refers to, it is of course the preceeding information in verse 22:
[b]"And Jehovah God said, Behold, that man has become as one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he pu forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever." (v.22).
The expulsion is so that man would not reach out with his hand and also eat from the tree of life and live forever in addition to him having taken of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
He is through with Paradise, for now. He is through with having the right to eat of the tree of life.
I will have to skip down a little.
It is plainly stated both Trees are good for food and pleasing to the eye; why is this ignored?
It may say that "every tree of the garden that is pleasant to the sight and good for food" (2:9). But it also says that Adam was forbidden by God to eat one - the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
It may say that Eve say that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was "good for food and a delight to the eyes" (3:6). But it was still commanded of the couple not to eat of it.
This is not to imply mankind should choose one Tree and not the other, or vise versa. Simply that the God intended for the man to partake of the Tree of Knowledge and then, respectively .....
He told them of His intention. And it was for them NOT to eat of it.
me:
God warned man not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. You are changing the content of the account.
you:
No. I am simply trying to make sense of it.
I believe that we should seek to understand it. But be careful. Don't change what is said there to fit into what you "understand".
The question of what was God's intention should first and foremost be derived from what God stated as His intention. And that was that they would not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The God would not reasonably say the Tree of Knowledge was good for food and pleasing to the eye, much less confirm it, if it was not the case. It is plainly stated both Trees are good for food and pleasing to the eye. The present opinion is, simply, not willing to ignore that. There is no reason, other than religious assumption, to suppose the tree did not offer great benefits, as well as great consequences.
I will not follow you over that cliff.
Are you rebelling against what we are told was the heart of God concerning the matter?
Do you realize that if the serpent were to sit down with Adam and Eve and have a study of God's words up to that point, he would twist God's words to deceive them.
You and I are not above being deceived. One way we can not be deceived so easily is to pay attention carefully to the clear utterance of God's intention. Say Amen to it.
For instance, the fact that we became more like the God knowing good and evil seems to place us in a better position to judge the serpent.
I will not follow you over that cliff and into that abyss.
You're on your own there. No comment.
Additionally, we can know verify the God's wisdom, as we have a basis of comparison. The present opinion beholds faith as important, yet not where evidence is readily available.
The human conscience was awakened. But it was a step down and away from God and into death and sin and degredation.
You are trying to salvage some benefit of Adam's disobedience.
The only benefit I will derive from that disobedient act of Adam is two words only - Jesus Christ.
Again, adversely, we can now dispute the God's wisdom; then again we were able to be swayed in our 'neutral cocoon' as well, or we would not have been able to be deceived. Regardless, it is the tree of good and evil ...
You can dispute God's wisdom. I will not follow you there to "dispute God's wisdom". That is what the serpent did. That is what the Devil does. That is what Satan intends.
It is not a game to me.
me:
It is one thing to speculate about something which is not mentioned. It is more serious to teach the opposite of what is plainly written.
you:
This is what I have been telling you - lol. Teaching that Adam chose the wrong tree is a fallacy, as he knew of only one tree at the time of his deception (according to the Eden text).
Adam chose the wrong tree. This is beyond argument to me.
God can cause all things to work together for good to those who live Him and are called according to His purpose (Rom. 8:29).
I have to discontinue now for a time.
It is so good to simply say AMEN to the word of God.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Bailey, posted 12-23-2008 11:27 AM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by ICANT, posted 12-23-2008 5:38 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 170 by Bailey, posted 12-24-2008 9:32 AM jaywill has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 168 of 203 (491894)
12-23-2008 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by jaywill
12-23-2008 1:12 PM


Re: impressions and ramifications
Hi jay,
Just a couple of comments.
jaywill writes:
Why the tree of life would be a secetive matter hidden from Adam, I cannot surmise. And that is the thrust of your opinion here.
Until there was death there was no need of the tree of life.
jaywill writes:
The expulsion is so that man would not reach out with his hand and also eat from the tree of life and live forever in addition to him having taken of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Had the man put forth his hand and eaten of the tree of life in his sinful condition then he would have been in the presence of God with sin in his life.
Therefore he could not be allowed to do that.
jaywill writes:
It may say that "every tree of the garden that is pleasant to the sight and good for food" (2:9). But it also says that Adam was forbidden by God to eat one - the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
You do know that the only difference in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the regular trees was, that God pointed out a tree and said don't eat of that tree if you do you will die the same day.
Other than that it was just like the rest of the trees.
The words "shalt not eat" is what the man disobeyed.
jaywill writes:
You are trying to salvage some benefit of Adam's disobedience.
But there is great benefit from the first man's disobedience.
You and I have an opportunity to live and and discuss God's Word.
We have an opportunity to believe in God, Jesus, Jesus sacrifice, the salvation he offers to us, the opportunity to be born again and be able to spend eternity with God.
Had that first man not disobeyed God we would not exist. He would still be tending the garden, walking and talking with God.
God Bless,

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by jaywill, posted 12-23-2008 1:12 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by jaywill, posted 12-24-2008 5:54 AM ICANT has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 169 of 203 (491914)
12-24-2008 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by ICANT
12-23-2008 5:38 PM


Re: impressions and ramifications
Hi jay,
Just a couple of comments.
jaywill writes:
Why the tree of life would be a secetive matter hidden from Adam, I cannot surmise. And that is the thrust of your opinion here.
Until there was death there was no need of the tree of life.
That is like saying that until there was death there was no need for God.
Man was created with a life which was very good. I don't believe that he had any reason to die. He had a created life which God could maintain everlastingly.
The tree of life represents more than this. It represents not the created life but the uncreated life which is God Himself. That divine Person God intends to impart into man for a divine and human incorporation.
jaywill writes:
The expulsion is so that man would not reach out with his hand and also eat from the tree of life and live forever in addition to him having taken of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Had the man put forth his hand and eaten of the tree of life in his sinful condition then he would have been in the presence of God with sin in his life.
It is more than he would have been in the presense of God with sin. He would have been incorporated and mingled with God bringing sin into this incorporation.
Imagine a sinful Jesus Christ. God would never have the mingling of God and man which included forever man's sinfulness.
This violates His holy nature. This insults His eternal glorey. And this trangresses His righteous being.
The cherubim stands for the glory of God.
The sword stands for the righteousness of God.
The slame of the sword stands for the holiness of God.
This three-fold barrier fixed a gulf between man and God which cannot be crossed. God's salvation is needed to cause man to meet the demand for God's glory, and righteousness, and holiness. That demand is met in the coming, death, and resurrection of the Son of God.
jaywill writes:
It may say that "every tree of the garden that is pleasant to the sight and good for food" (2:9). But it also says that Adam was forbidden by God to eat one - the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
You do know that the only difference in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the regular trees was, that God pointed out a tree and said don't eat of that tree if you do you will die the same day.
Other than that it was just like the rest of the trees.
I am not sure what you mean by this. But anyway that is quite a big difference.
The words "shalt not eat" is what the man disobeyed.
jaywill writes:
You are trying to salvage some benefit of Adam's disobedience.
But there is great benefit from the first man's disobedience.
You and I have an opportunity to live and and discuss God's Word.
Of course we might have done that anyway.
I did say that Jesus Christ is the benefit of it all.
We have an opportunity to believe in God, Jesus, Jesus sacrifice, the salvation he offers to us, the opportunity to be born again and be able to spend eternity with God.
Had that first man not disobeyed God we would not exist. He would still be tending the garden, walking and talking with God.
I don't see it that way. By this time had Adam obeyed God, he might be tending the whole solarsystem or perhaps the whole galaxy rather than just the garden in Eden. Who really knows. What is is what is.
I really need not waste too much time on what could have been because Adam fell. And in that fall the Triune God came in to accomplish His salvation and bring man back to His eternal purpose.
At any rate my thanks is directed towards the Author of salvation.
If I want to be thankful towards Someone for salvation, I direct my thanks towards the Triune God. I do not direct my thanksgiving towards Adam.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by ICANT, posted 12-23-2008 5:38 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by ICANT, posted 12-24-2008 12:26 PM jaywill has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 170 of 203 (491920)
12-24-2008 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by jaywill
12-23-2008 1:12 PM


Re: impressions and ramifications
Thank you for the exchange jaywill.
This post is brief - to be continued.
Happy Holidays brothers ...
This snippet will be addressed first ...
Again, adversely, we can now dispute the God's wisdom; then again we were able to be swayed in our 'neutral cocoon' as well, or we would not have been able to be deceived. Regardless, it is the tree of good and evil ...
You can dispute God's wisdom.
Thanks, but no thanks; I'd rather not. It cannot be done successfully anyway.
I will not follow you there to "dispute God's wisdom". That is what the serpent did. That is what the Devil does. That is what Satan intends.
That is the point being expressed in the previous post - lol
You will not follow me there, as that path will not be traversed by my spirit. However, the general spirit of religion goes there frequently; becareful to follow the Jesus and not religion.
It is not a game to me.
Me either brother jaywill; not in the least. Perhaps this is why my spirit is able to hold yourself, ICANT, and autumnman in high regard; regardless of our differences in understanding the God's Love.
jwill writes:
One can certainly evidence the trees being spoken of towards the end of the garden narrative; the verse is 3:22. Please provide a verse evidencing the God 'speaking' of the Tree of Life before the Lovebirds are deceived into partaking of the lesser tree (Gen 3:6).
I admited that there is no explicit conversation. You say 3:22 is your ground that God spoke of its nature after his disobedience. I can only grant a "possibly" because God seems to be speaking to God and not to Adam.
"And Jehovah said, Behold tha man has become like one of Us ..."
I don't know that Adam was listening to that. So "possibly" is all I can say.
You may be correct jaywill. When interpreting scripture, it seems good to consider the passages before and after the verse you are interpreting. In Gen 3:21 the God protects the Lovebirds with durable coverings; directly following this action the God speaks. The verses are consecutive and within the same paragraph; considering this, it seems rather likely they heard His discussion. The God has not made a habit out of keeping the ones He Loves uninformed; quite the opposite actually. Whether we listen or hear what we are being informed of is a horse of a different color - lol
jwill writes:
jwill writes:
It is not explicitly written that he was told {of the Tree of Life} either before or after the expulsion from Eden.
The Tree of Life was 'spoken' of before expulsion, yet not before deception.
The expulsion occured AFTER the deception. Before either the word mentions to the reader about the tree of life.
The speaking to the reader - Gen. 2:9.
The deception to Eve and Adam - Gen.3:1-7.
The expulsion of Adam and Eve - Gen. 3:22-24.
This is what I mean by first getting the biblical facts right, before embarking on interpretation.
Upon careful scrutiny, you will likely find our presentation of the time line in agreement.
jwill writes:
This is where hairs must be split; yet, there is no need for us to play with words. It is not explicitly written the Lovebirds were told before they were deceived into partaking of the Tree of Knowledge. There is a valuable verse telling of the Trees; however, they are not being "spoken" of. It is the same verse that states all trees, including the Two in the center, are good for food and pleasing to the eye.
The absence of such a conversation is no proof that it did not occur. It was not recorded.
Read this sentence and ask yourself what value we may assign to the God's unspoken Word.
Why the tree of life would be a secetive matter hidden from Adam, I cannot surmise. And that is the thrust of your opinion here.
The present opinion does not evidence an element of secrecy, as much as irrelevancy. The Tree of Knowledge was for the first Adam/knowledge. The Tree of Life was for the only Jesus/everliving life. Why would Adam, who was designated to provide the reality of knowledge, need to know of the Jesus tree. It simply does not seem to pertain to the God's purpose for the Lovebirds. The Truth is, Adam was not meant to die for my chance at survival, rather the Jesus; it appears Adam was meant to die for my chance at knowledge. Adam did not and could not ever die for our 'sins'; therefore, he did not need to know of the Tree of Life. The present opinion assumes Adam was not informed for this reason. Adam was not meant to die for sins belonging to the ones the God loves.
Perhaps the God wanted Adam to form his decision to die for mankind's knowledge (not salvation) of his own accord, with full understanding that he would suffer, though less than the greater One, for mankind's benefit (not salvation). Instead, the plan was corrupted by the serpent. This would be comparable to the serpent attempting to persuade the Jesus to rule the world by its authority, instead of the Father's. Remember, the serpent tried to sell the Jesus a similiar line of shit ...
jwill writes:
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
The God covers the Lovebirds, protecting their flesh from thorns and thistles, and then speaks of the Two Trees. It is explicity written, plainly.
The TWO TREES first spoken of together only appears to the reader in Gen.2:9.
We see no explicit mention of them both together until after Asam's disobedience.
You have some point about this?
First, Adam had all the information he needed to live out his days as the God purposed for him; without being privy to the Tree of Life. The God did not purpose for him, but rather the Jesus, to supply the population with salvation/survival and everliving life contained within the fruit ot the Tree of Life.
Secondly, the God does not reveal the greater benefit's within a fruit until after the fruit as been chosen. He does not initially tempt with sweet candy, but hardships. When the hardship is chosen, the God begins to reveal the greater benefit associated within.
Third, there are many benefits contained within the tree of knowledge, contrary to popular opinion. Like anything else, we miss valuable insight when we are not thankful for all things.
The fruit from the 'evil' tree immediately allowed the God's words to become evident Truth to the woman, who formerly did not recognize them as such. That is some pretty strange 'evil' fruit - lol
We know she found the good in the good and evil, and accepted the God's Love. Her son found the evil in the good and evil and did not accept the God. Yet, without the fruit from the tree of knowledge, the God's Words were not accepted as Truthful by the woman He created.
jwill writes:
It is plainly stated both Trees are good for food and pleasing to the eye; why is this ignored?
It may say that "every tree of the garden that is pleasant to the sight and good for food" (2:9). But it also says that Adam was forbidden by God to eat one - the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
It may say that Eve say that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was "good for food and a delight to the eyes" (3:6). But it was still commanded of the couple not to eat of it.
lol - let us ignore the Words of the God some more (not really), instead of trying to make sense of it.
We will continue to pray and earnestly seek and discern the Truth; where two or more are gathered in His name, He is in the midst.
Jaywill, ICANT, autumnman, onifre, and everybody reading this post before Dec. 26 - Have a Merry Christmakwanzahanukkah !!
Much love from the Bailey !!
Edited by Bailey, : spelling

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary
The Apostle of the Skeptics writes:
"...picture me alone in that room ... night after night, feeling ... the steady, unrelenting approach of Him
whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by jaywill, posted 12-23-2008 1:12 PM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by ICANT, posted 12-24-2008 12:37 PM Bailey has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 171 of 203 (491931)
12-24-2008 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by jaywill
12-24-2008 5:54 AM


Re: impressions and ramifications
Hi jay,
jaywill writes:
That is like saying that until there was death there was no need for God.
I don't see that.
Jesus is the tree of life as pointed out by Bailey in his post.
Man had no need to partake of the tree of life until he was separated from God by sin.
jaywill writes:
Man was created with a life which was very good.
The man that was formed from the dust of the ground and God personally breathed the breath of life into him was not very good.
He was perfect in every way.
jaywill writes:
jaywill writes:
It may say that "every tree of the garden that is pleasant to the sight and good for food" (2:9). But it also says that Adam was forbidden by God to eat one - the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
ICANT writes:
You do know that the only difference in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the regular trees was, that God pointed out a tree and said don't eat of that tree if you do you will die the same day.
Other than that it was just like the rest of the trees.
I am not sure what you mean by this. But anyway that is quite a big difference.
The point I was trying to make was that the first man disobeyed God.
The fruit had nothing to do with the results.
God Bless,
May each and everyone have a wonderful Christ mas.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by jaywill, posted 12-24-2008 5:54 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-24-2008 1:47 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 179 by jaywill, posted 12-24-2008 6:14 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 172 of 203 (491933)
12-24-2008 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Bailey
12-24-2008 9:32 AM


Re: impressions and ramifications
Hi Bailey,
Bailey writes:
Third, there are many benefits contained within the tree of knowledge,
Where in the Bible does it say the tree in the midst of the garden was the tree of knowledge?
I read:
Genesis 2:9 writes:
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
That says the Tree of life.
It says "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil".
The Hebrew or LXX texts say absolutly nothing about the tree of knowledge.
So I would like to know where you get it from as you mention it often.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Bailey, posted 12-24-2008 9:32 AM Bailey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-24-2008 1:44 PM ICANT has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 173 of 203 (491936)
12-24-2008 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by ICANT
12-24-2008 12:37 PM


Re: impressions and ramifications
Where in the Bible does it say the tree in the midst of the garden was the tree of knowledge?
I read:
Genesis 2:9 writes:
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
That says the Tree of life.
It says "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil".
The tree of knowledge is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Sometimes people just leave the "of good and evil" part off of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by ICANT, posted 12-24-2008 12:37 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by ICANT, posted 12-24-2008 1:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 203 (491937)
12-24-2008 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by ICANT
12-24-2008 12:26 PM


Re: impressions and ramifications
jaywill writes:
jaywill writes:
It may say that "every tree of the garden that is pleasant to the sight and good for food" (2:9). But it also says that Adam was forbidden by God to eat one - the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
ICANT writes:
You do know that the only difference in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the regular trees was, that God pointed out a tree and said don't eat of that tree if you do you will die the same day.
Other than that it was just like the rest of the trees.
I am not sure what you mean by this. But anyway that is quite a big difference.
The point I was trying to make was that the first man disobeyed God.
The fruit had nothing to do with the results.
The fruit gave them knowledge of good and evil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by ICANT, posted 12-24-2008 12:26 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by ICANT, posted 12-24-2008 1:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 175 of 203 (491938)
12-24-2008 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by New Cat's Eye
12-24-2008 1:44 PM


Re: impressions and ramifications
Hi CS,
Catholic Scientist writes:
The tree of knowledge is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Sometimes people just leave the "of good and evil" part off of it.
I know where and how they get it from.
They slice and dice the Bible to say what they want it to say.
The Bible just does not say what they say it says.
The Bible says"
The Tree
"Of the" Knowledge
Of good and evil.
It says nothing of man obtaining knowledge by eating of the tree.
Only that they will obtain the knowledge of good and evil.
And he does that by disobeying God.
God Bless,

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-24-2008 1:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-24-2008 2:12 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 201 by Bailey, posted 12-30-2008 5:58 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 176 of 203 (491939)
12-24-2008 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by New Cat's Eye
12-24-2008 1:47 PM


Re: impressions and ramifications
Hi CS,
Catholic Scientist writes:
The fruit gave them knowledge of good and evil.
I thought the act of disobeying gave them the knowledge of evil they already knew good, as God is good.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-24-2008 1:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-24-2008 2:16 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 195 by Bailey, posted 12-27-2008 2:42 PM ICANT has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 203 (491942)
12-24-2008 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by ICANT
12-24-2008 1:54 PM


Re: impressions and ramifications
The Bible just does not say what they say it says.
The Bible says"
The Tree
"Of the" Knowledge
Of good and evil.
Not the King James Version.....
It just says "the tree of knowledge of good and evil"
It says nothing of man obtaining knowledge by eating of the tree.
Only that they will obtain the knowledge of good and evil.
Obtaining knowledge of good and evil is obtaining knowledge.
Also:
quote:
Gen 3:
6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
8And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
They gained the knowledge of what it is to be naked and, presumably, how to sew an apron from fig leaves. God's reply even implies that they learned something.

They slice and dice the Bible to say what they want it to say.
Honestly, ICANT, out of all the people on EvC you are the worst slicer and dicer I've met, with your insertion of Gen2 between Gen1:1 and Gen 1:2, and there being two different Adams, of Gen4 and Gen5, who both had a son named Seth who had a son named Enos.
Pot, meet kettle....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by ICANT, posted 12-24-2008 1:54 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by ICANT, posted 12-24-2008 9:59 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 203 (491943)
12-24-2008 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by ICANT
12-24-2008 1:57 PM


Re: impressions and ramifications
Catholic Scientist writes:
The fruit gave them knowledge of good and evil.
I thought the act of disobeying gave them the knowledge of evil they already knew good, as God is good.
Upon rereading, I see that it was not the fruit, itself, that gave them the knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by ICANT, posted 12-24-2008 1:57 PM ICANT has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 179 of 203 (491949)
12-24-2008 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by ICANT
12-24-2008 12:26 PM


Re: impressions and ramifications
Hi jay,
jaywill writes:
That is like saying that until there was death there was no need for God.
ICANT:
I don't see that.
Well, before sin is a problem God has already placed the tree of life for man to eat. So we cannot say that it was purely remedial to solve the problem of sin and death.
The tree of life is not only for the problem of sin and death. It is for the purpose of man's creation. God predestinated to have sons not only after man had sinned, but "before the foundation of the world". In other words, before the creation of the universe.
Right here -
"Even as He chose us before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blemish before Him in love, predestinating us unto sonship through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will ..." (Eph. 1:5)
Sons of God here are people with the divine life and nature of God their Father.
Yes, Adam was a direct creation of God. But Adam did not have the life and nature of God within him. That life and nature was for his partaking from the tree of life.
To be fair, I know that the Gospel of Luke discribes Adam as "the sons of God" as also the angels are sometimes called the sons of God (Luke 3:38; Job 1:6;2:1; 38:7Psa. 89:6) But these are not sons of God as those with God's life imparted into them as we see here:
" ... He might redeem those under the law that we might receive the sonship. And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. (Gal, 4:5,6)
"For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal.3:26)
" ... you might become partakers of the divine nature ..." (2 Peter 1:4).
"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, to those who believe into His name, who were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12,13)
Taking the tree of life was at that time the event of regeneration. Man needs regeneration not only because he is sinful ICANT. Man needs regeneration because he is natural and was not created with the divine nature or the divine seed of God within him.
Consider John 1:12,13 again. The new birth there is NOT of three things and is OF one thing:
1.) It is not of blood. "Who were begotten not of blood ..."
It is not passed on from parent to child naturally in the physical blood.
2.) It is not of the will of the flesh - "who were begotten ... nor of the will of the flesh"
The flesh here is a negative term meaning the fallen man. The new birth cannot be willed into existence by the will power of the fallen man. He cannot produce it religiously by power of the fallen man.
3.) It is also not of the will of the good man God created before the fall - "Who were begotten ... nor of the will of man". The new birth cannot be produced even by the will of the unfallen and sinless man. The good man, the man before the fall of Adam, even he cannot produce the regeneration.
The new birth of regeneration is of God. It is of the begetting Father who dispenses His life into man.
Who were begotten ... but of God"
After God created man man was not created a regenerated son of God. This was the job of eating from the tree of life, to dispense the life of God into man. Man needs regeneration to fulfill God's purpose for his creation.
A good man may be a innocent man. God has many innocent angels. He has many good angels. They are not the sons of God with the divine nature of God that He purposed to have before the foundation of the world. They are not the partakers of sonship.
In traditional Christianity we were taught that man needs to be born again because he is a fallen sinner. What I say to you now is that even if man is not a guilty sinner, he still needs regeneration to accomplish the pleasure of God to have sons of God with His seed, with His divine life and nature.
In short - the life of the tree of life is not only a remedial issue to deal with man's sins. The life of the tree of life is an issue that deals with man's purpose for being created.
God can have a good man that lives forever but is not a son of God. Adam, from the moment he was created was such a man. Of course after eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, sin and death entered into him. Of course he could not partake of the tree of life in that condition (Gen.3:22) UNTIL the salvation of Christ is received.
Jesus is the tree of life as pointed out by Bailey in his post.
Man had no need to partake of the tree of life until he was separated from God by sin.
From the standpoint of God's eternal purpose for man before the foundation of the world, Adam DID need to partake of the life of God.
This life of God has now gone through a process and placed in a form in which we can receive Him on this side of the fall of Adam. That process is incarnation, human living, death, resurrection, and becomming the life giving Spirit.
So it is absolutely right to think of Jesus Christ as the tree of life to man today. He is God who passed through - incarnation, human living, death, resurrection, ascension, enthronement, and becoming the life giving Spirit - "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
We have the processed Triune God to be dispensed into us as the tree of life.
jaywill writes:
Man was created with a life which was very good.
The man that was formed from the dust of the ground and God personally breathed the breath of life into him was not very good.
He was perfect in every way.
I simply used the term very good as Genesis 1:34 says that God looked upon all that He had made and it was very good.
The point I was trying to make was that the first man disobeyed God.
The fruit had nothing to do with the results.
Something got into man's being. Something got into man's body. So it was not simply a matter of commiting a transgression. It was also a matter of being poisoned with something.
This is seen in Romans 7 and in other places.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by ICANT, posted 12-24-2008 12:26 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Coyote, posted 12-24-2008 7:21 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 182 by ICANT, posted 12-24-2008 11:06 PM jaywill has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 180 of 203 (491955)
12-24-2008 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by jaywill
12-24-2008 6:14 PM


Re: Sin
Something got into man's being. Something got into man's body. So it was not simply a matter of commiting a transgression. It was also a matter of being poisoned with something.
So some folks believe.
Others have more of the following belief:
Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful -- just stupid).
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by jaywill, posted 12-24-2008 6:14 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024