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

Hi Bailey,Thank's for the clarification. I have this foolish idea that the first man knew exactly what the God had said in Genesis 2:17, and exactly what it meant. Because after God made the creatures and the man named them, God took a rib from the man and formed a woman and brought her to the man.The man knew that she was a part of his flesh and he said: The woman was deceived into eating the fruit.Many think the man was present at this time because: Says "with her" in verse 6. Those two words are not translated from any Hebrew word or words.Now to my foolish idea.The woman was deceived by the Serpent.She then brought the fruit to the man and gave to him.He did not have to eat the fruit but he knew the woman was going to die. So instead of being alone with the animals he chose to eat the fruit and die with the woman. He did this because of what he said in Genesis 2:24 quoted above.He was willing to give up everything for his wife. So should we all be.When God asked the man about eating the fruit in Genesis 3:11 the woman had given him the fruit and he ate it. No excuse offered.In 3:13 the woman said the Serpent beguiled (deceived) me, and I did eat. Excuse offered.Their eyes were not opened until after the man had eaten the fruit.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."

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

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Hi Bailey, But her eyes was not opened until the man ate the fruit. Actually the man did the same thing everyone here at EvC does for all the worlds problems.He blamed it on God.He said the woman you gave me, she gave it to me and I ate it.But I don't see him using that as an excuse just an explanation.Now if she had deceived him by saying it was from somewhere else I am sure he would have tried to use that as an excuse.But the fact remains he had no excuse.God said if you eat you will die. He died and I believe it was the same day but that is another story.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."

Comment withdrawn.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

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

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Hi Bailey, The woman was deceived therefore that is an excuse.The man willfully disobeyed God. There is no excuse only tapdancing. God does not have day's. God has no yesterday and no tomorrow He only has a great big "NOW".I believe everything in Genesis 1:1 as described in Genesis 2:4 through Genesis 4:26 took place over a long day that ended in Genesis 1:5 with the evening and the morning being the first day.In this account there is no mention of years or age of the man or woman or their children. There was no dark periods to break up the light periods, so there was nothing to measure time by. That did not happen until God separated the light and darkness in Genesis 1:5.
The man was not around in the evening so he must have died (just a guess Bible does not say) sometime prior to the evening of Genesis 1:5.I think this will explain my position on the man dying the same day.This is a thread I did on the Literal Genesis Account of Creation. I am familiar with most all text's, but I use the accepted ones.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."

Baily,What do you think about this paragraph? What do you think about this? One paradox it presents for me is that in the garden before the incarnation of God as the man Jesus Christ Adam was placed before the tree of life to receive the life of God or God as life. Yet according to this paragraph God had to be mingled with humanity before He could be life to man.I will be reading more and meditating on this problem. I would like to hear your comment.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

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

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Do you think that God held the existence of the Tree of Life as a secret from Adam? I don't see that because in the middle of the garden was the tree of life.We are told that the tree of life was in the midst of the garden. It is mentioned FIRST and the forbidden tree is mentioned SECOND." ... the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." (Gen 1:9b)Is it logical that what we are informed of first would have been kept secret from Adam ?The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was specifically mentioned to Adam in verse 17 because of the prohibition. I think this is the less likely interpretation. But refuting it from the text of Genesis is certainly not easy either.One thing is clear. If Adam did not know the significance of the tree of life before he disobeyed, he certainly became aware of it afterwards.However explaining WHY Adam did not first take of the tree of life is just one of those mysteries. It is on par with trying to explain why Judas betrayed the Son of God. I don't know that. You're saying that God told the reader but Adam was not told.Too much of this interpretation suggests God intentionally trying to trip Adam up or channel him to commit error.God's sovereignty and providence is one thing. God purposely channeling Adam to mess up is another. God's providence and ability to turn all things out for good is one thing. God going out of His way to assure that Adam commits sin is another. Don't you think you are trying too hard to make God appear as the Real tempter in the story rather than the lying serpent? Again, not easy to refute from the text, admittedly. But it seems to me the less likely possibility. I wait for you to explain why God would be secretive to Adam about the tree in the middle of the garden. You are suggesting that God placed the tree of life in the middle of the garden just so Adam would NOT eat of it?This is not too logical.And I would ask you if God did NOT want man to eat of the tree of life then WHY did He simply place the cherubim with the flaming sword to guard the way to it BEFORE Adam ate of any tree?1.) I have a problem with it being there in the FIRST place if God did not intend it for man.2.) I have a problem with God waiting until Adam had disqualified himself from partaking of it. If Adam by creation was disqualified for it then there was no need to wait to guard it against his partaking. I still strongly suggest you spend more time in the Gospel of John. Notice how many times it speaks of ZOE "But we have this treasure in earthen vessels that the excellency of the power may be of God and not of us." (2 Cor. 4:7)[/b]The life and Person of the Triune God is the invisible treasure. And man was made to be the living vessel to contain this divine treasure of the Divine Person."In Him [Christ the Word] was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness was not able to overcome it." (John 1:5)This life of Christ, this life which IS Christ, comes into man and is an indwelling light. Without Him we are in darkness. Jesus Christ wants to be the indwelling and internal divine life and light to man.Early Genesis portrays this by showing man that to eat of the tree of life was to have the divine and eternal life of God. But being constituted a sinner closed off that possibility from Adam. That is until man could be redeemed and justified to receive this life of God.This is not a biological matter. This is a matter of the uncreated and divine Person mingling Himself with man to produce the union of the creature with the Creator, the humanity with the divinity. He was placed among the trees. I agree with that. But in the middle of the garden was the tree of life. It shared that spot with a forbidden tree. Maybe because you call them "fundies?" LOL.Seriously, I have not met that many fundamentalists who pay much attention to the tree of life. It is by far the less mentioned of the two trees in many discussions with mainstream fundamental Christianity.I think your responses from me are atypical. But I could be wrong. Well, this gets kind of tricky. The ground was cursed so everything that came from the ground was damaged. However, these two trees may have been some supernatural items not typical.Latter in the Bible we are told that the Holy Spirit came down upon Jesus at His baptism in the form of a dove. So there is probably something going on with the appearance of these trees and the great truths which stood behind them.But I do not understand everything about this at this time. I am not troubled by that. The fallen and Satanified man came from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The good neutral man was created from God directly.The human conscience was like an emergency brake system that God designed for man. Before Adam ate it was not needed and was not in function. And he didn't miss it. He had what he needed in direction and guidance directly from God's presence.When man sinned and came under the authority of God's enemy and slanderer, the human conscience as an emmergency brake system was activated. It cannot restore man to innocency. But it can restrict the downward slide into immorality if man will listen to it.God was wise to design a break system innate in man just in case man should depart from his relationship with God.This is really a profound book. I have to roll my eyes at people who suggest that it is not divinely inspired. I don't think the human imagination alone could come up with such an account.I think the hallmarks of divine authorship are all over Genesis.
I would expect man to write something more like Pandora's Box - a box of all evils. But think about Genesis ... "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."And it is not the tree of good verses the tree of evil. That is what I would expect from the human imagination. But it is more profound than that. The writer has the tree of LIFE verses the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.It is quite profound to me. And I think it all points to Jesus Christ the Son of God.I have to discontinue here for now.God bless our exploration into His word.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Above I meant to write "I do [not] understand everything about this at this time."

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

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

interesting debateim just wondering if Bailey is suggesting that the 'tree of life' could literally give them everlasting life?I would like to suggest that the tree simply represented God’s guarantee of everlasting life to the one who would be allowed to eat its fruit. If you consider the 'tree of knowelege of good and bad' it was the only tree they were not allowed to eat from, it was their one and only rule from God... if they had of obeyed, they would have been showing their respect for Gods right to rule and decide what is good and badbut seeing they ate from that tree, they really showed that they did not respect Gods right to ruleif that tree represented death due to independence from God
then is it possible that the other tree represented 'life' by obedience to God?

Baily,My replies are likely to be very brief this evening. If you mean Christ as life in John, yes. Man was created to be mingled with God. Satan God's enemy likes to run ahead with a counterfeit plan. Man was united with Satan.In a strong sense as spontaneously as we sin God will gain a people who equally spontaneously manifest the holiness and righteousness of God.What we see today is an exact reverse of God's eternal purpose. We express the Devil. We were created to express God. Salvation therefore is a kind of reversal from going down one road and placing us back on the proper road to be saturated with the life of God. Yes. However, the human conscience is part of the human spirit. So when the spirit became comatose and deadened it was not totally killed. That is because the conscience in the human spirit still functions in the sinners. What has died is two matters. The ability to have fellowship with God and the intuition which teaches man concerning things deeper than the logic and reasoning in the soul.The intuition in the spirit is an ability for a person to know that he knows the he knows something is true - an intuitive grasp on reality which is deeper than the rational mind.For these two functions to be restored the human spirit must be regenerated- reborn through the new birth experience in Jesus Christ.And as you said. Christ coming into the comatose spirit to make it alive again is the treasure in the earthen vessel. I would agree. The person who is not born again senses that something is missing in life. They do not know what it is. The sense they have is the missing function of the human spirit. It is very very valuable. Once we find it we have to give our all to learn to live in that realm. The regenerated spirit must ascend again to be the highest component of man. I can see this. I know that we are in a sense a three dimensional being. But because of Adam's fall we are born with the immediate awareness of only two dimensions. Some sense that something is missing. Others deny that anything is missing and learn to live without their spirit.But the fortunate are born again in the spirit. And the wise not only stop their but learn to go on to excercise their spirit and live under the enfluence of their spirit. This takes practice, time, patience, and probably a lifetime to perfect.But going into the next age it is crucial ... crucial that by then we have learned to live according to our born again spirit, or at least know how to touch God in prayer and fellowship in our spirit.The best preparation for the age to come on this earth is to allow the born again spirit to ascend about the body and soul in its rightful preeminent place. Then we are under the headship of Christ and the soul, mind, body and other inward parts are submisive to the strong divine indwelt human spirit. In John light is a big subject. In the Bible in general light is a big subject.By one or two or several posts we could never exhaust its meaning.
And the more experience we have the more we can speak of light.But I think that this light which is the light of life has to do with consciousness. It has to do with illumination and seeing the real nature of things. It has to do with seeing as God sees - seeing through the eyes of God.You may listen to a person speak and you have no light from God. You hear one thing. Then you gain more light from God and you see and hear the person as God sees and hears. You see yourself and other people differently from before. You have light from God.Jesus had no darkness in Him whatsoever. He was and is full of light. His impact on human history derives from His being so much in the divine light of God.We have to realize that we are deeply deceived people. We need to be delivered from the Satanic darkness into the light of God. God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all.Light also has much to do with conscience. If we sin and have no feeling about the horribleness of it it is because we have little light. The life was the light of men. Yes. I think this is what is there. God is a realm. God is a sphere. Man was not created in the sphere. But to enter into that sphere and realm was placed before him, to enter of his free will.To see what a man of life looks like and how he behaves we must study the Person of Jesus Christ in the Gospels. He is the God-Man. He is not just a Good-Man. He is the God-Man, a Man of Divine Life mingled with the human life.This Person is too unique. The whole matter of WHY was there ANYTHING negative or adverse to man in the garden, is a basic question. When we read about the original paradise and come across a lying serpent and a tree of the knowledge of good and evil, we must ask "WHY are these dangersous things in the Paradise that God made for man."I think the answer lies in God's pronouncement that Adam was to guard the garden and that Adam was to have DOMINION over the earth. The negative matters left over from a more ancient age were matters over which Adam was assigned to have dominion and reign over.Instead of Adam excercising his dominion over these negative things he came under their control. They had dominion over him. He was meant to have dominion over them.My opinion is that eventually the lying serpent would have been executed on general principle. Satan acted preemtively to avert his own doom. From the creation of man Satan, evil angels, demonic spirits were doomed to be destroyed under the obedient Adam's GOd expressing image and divinely appointed dominion.This is no small verse:"And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of heaven and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping things that creeps upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26)I honestly believe that by extrapolation we could read that as "Let US make man in Our image and place him over the entire universe as Our Deputy Authority to express the holiness and righteousness of the Creator and to put down whatever rebellious beings there are against God in the universe.Again, if you doubt you must go to and study carefully the Person of Jesus Christ. He is what God meant by human being.Normal therefore, I submit, is the Son of God. He is not the anigma. He represents normality. And against His lofty postion we can see how far man has fallen from the purpose of God.The Lord Jesus is the standard and our Savior. Of course ascending up to the level of Jesus are many godly men and women - Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Deborah, David, Solomon, ...etc. All these imperfect ones are precusors of the Son of God. They are imperfect steps leading up to the Perfect One, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ the God-man.I will continue in another post, especially these challenge:

Not concerning the Trees per se, but perhaps the Principle of the matter I might understand.Before man was created the angels were created. And I believe that other creatures in the pre-Adamic world were created. None of them shared the life of God. Neither angel nor any other being was created to have the opportunity that was presented to man.The advent of God offering man to partake of Himself so that God the creature would mingle together was a totally new item in the universe. This was "revolutionary".At best before God did have some creatures. And one of them was extrememly wise and knowledgeable. That was the Day Star - (in Latin Lucifer). This highly positioned being rebelled against God to become the opposite of God. Whatever God was this rebellious being had to become the opposite. God is a God of life. This being became a god of DEATH.He was perfect in his was from the day he was created. So you must realize that no creature was as wise or as humble or as smart or a knowledgeable than the being that became Satan. It is his principle of independence and rebellion against God which is wrapped up in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in Genesis.We have to see that this knowledge was something of God. We see God saying "Behold the man has become as one of US, knowing good and evil..." So I must concede that this knowledge was something of God and something divine.But the principle of this knowledge in the hands of Satan is rebellion and revolt and independence from God. No being can be independent from God. God alone is self existing and totally not dependent upon anything or anyone. Only God is God. All other lives are dependent.Satan became independent and his revolt is a dynamic withdrawing into Death.I stress again. Man gained the knowledge of good and evil. Yet he lacked in this deal, the POWER to perform the good that he knows or the POWER to resist the evil that he knows. He is very proud of the knowledge. But he became enslaved to the Rebel and joined the opposition party against God.The tree of life, or at least the principle of God's life to be imparted into man was a new thing. It was in the heart of God from eternity past. But it was not manifested, I think, until after the rebellion of Satan.This is the eternal providence and forknowledge of God. This may be God using the rebellion of Satan as a back drop upon which He enacts His eternal purpose.The book of Ephesians enfluences me to think this way. It does not start from the viewpoint of man's need to be saved from his sins. It starts from the eternal viewpoint of God wanting sons in His divine family to express Him.I think from one standpoint the creation of man is a reaction to the failed Day Star's existence to become Satan. But from another deeper standpoint, the failure of the first being gave God a back drop upon which to cause His real eternal economy to he launched - the creation of a being within whom God can live and with whom God can unite.Again we need to study the Person of Jesus Christ in the New Testament to ascertain this revelation. That may be so but the Satanic principle of withdrawing from God with great degrees of knowledge is totally condemned. And Satan in the end goes to the eternal damnation. His rebels, angels, demons, and unrepentent sinners co-join him in his eternal punishment.So while I cannot argue that the knowledge of good and evil per se is condemned, it is totally obvious that the one who abused it and derailed God's plan becomes the eternally cursed being. He will be tormented for ever and ever. And the fallen angels who followed him, and the demonic spirits, and the unrepentent human beings will join him in this etenal damnation.So we need to believe into Jesus the Savior to be saved from so terrible a destiny. And it was not even the season for that tree to produce fruits. This must be significant also. This is still myterious to me. But God asked the man when Adam became aware that he was naked "Who told you that you were naked?Could it be that immediately after the knowledge of good and evil came the Satanic accusation against man's conscience started? Before God allowed them to be naked. God said it was OK.Then they ate and they felt condemned. God said "WHO told you ...? Seems that God did not tell them. How did they get to know that they should not be naked?This is just still very prodound to me. But perhaps a being, Satan, who had such superior knowledge and the inside story on so many things, began to accuse man. "See, look at yourself. You are naked and shameful."I speculate quite a bit here and you can take it with a grain of salt. But anyway, we have to grasp that what was of God was used by Satan and the sinner to rebel against God. This is the subtlety of the matter.So when you constantly speak highly of this knowledge of good and evil, I can see your point somewhat. But the good thing was used by Satan in a totally revolting way. It was actually a tree of DEATH. Concerning this not being a biological matter. I agree that life has to do with the TOTALITY of man. In that sense I think you are right. For Paul says that even the physical body will be swallowed up by the divine life.So the resurrection and the transfiguration DO indeed effect the bios of man and involved his physical component.I will skip down a little. I will have to agee because man is also physical. And this extensive salvation of man being mingled with the life of God also includes the glorification of the human body.Concerning my admition that Adam was placed among the trees: Yes. Even in the daily life of the Christian it is not always easy to discern by which principle you are living.Judas thought he was doing good by betraying Jesus. He as deceived.
Peter thought he was doing good by arguing that Jesus should not go to the cross. This got him rebuked as Satan."And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke HIm, saying, God be merciful to You, Lord! This [crucifixion] shall by no means happen to You!

​

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." (Matt. 16:22,23)This was the knowledge of good and evil in the abusive hands of Satan. This was the temptation of Satan against the Son of God using a distored ethics to destract the Son of God from performing the Father's will.Would you not say that to perseve the life of the Son of God was a most noble and good thing to suggest? I would. That is because our minds are set on the things of men and not on the will of God.I hope you can see how subtlely this abuse of the knowledge of good and evil can become if we do not have the Spirit of God within us to lead us into His perfect will.I have to discontinue here.Agape, in the name of Jesus the Lord.