Biblical Tree of Knowledge

[Kobie]

When God says "One of us", who might the rest of "us" be?

Just a stranger on a bus.

 

[tosca1]

You're looking at the story as scripture, and scripture always goes hand-in-hand with commentary and interpretation from people learned in, well, scripture. I'm reading a story, and reading only what the story says.

That's the problem!

Of course I'm reading it as the Scripture.....after all, it's a Scripture for us Christians!

You insist to read and understand it as you would the "Iliad" - thus you dismiss the interpretations from scholars specializing in the studies of the Scripture!

Of course, we wouldn't be on the same page!

Adam and Eve were warned not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or they would die. At that point there was no mention of the tree of life, it wasn't until after they'd got the knowledge, after they'd became 'as gods', that eating from the tree of life became a threat. Can there be any other reading than that they were immortal before they acquired the knowledge of good and evil? Now they had the knowledge, so now they will die? They were evicted from the garden so they wouldn't eat from the tree of life, not because they disobeyed God. The garden is guarded to protect the tree of life.
That bolded part is important because so many people want to say that disobedience was the original sin but the Bible says clearly that preventing them eating from the other tree was what got them evicted from the garden.

All this is pointless...... unless you respond with the view that Genesis is part of the Scripture!


Btw....

Sin is - in a nutshell - disobedience to God.

Righteousness is - in a nutshell - obedience to God.

 

[tosca1]

Adam and Eve were warned not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or they would die.

Adam and Eve didn't physically die after they ate from it......in fact, Adam lived until the age of 930 years.

Obviously, God was referring to spiritual death.


Furthermore, why would God put cherubims to guard the Tree of Life to prevent Adam and Eve from eating from it, if they were already immortal to begin with?

On those bases, no....they may've been created in the image of God, but they were not created immortal.

 

[countryboy]

When God says "One of us", who might the rest of "us" be?

Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

 

[tosca1]

Two lines of evidence suggest that Adam was not created as an immortal being.

First, immortality is not possible in this universe, since the universe itself will eventually die without God's intervention. The second law of thermodynamics (entropy) guarantees that physical beings cannot live eternally. This is why those who go to heaven will eat of the tree of life,8 and be given spiritual bodies in the place of physical bodies.9


Second, the Bible indicates that Adam died spiritually the day he sinned.

If he would have eaten from the tree of life, he would have lived eternally, though spiritually dead. This is why God went to such great lengths to keep Adam from the tree of life after he had sinned.

Was Adam Created as an Immortal Being?


Thus, we needed the Messiah.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

But they are him, is she schizophrenic?

 

[countryboy]

But they are him, is she schizophrenic?

I thought it was an honest query, what was I thinking? :roll:

 

[Manc Skipper]

He was talking to himself, like the "father forgive them" speech? Or was he talking about the other gods he was jealous of, that you shouldn't have before him?

 

[tosca1]

You're looking at the story as scripture, and scripture always goes hand-in-hand with commentary and interpretation from people learned in, well, scripture. I'm reading a story, and reading only what the story says.
Adam and Eve were warned not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or they would die. At that point there was no mention of the tree of life, it wasn't until after they'd got the knowledge, after they'd became 'as gods', that eating from the tree of life became a threat. Can there be any other reading than that they were immortal before they acquired the knowledge of good and evil? Now they had the knowledge, so now they will die? They were evicted from the garden so they wouldn't eat from the tree of life, not because they disobeyed God. The garden is guarded to protect the tree of life.

That bolded part is important because so many people want to say that disobedience was the original sin but the Bible says clearly that preventing them eating from the other tree was what got them evicted from the garden.

As I've said, to me this is a story, a creation myth, and maybe the best story about the creation of mankind that I've encountered but certainly not literal truth. There's a moral and allegories in the story that can be instructive to anyone who reads them with the right attitude.

One important thing that I neglected to tell you:

Unless God wills and does it differently......

.......for us to understand the Scriptures, we need the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

You can have the Holy Spirit, only if you believe in Jesus Christ.


1 Cor 2
God’s Wisdom Revealed by the Spirit

6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 However, as it is written:

“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”—
the things God has prepared for those who love him—

10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.[c] 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.




1 Cor 2:14
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.


John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.


John 16:12-15
“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you."


1 Cor 2:13
And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.


Proverbs 9:10
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.

 

[Grand Mal]

Adam and Eve didn't physically die after they ate from it......in fact, Adam lived until the age of 930 years.

Obviously, God was referring to spiritual death.

That's not obvious to me. What it says to me is had they not eaten the forbidden fruit they would not have died.

Furthermore, why would God put cherubims to guard the Tree of Life to prevent Adam and Eve from eating from it, if they were already immortal to begin with?

On those bases, no....they may've been created in the image of God, but they were not created immortal.

They were no longer immortal, so the tree of life had to be guarded. They were not told to not eat from the tree of life until after they had eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There would be no reason to deny an immortal being the fruit from the tree of life.

This may sound kind of like trivial nit-picking but it leads to what may be the defining principle of Christianity- the idea of original sin and redemption. Without this story Christ is just another Jewish prophet. I see nothing in the story of the Garden of Eden that says Adam and Eve were expelled to punish them. God said they were sent out and the way back guarded to protect the tree of life. And I don't see how Adam and Eve were capable of sin before they ate the fruit. Nowhere does it say that the breath of God into the nostrils of man gave him knowledge of good and evil, in fact it says that the man had to eat the forbidden fruit to get that knowledge, that the knowledge was never intended for man but meant to be kept from him.
We don't need God's inspiration to tell us about good and evil. We know because we took the knowledge

 

[Grand Mal]

That's the problem!

Of course I'm reading it as the Scripture.....after all, it's a Scripture for us Christians!

You insist to read and understand it as you would the "Iliad" - thus you dismiss the interpretations from scholars specializing in the studies of the Scripture!

Of course, we wouldn't be on the same page!

This is true.
I dismiss the interpretations of scholars because they leave their footprints all over the pages. And I understand the importance of the story to Christians.

All this is pointless...... unless you respond with the view that Genesis is part of the Scripture!


Btw....

Sin is - in a nutshell - disobedience to God.

Righteousness is - in a nutshell - obedience to God.

Sorry, I can't say that the story of the creation and the Garden of Eden is anything more than a creation myth. It's a damned good one, as I said, and anyone who goes to it with the right frame of mind will probably learn something, but a myth, still. Divinely inspired? Maybe all mythology is! I'm pretty sure I know what those 'scholars' would think of that idea, though.

 

[JP Cusick]

Trees in the Bible sometimes represent people, i.e. Daniel 4:22 -

"Your Majesty, you are that tree! You have become great and strong; your greatness has grown until it reaches the sky, and your dominion extends to distant parts of the earth."

I've thought a few times that could mean that the 'tree of life' represents Jesus, who gives life (John 14:6, etc.). But I never could figure out a good candidate for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Wow - that is the most enlightened thing that I have ever seen you post.

Cheers.

 

[tosca1]

That's not obvious to me. What it says to me is had they not eaten the forbidden fruit they would not have died.

They were no longer immortal, so the tree of life had to be guarded. They were not told to not eat from the tree of life until after they had eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There would be no reason to deny an immortal being the fruit from the tree of life.

This may sound kind of like trivial nit-picking but it leads to what may be the defining principle of Christianity- the idea of original sin and redemption. Without this story Christ is just another Jewish prophet. I see nothing in the story of the Garden of Eden that says Adam and Eve were expelled to punish them. God said they were sent out and the way back guarded to protect the tree of life. And I don't see how Adam and Eve were capable of sin before they ate the fruit. Nowhere does it say that the breath of God into the nostrils of man gave him knowledge of good and evil, in fact it says that the man had to eat the forbidden fruit to get that knowledge, that the knowledge was never intended for man but meant to be kept from him.

Understanding is elusive to you, that's understandable. Being a non-believer, it will remain elusive....unless God intervenes now. That has been explained already.

They have a concept of goodness (they were surrounded with it by God's creation}. Each creation ended with...."and God saw it was good."

They also have the concept that they have to obey God. This was evident in Eve's response to the serpent: "....but He did say we are not to eat from that tree." That word, "but," is significant!

Therefore, they do have a concept of wrong - which is, disobedience to God.

Eating from that fruit really opened their eyes to evil. They actually committed it.
They saw their own sin! Thus the feeling of guilt was immediate!
They felt guilty right away after eating the fruit. They saw they were naked, and covered themselves up.

Their act was the first act of disobedience.

Nowhere does it say that the breath of God into the nostrils of man gave him knowledge of good and evil, in fact it says that the man had to eat the forbidden fruit to get that knowledge, that the knowledge was never intended for man but meant to be kept from him.

We don't need God's inspiration to tell us about good and evil. We know because we took the knowledge

Finally!

Now you're saying.....the Adam and Eve narrative wasn't a myth after all!



Okay....we're making progress here.....a little shuffling step at a time.

It's excruciatingly like pulling teeth though....but we're getting there....

 

[tosca1]

This is true.
Sorry, I can't say that the story of the creation and the Garden of Eden is anything more than a creation myth. It's a damned good one, as I said, and anyone who goes to it with the right frame of mind will probably learn something, but a myth, still. Divinely inspired? Maybe all mythology is! I'm pretty sure I know what those 'scholars' would think of that idea, though.

You're contradicting yourself. You said:

Nowhere does it say that the breath of God into the nostrils of man gave him knowledge of good and evil, in fact it says that the man had to eat the forbidden fruit to get that knowledge, that the knowledge was never intended for man but meant to be kept from him.

We don't need God's inspiration to tell us about good and evil. We know because we took the knowledge

Obviously, you don't consider it a myth because - thanks to Adam and Eve - you took the knowledge! :lol:

 

[Grand Mal]

Understanding is elusive to you, that's understandable. Being a non-believer, it will remain elusive....unless God intervenes now. That has been explained already.

They have a concept of goodness (they were surrounded with it by God's creation}. Each creation ended with...."and God saw it was good."

They also have the concept that they have to obey God. This was evident in Eve's response to the serpent: "....but He did say we are not to eat from that tree." That word, "but," is significant!

Therefore, they do have a concept of wrong - which is, disobedience to God.

Eating from that fruit really opened their eyes to evil. They actually committed it.
They saw their own sin! Thus the feeling of guilt was immediate!
They felt guilty right away after eating the fruit. They saw they were naked, and covered themselves up.

Their act was the first act of disobedience.







Finally!

Now you're saying.....the Adam and Eve narrative wasn't a myth after all!



Okay....we're making progress here.....a little shuffling step at a time.

It's excruciatingly like pulling teeth though....but we're getting there....

Well, let's stop shuffling and pulling teeth, then.
The story's a myth. It was never meant to be taken literally, or whence came the people in Nod, where Cain found a wife? Did God create them, too? Are they also guilty of Adam and Eve's sin?
People evolved from a distant African ancestor who lived, shortly and precariously, a hand-to-mouth existence, who never planted a seed or herded a goat and never made a sacrifice to God. Over centuries and umpteen generations the descendants of that creature looked up at the stars and made stories to tell around the fire. Like all such groups those people invented a God, made Him in their image, and had Him return the favour by creating their tribe with his own hands, making their tribe special. Now, more centuries and more generations later, the story has really gotten legs and instead of just telling about how our tribe was created by God, some people say that all people were created in the story. And that's all fine and dandy until people forget that it's just a story. Then things can get weird, and after weird things can get ugly.

On this basis, are we still talking about what the story actually says or are we done here?

 

[JP Cusick]

On this basis, are we still talking about what the story actually says or are we done here?

You are leaving out the rest of the Bible and that story does NOT end in Genesis 3 as you are presenting it.

So the discussion is finished because you are limiting the story.

You put it into a "Religious Discussions" board but then you want to cut out the religion of it.

It is still impressive that you would get such great insight into that story when you do cut out the religion and the rest of the Bible.

I just wish that we all could do both and see the bigger story and its message = Post # 20

 

[Grand Mal]

You are leaving out the rest of the Bible and that story does NOT end in Genesis 3 as you are presenting it.

So the discussion is finished because you are limiting the story.

You put it into a "Religious Discussions" board but then you want to cut out the religion of it.

It is still impressive that you would get such great insight into that story when you do cut out the religion and the rest of the Bible.

I just wish that we all could do both and see the bigger story and its message = Post # 20

Actually, this discussion began in a thread about karma and Buddhism and was brought here so it wouldn't be a distraction there. It's a fascinating topic and for the sake of you, Tosca1 and everyone else who accepts it with religious faith it belongs here despite my disbelief.
It's interesting, but for me no more than interesting.

 

[JP Cusick]

Also, even when you take it literally.... if it's the tree of knowledge that gave mankind the concept of good and evil (because they ate from the tree).....well, who created the tree of knowledge? God.
Therefore, that also supports my stance that, without God, mankind wouldn't have the concept of right and wrong.

It is completely wrong to view the knowledge of good and bad (evil) as being the same as the knowledge of right and wrong because those are completely different kinds of knowledge.

Many people say that it is okay to lie even when they know it is wrong because they think if a lie (a wrong) can be used to do good or to use against what they view as "bad" then that poisoned knowledge of "good and bad" will overrule the knowledge of right and wrong.

Those are NOT the same thing and are NOT synonymous.

 

[tosca1]

Well, let's stop shuffling and pulling teeth, then.
The story's a myth. It was never meant to be taken literally, or whence came the people in Nod, where Cain found a wife? Did God create them, too? Are they also guilty of Adam and Eve's sin?

We're discussing how mankind got the concept of good and bad.

Whether it's taken literally or not, it still boils down to the fact that: without God we wouldn't have a concept of good and bad.

After all, GOD CREATED THE TREE, TOO! Therefore, without God, there wouldn't be the tree from which you "took the knowledge" from!

People evolved from a distant African ancestor who lived, shortly and precariously, a hand-to-mouth existence, who never planted a seed or herded a goat and never made a sacrifice to God. Over centuries and umpteen generations the descendants of that creature looked up at the stars and made stories to tell around the fire. Like all such groups those people invented a God, made Him in their image, and had Him return the favour by creating their tribe with his own hands, making their tribe special. Now, more centuries and more generations later, the story has really gotten legs and instead of just telling about how our tribe was created by God, some people say that all people were created in the story. And that's all fine and dandy until people forget that it's just a story. Then things can get weird, and after weird things can get ugly.

On this basis, are we still talking about what the story actually says or are we done here?

That's your own opinion!

You're bringing in macro-evolution - mitochondrial eve and out-of-africa theory - that's merely speculation and could very well be the myth!

Check out the last few pages from this thread. Especially the article from James Tour (hign-ranking chemist).
No scientist actually understands evolution - and that include nobel prize winners! Start here and read on.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...volution-and-theory-evolution-evidence-5.html


So if you're now using evolution as your argument, I guess we're done.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Certainly if evolution is introduced, you're toast.

 

[tosca1]

It is completely wrong to view the knowledge of good and bad (evil) as being the same as the knowledge of right and wrong because those are completely different kinds of knowledge.

Many people say that it is okay to lie even when they know it is wrong because they think if a lie (a wrong) can be used to do good or to use against what they view as "bad" then that poisoned knowledge of "good and bad" will overrule the knowledge of right and wrong.

Those are NOT the same thing and are NOT synonymous.

In the Biblical sense - there's not much difference.

What Does the Bible Say About Right And Wrong?


In Ethics, what is right has something to do with compliance to rules and regulations.

It's also defined as that which is just, moral and proper (which is also what is meant by goodness in the Bible). Thus, the term....righteousness.

 

[Grand Mal]

We're discussing how mankind got the concept of good and bad.

Whether it's taken literally or not, it still boils down to the fact that: without God we wouldn't have a concept of good and bad.

After all, GOD CREATED THE TREE, TOO! Therefore, without God, there wouldn't be the tree from which you "took the knowledge" from!







That's your own opinion!

You're bringing in macro-evolution - mitochondrial eve and out-of-africa theory - that's merely speculation and could very well be the myth!

Check out the last few pages from this thread. Especially the article from James Tour (hign-ranking chemist).
No scientist actually understands evolution - and that include nobel prize winners! Start here and read on.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...volution-and-theory-evolution-evidence-5.html


So if you're now using evolution as your argument, I guess we're done.

Evolution was always here. I've never pretended that the story in Genesis was anything but a fiction and I only bring it up now to clarify my position as you seemed to think I was coming around to believing the Bible story.
But yeah, I guess we're done. An omniscient God is a very useful device. Cheers.

 

[tosca1]

Evolution was always here. I've never pretended that the story in Genesis was anything but a fiction and I only bring it up now to clarify my position as you seemed to think I was coming around to believing the Bible story.
But yeah, I guess we're done. An omniscient God is a very useful device. Cheers.

No, I didn't say you're coming around to believe. I finally pried it out from you that contrary to your claim Adam and Eve narrative is pure myth.....your argument actually shows that you don't really believe it's a myth at all! :mrgreen:

I was pointing out that when you said, "we TOOK THE KNOWLEDGE," - the concept of good and evil - you were adapting the LITERAL narrative of Adam and Eve! You're practically saying we have the knowledge because of them!

In other words, you're not consistent. On one hand you're saying the Genesis Creation story is a myth and was not to be taken literally, yet on the other hand - you freely adapt to its literal translation because it suits your argument. You can't have it both ways. :lol:


Whereas I can have it both ways (whether it be literally taken or not, it still ends up supporting my argument), you, however, can't!

----------


And btw, my rejection of evolution is not because it will disprove God (because it doesn't), but because it's purely conjectures that's being passed off as fact.

if ever evolution happens to be proven true, Christians can also own that!
It doesn't offer a counter-argument against mine.

So, on that basis we're done, I suppose.

 

[JP Cusick]

In the Biblical sense - there's not much difference.

What Does the Bible Say About Right And Wrong?

In Ethics, what is right has something to do with compliance to rules and regulations.

It's also defined as that which is just, moral and proper (which is also what is meant by goodness in the Bible). Thus, the term....righteousness.

No.

When people (not the Bible and not God but people) use the poisoned knowledge of "good and bad" to decide what is right or wrong then that decision is being perverted.

The two sets of opposites are not the same kind of knowledge.

"Good and bad" are NOT the same as "right and wrong".

The knowledge of right and wrong makes a person to have strong integrity, while the "knowledge of good and bad" is still poison to people today.

It was poisoned knowledge in the beginning, and it is still poisoned knowledge ever after.

 

[tosca1]

No.

When people (not the Bible and not God but people) use the poisoned knowledge of "good and bad" to decide what is right or wrong then that decision is being perverted.

The two sets of opposites are not the same kind of knowledge.

"Good and bad" are NOT the same as "right and wrong".

The knowledge of right and wrong makes a person to have strong integrity, while the "knowledge of good and bad" is still poison to people today.

It was poisoned knowledge in the beginning, and it is still poisoned knowledge ever after.

I'm referring to the Bible. That's what Grand Mal and I were discussing - it got to do with Genesis.