PDA

View Full Version : The Two Trees of Genesis



Teke
Jun 7th 2008, 01:37 PM
Rebel777 brought up some questions about the two trees in relation to Adam and God's plan. This thread is to further explore these type of questions.

Here is the question, "One might wonder why God planted the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the first place and secondly forbid A&E to eat from it. Was it just a test or is there something deeper than that? Did death enter the world as a punishment from God for disobedience or was it an automatic result, cause and effect so to say."

Some thoughts that come to mind about the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
I would venture to say that the tree of knowledge of good and evil is a depiction of wisdom. Proverbs calls wisdom a tree.

Then there is the tree of life. Christ is spoken of in scripture as the tree of Life for us.

Does wisdom come before life, or does life bring wisdom. Those of us who are of some age would say the latter is the answer.

So are the trees a test or something deeper? Look at what Jesus says in Matthew 12:33 to the Pharisees.


Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by [his] fruit.


Genesis 3:6 says that the woman saw that the fruit was good, and a tree to be desired to make one wise.
I've heard the two trees represented as evil and good, the devil and Christ etc. But it could just be that both represent Christ. Something which can only be discerned by the fruit of the trees.

From what Christ has said in Matthew, it would seem it is up to us to "make the tree" what it is, good or corrupt. Since this is God speaking, what would we say was His intent with the trees in Eden.

Literalist-Luke
Jun 7th 2008, 01:53 PM
OK, this might be a little "out there" for some of you, but this is my take on it:

God created the tree to set His plan into motion. You have to understand the big picture on this. He had no desire "that any should perish", but he needed to get His plan rolling.

The angels were created first. At some point in the past, some of them (probably about 1/3 of them, based on Revelation 12) rebelled, under the leadership of "Lucifer", who we also call Satan (which is Hebrew for "adversary".)

God pronounced judgment on the rebellious angels and my guess is that they argued that He was being unfair in rendering an eternal judgment. So He decided to show them just how deserving they are of eternal punishment, so He created us for His "demonstration".

You see, Satan and the demons (fallen angels), had/have direct access to the Throne of God in Heaven. God decided to demonstrate for them that He could create a species that would NOT have direct access to the Throne, such as they had, and that in spite of that limitation, large numbers of the new species would still choose for Him IN SPITE of the lack of visible proof and IN SPITE of there being problems in the world.

So He made us "a little lower than angels" in the creational hierarchy.

He then turned Satan loose on us (Adam and Eve) and allowed Satan to incite them to rebellion, which of course leads to the story we all know in the Bible.

God demonstrated His mercy by dying for us "while we were yet sinners", disproving Satan's (probable) claim of God being "unmerciful". In addition, those of us who choose for God and wind up being faithful are further proof to the demons that they are without excuse. They had direct access to the Throne, for cryin' out loud, and yet they rebelled! We, the body of believers, however, have only the creation around us along with the Bible as His revelation of Himself to us, humankind. The fact that many of us will still respond with faith in God in spite of these limitations is only further proof that the demons did not "choose wisely". By virtue of our faithfulness in light of their rebellion even though they have seen the face of God and we have not, that is why we will "judge angels", as Paul said.

So because of this, we not only have the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to us, but on top of that, any works of faith that we perform in the meantime are credited to us as righteous on top of righteousness! By themselves, they would only be "as filthy rags" but when you add them to Christ's righteousness, they are worthy of the rewards we are promised in the New Testament.

longtooth
Jun 7th 2008, 02:19 PM
I believe all the Word to be litteral unless it is "evidently a metafore." Therefore I believe God planted both trees.
Tree of life for them to eat of like the rest on the trees in the garden.
Tree of KOG&E was a real tree too.
For men to Love God & be obedient to God out of love there must be two thing.
1. Free will to choose.
2. Opportunity to sin. This one gets very little attention.
Temporal example: We have the free will to choose what we want to eat for supper. Get to the table & there is Cornbread & Water every time then free will is a moot point. Free will in tact but no choices to exersice that free will with. There has to be something more on the table.
God gave man a free will to choose so love & obedience would not be robotic but a concious choice. IF there was no tree of KOG&E there would be no opportunity & therefore no choice to love & obey.
God of Creation gave both.
Man fell. Jesus rose. Man still has the free will & opportunity through the call of God our Holy Spirit.
Gods plan is simple enough for the country boy to understand. It is the deep theologians that make it hard.;)

RogerW
Jun 7th 2008, 02:45 PM
Rebel777 brought up some questions about the two trees in relation to Adam and God's plan. This thread is to further explore these type of questions.

Here is the question, "One might wonder why God planted the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the first place and secondly forbid A&E to eat from it. Was it just a test or is there something deeper than that? Did death enter the world as a punishment from God for disobedience or was it an automatic result, cause and effect so to say."



Greetings Teke,

I think what often gets overlooked regarding this specific tree is that it was able to make one wise, knowing both good AND EVIL. Prior to eating from the forbidden tree Adam and Eve knew nothing of evil or its consquences. If man never knows evil, can he truly know love?

Many Blessings,
RW

Yukerboy
Jun 7th 2008, 04:11 PM
YOO HOO! Phaeton?! Where are you?!

Sorry, just waiting on another to perhaps bring up what I think they may bring up on this thread. :)

Let me just say real quick, the ONLY provider of everlasting life is Christ IMHO. So the Tree of Life would be a direct image, representation of, or even Christ himself.

Yuke

calidog
Jun 7th 2008, 04:57 PM
Since this is God speaking, what would we say was His intent with the trees in Eden.
He let man free in the garden to eat from the tree of life but warned him that death would result from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God also allowed the serpent into the garden to tempt them. So we know they had free will.

I would hazard to guess that Gods intent was to begin the very long process, by our standards, of redemption. All it took was a tree.

Literalist-Luke
Jun 7th 2008, 07:02 PM
I would hazard to guess that Gods intent was to begin the very long process, by our standards, of redemption. All it took was a tree.You got it. :thumbsup:

Alaska
Jun 7th 2008, 11:04 PM
Literal: two separate trees; both bearing literal edible fruit.

They did not have the concept of something being right or wrong, that concept is what we take for granted, after the fact, since we are born with that divine factor of conscience inherited from A&E.

The Angels, on the other hand, apparently had the KOG&E, they being created, not born, and on a higher level than man.
Like animals that neither wear clothes nor have the divine KOG&E factor present in their lives, A&E were dealt with by reason of consequences.

[Adam and Eve were much higher than animals but they did have in common these two factors: not having the knowledge of good and evil, and connected with that was their not wearing clothes, which like the animals, was not held against them because they were made to live unashamedly naked in the garden. God made it easy for them; not having the burden the angels bore with having to deal with right and wrong. And since they were not created to deal with the effects of that knowledge and since receiving that knowledge would open up the door for accountable and inevitable sin and judgement, it was God's wisdom to equate the eating of that tree with death.]

It wasn't because it was wrong, that they should not eat of that tree, it was a consequential thing: if they did it, it would cause them to die. The tree of the KOG&E was in effect the tree of death. So there were two trees, the one giving life, the other, death.

Both the angels and man had the freedom of choice to choose either death or life. Otherwise love is not love since love has to be a voluntary choice. The voluntary choice for the angels to love God or not, came through their choice of doing either good or evil. But since mankind did not have the KOG&E, their freewill ability to love God or not, came through either doing one thing or doing another; neither of which was based on one being right and another wrong. To eat of the tree of death (the tree of the KOG&E) was understood to make them cease their existence with God. It was consequential without the right and wrong factor.
God does not force people to follow him, it is their choice, out of a love for Him and the truth.

Under one tree, mankind inherited death; under another, at Calvary, he was given a way back to eternal life. Like the "law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not", God did not delete the KOG&E but rather gave us the means of handling it by his grace to do the good and not the evil, since the law cannot be deleted or broken that says the wages of sin is death.

And like in the book of Esther, instead of deleting the law, God initiated another law through Christ, even the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, that enables us to overcome the law of sin and death that previously dictated the actions of the children of Adam before their being made a part of the last Adam's body; the church.

And like in the garden, believers in Jesus can be deceived into relinquishing their eternal life with God.
How?
By becoming deceived into living a life of doing what the NT says will cause the doers thereof to NOT inherit the kingdom of God. Paul expressed this very concern in 2 Cor. 11.

1 Cor. 6:9

Teke
Jun 8th 2008, 01:34 AM
Thanks for all the posts so far. :)

Another interesting point of view I've studied is one which looks at the types given (paradise, the trees), in relation to mankinds creation. That is from the perspective of a birth. Paradise being the womb and the trees being a psychological metaphor of what happens at birth.

Teke
Jun 8th 2008, 08:27 PM
I believe all the Word to be litteral unless it is "evidently a metafore."

A question I would ask about this is, how do you tell the difference when your dealing with ancient literature and it's pictographic methodology. An example would be as when we read of fire or swords coming from the mouth of a human being. And knowing this type of depiction is also seen in ancient pictographic language. In a picture, such as Egyptian hieroglyphics, such a scene doesn't actually mean that people breathed fire, but that whatever they spoke held great power.

Maybe an analogy would be a better term than metaphor.:hmm:
Since if you didn't possess the terminology to express or communicate something literal verbally, you would revert to an analogy to express what your trying to communicate.

Metaphor and analogy can both be very literal. ie. a metaphor, "our God is a mighty fortress". an analogy, "the heart is a pump". Both can be understood very literally.

IamBill
Jun 9th 2008, 02:31 PM
Mt 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Best add 12:34 there ;)

God told us of the fruit, and yes we can call or make "of it" what we will, satan did.
But God warned us -
"for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
THAT IS THE FRUIT of the tree !
The Tree of life- and the tree of Death
:cool:

Brother Mark
Jun 9th 2008, 02:41 PM
It is a mistake, IMO, to think redemption is God's ultimate plan. A couple of thoughts.

1. RW has it right. The tree is not of wisdom but of knowledge of good and evil. It was the three fold temptation we see in scripture 1. lust of the eyes (good to look at), 2. lust of the flesh (good for food), 3. boastful pride of life (desirable to make one wise).

2. God's ultimate plan is to make us like Jesus and to sum up everything in Christ. This was his ultimate intention from the get go. (Romans 8 and other epistles.)

With reason 2 in mind, let's look at Jesus. He was "slain before the foundations of the world". In other words, Jesus was already dead to himself. 1 Cor 13 shows that "love does not seek it's own". Love never fails and endures to the end. Jesus showed what the first Adam should have been like. He said no to the tree of knowledge when he was driven to the wilderness for the same three temptations that Adam and Eve failed at. (Though Jesus temptations were far worse for he was in a fallen world.)

The command from Jesus is for us to "take up our cross and follow Him". We too are to be "slain". The tree of knowledge of good and evil was put there as a test for Adam and Eve. They were to say no to themselves and yes to God. In order to do so, they would have to eat from the tree of life. Then, I think another test would have come along. And again, one would eat of the Tree of Life and pass that test too. That is what we do today. We eat of Jesus and overcome. Each step along the way, the cross is worked further and further into us, until we are like Jesus.

Redemption is not the focal point of God's plan, it is just the starting point!

Finally, let us not say that God makes man sick in order to make man well. What kind of mother would feed her child poison in order to nurse that child back to health? We would rightly put such a woman in jail! Yet, some teach that about God. God is love. Love does not do such a thing.

longtooth
Jun 9th 2008, 03:49 PM
Redemption is not the focal point of God's plan, it is just the starting point!


Arrow of truth from the Bow of God.

Teke
Jun 9th 2008, 05:26 PM
Mt 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Best add 12:34 there ;)

God told us of the fruit, and yes we can call or make "of it" what we will, satan did.
But God warned us -
"for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
THAT IS THE FRUIT of the tree !
The Tree of life- and the tree of Death
:cool:

"The tree is known for it's fruit". Man would have to experience death to know "good" as well as "evil".
If life is good, then knowing that is subject to death just as much as knowing evil.

Teke
Jun 9th 2008, 05:37 PM
1. RW has it right. The tree is not of wisdom but of knowledge of good and evil. It was the three fold temptation we see in scripture 1. lust of the eyes (good to look at), lust of the flesh (good for food), boastful pride of life (desirable to make one wise).

To paraphrase scripture, no temptation takes hold of man except what is natural to him. Meaning it is a natural thing for a human being to experience the passions of his humanity.

Roger's post did make a good point. But the good also entailed death.




Finally, let us not say that God makes man sick in order to make man well. What kind of mother would feed her child poison in order to nurse that child back to health? We would rightly put such a woman in jail! Yet, some teach that about God. God is love. Love does not do such a thing.

I don't think He makes man sick, but shows him his weakness and how strength from God is found in weakness.;)

Brother Mark
Jun 9th 2008, 05:48 PM
To paraphrase scripture, no temptation takes hold of man except what is natural to him. Meaning it is a natural thing for a human being to experience the passions of his humanity.

Roger's post did make a good point. But the good also entailed death.

Man was going to have to learn to control his desires even in the garden. But it was not good for him to eat the tree. There was nothing to be gained by God or man by Adam eating the tree of knowledge. Both could have had all that would have satisfied them without eating of the tree. Let's not make it seem OK to eat of the tree. It was not "good". It was simply a knowing good and evil in a way that they should not have known it. It was premature. For instance, we know sex is good, in it's proper time and place. But to eat of tree of knowledge of good and evil by partaking of sex before marriage leads to death. There is a time and a place, for knowing good. To push it is to cause death to come.


I don't think He makes man sick, but shows him his weakness and how strength from God is found in weakness.;)

Right. That was the reason for the tree. Adam had weakness in the flesh too but he did not have to eat of the tree. He could have said no to himself by taking of the Tree of Life and experiencing the power of God in himself just as we do when we eat of the Tree of Life.

Partaker of Christ
Jun 9th 2008, 07:02 PM
IMHO
The Tree of Life represents 'dependence'
The Tree of knowledge of good and evil represents 'independence'

Folk speak of 'free will', but I believe that we get one limited choice.
If Adam had eaten first from the Tree of Life, I believe that God would have taken away, the Tree of knowledge of good and evil, because it would have represented the same problem, in that man would live forever being like a god, but independent of God

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever:

Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Notice that after Adam had made one choice, he could then choose the other. God had held him to that choice.

Choose you 'This day' whom you will serve

If 'Today' you hear His voice, do not harden your heart.

Num 30:2 If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.

Teke
Jun 9th 2008, 07:24 PM
Man was going to have to learn to control his desires even in the garden. But it was not good for him to eat the tree. There was nothing to be gained by God or man by Adam eating the tree of knowledge. Both could have had all that would have satisfied them without eating of the tree. Let's not make it seem OK to eat of the tree. It was not "good". It was simply a knowing good and evil in a way that they should not have known it. It was premature. For instance, we know sex is good, in it's proper time and place. But to eat of tree of knowledge of good and evil by partaking of sex before marriage leads to death. There is a time and a place, for knowing good. To push it is to cause death to come.


I'm not making the judgement call of it being good or evil to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
From your post I assume you are saying that God put a tree in Paradise prematurely as Adam and Eve weren't ready for it.

IamBill
Jun 9th 2008, 07:41 PM
"The tree is known for it's fruit". Man would have to experience death to know "good" as well as "evil".
If life is good, then knowing that is subject to death just as much as knowing evil.

Why do you say that and from where do you get it ?
Did God ever Die ?
and to say A/E had no knowledge of it before eating is to imply God gave a worthless, meaningless warning to them.

fewarechosen
Jun 9th 2008, 07:48 PM
bill im learning alot hearing your views on the tree

it wasnt something i ever thought about much

but it was the tree of death --because thats why christ says---let the dead bury thier dead.

hes saying these people walking around doing all this stuff are dead

more dead than a rock -- so we are all dead until the spirit is born in us

Brother Mark
Jun 9th 2008, 07:53 PM
I'm not making the judgement call of it being good or evil to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
From your post I assume you are saying that God put a tree in Paradise prematurely as Adam and Eve weren't ready for it.

That's not what I am saying. I am making the judgment call that it was bad to eat of it because God said not to do it! Come on Teke, you know it was sin to eat of that tree. God didn't put it in there prematurely, the learned fast of things that are supposed to take time. That's my point about sex. In time, it is a gift from God as we learn to eat of it at the proper moment. They were to learn and mature over time not be instantly gratified. That is the whole temptation. Go look at Jesus temptation in the wilderness. It was about instant gratification as well. In time, God was going to meet all those things that Satan tempted Jesus with anyway. But he was inviting Jesus to have it now, by eating of the Tree of knowledge right now.

It was never in God's heart for Adam to eat of that tree. It was simply a test. A way for God to work self denial in Adam and Eve. One must learn the inward cross if he is going to be like Jesus. God is always testing us but that doesn't mean tempting us. The test was to not eat of the tree. Satan tempted Adam while Adam was being tested. It was certainly wrong for him to eat.

Look at Jesus, who lived in the Tree of Life his entire life. The Pharisees lived in the tree of knowledge. One gave life the other accused people of evil while proclaiming themselves good. IOW, they became judges like God and presumed to know good and evil well enough to differ with God on it.

IamBill
Jun 9th 2008, 08:12 PM
bill im learning alot hearing your views on the tree

it wasnt something i ever thought about much

but it was the tree of death --because thats why christ says---let the dead bury thier dead.

hes saying these people walking around doing all this stuff are dead

more dead than a rock -- so we are all dead until the spirit is born in us

Amen :)
________________

and may I add Luke 23:34
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

God -> "thou shalt surely die"
satan -> "as gods, knowing good and evil"

Jesus -> "they know not what they do"

Mt 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

Teke
Jun 9th 2008, 08:58 PM
Why do you say that and from where do you get it ?
Did God ever Die ?
and to say A/E had no knowledge of it before eating is to imply God gave a worthless, meaningless warning to them.

Isn't the tree called the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
And who said that has anything to do with God ever dying, although He did in the flesh.

I am not implying God gave a worthless warning to them. I don't even see it as a warning, but as a statement of fact. And it doesn't seem to bother God and His plans a bit, as He came in the flesh.

Maybe your to focused on the evil part. But then good and evil are not of created material.

Brother Mark
Jun 9th 2008, 09:10 PM
Isn't the tree called the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
And who said that has anything to do with God ever dying, although He did in the flesh.

I am not implying God gave a worthless warning to them. I don't even see it as a warning, but as a statement of fact. And it doesn't seem to bother God and His plans a bit, as He came in the flesh.

Maybe your to focused on the evil part. But then good and evil are not of created material.

Teke, you are right that the fall didn't change God's ultimate plan one bit. However, man did not have to eat of the tree to know good. He did not have to experience physical death in order to fulfill God's purpose for him. It was sin to eat of the tree. It should have and still should be avoided at all times.

Teke
Jun 9th 2008, 09:18 PM
That's not what I am saying. I am making the judgment call that it was bad to eat of it because God said not to do it! Come on Teke, you know it was sin to eat of that tree. God didn't put it in there prematurely, the learned fast of things that are supposed to take time. That's my point about sex. In time, it is a gift from God as we learn to eat of it at the proper moment. They were to learn and mature over time not be instantly gratified. That is the whole temptation. Go look at Jesus temptation in the wilderness. It was about instant gratification as well. In time, God was going to meet all those things that Satan tempted Jesus with anyway. But he was inviting Jesus to have it now, by eating of the Tree of knowledge right now.

It was never in God's heart for Adam to eat of that tree. It was simply a test. A way for God to work self denial in Adam and Eve. One must learn the inward cross if he is going to be like Jesus. God is always testing us but that doesn't mean tempting us. The test was to not eat of the tree. Satan tempted Adam while Adam was being tested. It was certainly wrong for him to eat.

Look at Jesus, who lived in the Tree of Life his entire life. The Pharisees lived in the tree of knowledge. One gave life the other accused people of evil while proclaiming themselves good. IOW, they became judges like God and presumed to know good and evil well enough to differ with God on it.

Your losing me in your train of thought on this.
I agree Adam and Eve weren't suppose to eat from the tree because God told them not to. But I can hardly see blaming them when they didn't even know what good and evil were until after the fact. Scripture doesn't say that God explained to them what good and evil were, or death for that matter.

To me this is like the way children naturally learn about death, usually at about the age of 4 or 5 yrs old. The parent tells the boy child, don't hit the lizard with a rock or it will die. The boy child doesn't understand what that means until he actually kills the lizard and sees it dead. Then the child has had an experience with death to relate to.

What is learned from the experience is that there are consequences for actions we choose. Not that we are to place blame (judge) or consider one thing above another.

The blame scenario doesn't work for me. God stated a fact about the tree, the woman made a choice as did the man. They both admitted what they did and suffered the consequences of their actions. It was a learning step toward becoming conscious responsible individuals.
Seems like a reasonable lesson to me.

Teke
Jun 9th 2008, 09:25 PM
However, man did not have to eat of the tree to know good.

Following this line of thought, then he didn't have to eat from the tree of life either.



He did not have to experience physical death in order to fulfill God's purpose for him.

This seems to contradict what NT scripture says about death. The seed can't remain a seed to become a plant.


It was sin to eat of the tree. It should have and still should be avoided at all times.

You mean it's sin to be disobedient, as in not honoring one's parents. Do unborn or new born children already know this when they are born.

Brother Mark
Jun 9th 2008, 09:33 PM
Your losing me in your train of thought on this.
I agree Adam and Eve weren't suppose to eat from the tree because God told them not to. But I can hardly see blaming them when they didn't even know what good and evil were until after the fact. Scripture doesn't say that God explained to them what good and evil were, or death for that matter.

To me this is like the way children naturally learn about death, usually at about the age of 4 or 5 yrs old. The parent tells the boy child, don't hit the lizard with a rock or it will die. The boy child doesn't understand what that means until he actually kills the lizard and sees it dead. Then the child has had an experience with death to relate to.

What is learned from the experience is that there are consequences for actions we choose. Not that we are to place blame (judge) or consider one thing above another.

The blame scenario doesn't work for me. God stated a fact about the tree, the woman made a choice as did the man. They both admitted what they did and suffered the consequences of their actions. It was a learning step toward becoming conscious responsible individuals.
Seems like a reasonable lesson to me.

Rebellion isn't a learning process. They knew enough. They sinned. And Paul even wrote that Adam's sin was greater than many that followed because he broke a direct command of God. The problem is you are comparing children with a sin nature with Adam who had no sin nature. They weren't like a 4 or 5 year old kid. Adam named all the animals quickly.

Rom 5:14
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
NASB

Adam's sin was great because he knew what not to do and did it anyway. It was rebellion and there really isn't any need to sugar coat it. He cost the human race in a big way. Of course, we all eat of the tree these days.

As for them not knowing good, I beg to differ. God saw all his creation was good. Where did Adam learn that? He didn't learn it from the tree. That tree brought death. He learned more about good and evil at a moment than he was supposed to. The maturing process would have happened over time just as it did with the second Adam.

Brother Mark
Jun 9th 2008, 09:38 PM
Following this line of thought, then he didn't have to eat from the tree of life either.

Correct. But he could "freely eat" from all the trees in the garden including the Tree of Life. Only one was forbidden.


This seems to contradict what NT scripture says about death. The seed can't remain a seed to become a plant.

Yet, before Adam sinned, death was in the garden in the form of a seed and it being planted.

Gen 1:11-13
11 Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth"; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
NASB

The idea of death is the inward cross. Adam would have died to himself through denying his desire to eat the tree of knowledge. In order to do so, he could do as Jesus did and ate the word of God. God pointed out two trees and said not to eat from one. All Adam had to do was ask. That's what Jesus did. He kept asking and learning. He ate constantly from the mouth of God and in so doing, chose right the entire way. Adam could have done the same thing.

Then, he could have been translated, like Enoch, the seventh (mature) from Adam. Death wasn't necessary in the sense of physical death. It is death in the sense that we are dead to our base desires and alive to him. Now, since sin inhabits our very flesh, it must be destroyed through death.


You mean it's sin to be disobedient, as in not honoring one's parents. Do unborn or new born children already know this when they are born.

I mean in the context of Genesis 1, that it was a sin to eat of the tree of knowledge. God said not to do it and that made it a transgression of the law. So yea, it's a sin to be disobedient.

Eating of the tree of knowledge was no small thing Teke.

IamBill
Jun 9th 2008, 11:41 PM
Isn't the tree called the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Ok, backing up again -
Yes that is the "Name" of the Tree, BUT we are told to know a tree by it's fruit and the fruit caused death. Correct ? - or did God Lie ? No God does not lie.
so, in the garden, we have two distinctive trees -
1 the tree of Life
and regardless of it's attractive Name - (knowledge of good and evil)
2 the tree of death


And who said that has anything to do with God ever dying, although He did in the flesh.
You said - Originally Posted by Teke View Post
"The tree is known for it's fruit". Man would have to experience death to know "good" as well as "evil".

So I asked "did God Die" -because God Does Know without having to have died -Right ? (also, yes, long after Adam, God died in the flesh - also before hand knowing full well the difference between good and evil)


I am not implying God gave a worthless warning to them. I don't even see it as a warning, but as a statement of fact. And it doesn't seem to bother God and His plans a bit, as He came in the flesh.
Perhaps that was never God's "all along" plan. I won't assume it, because He is a God of Love and Life, not pain suffering and confusion. Still the point remains, A/E would have to have understood what God meant -or it was worthless


Maybe your to focused on the evil part. But then good and evil are not of created material.
:) Or maybe I am focused on what God the father said about the tree and God the Son said about knowing A tree. -It's Fruit. Yes- Spiritual

Teke
Jun 10th 2008, 12:49 AM
Rebellion isn't a learning process.

Psychologically it is, as are many other things.


And Paul even wrote that Adam's sin was greater than many that followed because he broke a direct command of God.

I've never read that in scripture.


The problem is you are comparing children with a sin nature with Adam who had no sin nature.

Likely because I don't believe they have a sin nature.






Rom 5:14
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
NASB

This just means that we are not guilty of Adam's sin.



As for them not knowing good, I beg to differ. God saw all his creation was good. Where did Adam learn that? He didn't learn it from the tree.

How do you know Adam had already learned that.


That tree brought death.


Is that an unnatural thing.

Teke
Jun 10th 2008, 01:28 AM
Ok, backing up again -
Yes that is the "Name" of the Tree, BUT we are told to know a tree by it's fruit and the fruit caused death. Correct ? - or did God Lie ? No God does not lie.
so, in the garden, we have two distinctive trees -
1 the tree of Life
and regardless of it's attractive Name - (knowledge of good and evil)
2 the tree of death

The context of "know a tree by it's fruit" is in relation to man, not trees, which is a common metaphor used in scripture.



You said - Originally Posted by Teke View Post
"The tree is known for it's fruit". Man would have to experience death to know "good" as well as "evil".

Is this separate quotes from two different posts. I wouldn't have said this together. The comment on man having to experience death is in relation to eating the fruit for the knowledge of both, good and evil. Not that he has to experience death to know good and evil generally speaking.


So I asked "did God Die" -because God Does Know without having to have died -Right ?

Theologically I wouldn't depict God in that manner.

IamBill
Jun 10th 2008, 01:52 AM
Why the confusion ?
Your words - your post


"The tree is known for it's fruit". Man would have to experience death to know "good" as well as "evil".
If life is good, then knowing that is subject to death just as much as knowing evil.

I seems you are contradicting yourself every other post and ignoring the context of our conversation

IamBill
Jun 10th 2008, 02:06 AM
From The OP

Rebel777 brought up some questions about the two trees in relation to Adam and God's plan. This thread is to further explore these type of questions.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by [his] fruit.


Genesis 3:6 says that the woman saw that the fruit was good, and a tree to be desired to make one wise.
I've heard the two trees represented as evil and good, the devil and Christ etc. But it could just be that both represent Christ. Something which can only be discerned by the fruit of the trees.

From what Christ has said in Matthew, it would seem it is up to us to "make the tree" what it is, good or corrupt. Since this is God speaking, what would we say was His intent with the trees in Eden.

My Reply

Mt 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Best add 12:34 there ;)

God told us of the fruit, and yes we can call or make "of it" what we will, satan did.
But God warned us -
"for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
THAT IS THE FRUIT of the tree !
The Tree of life- and the tree of Death
:cool:

Your response

"The tree is known for it's fruit". Man would have to experience death to know "good" as well as "evil".
If life is good, then knowing that is subject to death just as much as knowing evil.

And my response to it

Why do you say that and from where do you get it ?
Did God ever Die ?
and to say A/E had no knowledge of it before eating is to imply God gave a worthless, meaningless warning to them.

your response to my response

Isn't the tree called the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
And who said that has anything to do with God ever dying, although He did in the flesh.

I am not implying God gave a worthless warning to them. I don't even see it as a warning, but as a statement of fact. And it doesn't seem to bother God and His plans a bit, as He came in the flesh.

Maybe your to focused on the evil part. But then good and evil are not of created material.

my response to that

Ok, backing up again -
Yes that is the "Name" of the Tree, BUT we are told to know a tree by it's fruit and the fruit caused death. Correct ? - or did God Lie ? No God does not lie.
so, in the garden, we have two distinctive trees -
1 the tree of Life
and regardless of it's attractive Name - (knowledge of good and evil)
2 the tree of death


You said - Originally Posted by Teke View Post
"The tree is known for it's fruit". Man would have to experience death to know "good" as well as "evil".

So I asked "did God Die" -because God Does Know without having to have died -Right ? (also, yes, long after Adam, God died in the flesh - also before hand knowing full well the difference between good and evil)


Perhaps that was never God's "all along" plan. I won't assume it, because He is a God of Love and Life, not pain suffering and confusion. Still the point remains, A/E would have to have understood what God meant -or it was worthless

:) Or maybe I am focused on what God the father said about the tree and God the Son said about knowing A tree. -It's Fruit. Yes- Spiritual

Which brings us here :o

The context of "know a tree by it's fruit" is in relation to man, not trees, which is a common metaphor used in scripture.


Is this separate quotes from two different posts. I wouldn't have said this together. The comment on man having to experience death is in relation to eating the fruit for the knowledge of both, good and evil. Not that he has to experience death to know good and evil generally speaking.


Theologically I wouldn't depict God in that manner.

:giveup:

Brother Mark
Jun 10th 2008, 02:31 AM
Psychologically it is, as are many other things.

Oh, we can learn from rebellion. But it is not the preferred way. Rebellion is sinful and always brings death. It is not necessary for one to learn through rebellion. There are preferable ways.


I've never read that in scripture.

Rom 5:13-14
13 for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
NASB

It is worse to sin when there is a law. Adam's sin was worse.


Likely because I don't believe they have a sin nature.

But children don't reason clearly. As for a sin nature, that's for another discussion. But to compare the mental processing ability of a 4 year old to that of Adam is not very good. Adam named all the animals. He was created mature enough to marry. He wasn't a child.


This just means that we are not guilty of Adam's sin.

The verse above it gives context. It means that breaking a law is worse. When one knows what is wrong and does it anyway, that is a greater sin.


How do you know Adam had already learned that.

Adam said some good things about his wife. You think he didn't recognize her as good?


Is that an unnatural thing.

It was prior to eating it. Death did not have to occur in the way we know it. Enoch, 7th from Adam (i.e. the mature Adam) was translated. So each of us could have been too had Adam not sinned.

All of humanity is condemned in Adam. It is not a minor thing that he ate of the tree. Nor was he a simpleton or child that he was just fooling around. He disobeyed and it was costly.

IamBill
Jun 10th 2008, 02:39 AM
:)

If the Sin was - "they disobeyed God"
Then they had to have known in order to be accountable -paradox

If they were - "innocent"
They are not guilty, they didn't know better -paradox

If they Did "gain knowledge from the fruit"
Then they did not know better before eating -paradox

If they DID know better, and "sinned"
Then they gained nothing from the fruit -paradox

-paradox

-paradox

-paradox

If they Died from eating the fruit (just like God said they would) they died to the Image they were created in and lived 900 more years in flesh. which did happen ! -NO paradox :)

Brother Mark
Jun 10th 2008, 03:56 AM
If they Died from eating the fruit (just like God said they would) they died to the Image they were created in and lived 900 more years in flesh. which did happen ! -NO paradox :)

I think the glory of God clothed them. When they ate, the glory left and they then new they were naked. Just a thought....

Teke
Jun 10th 2008, 01:03 PM
From The OP


My Reply


Your response


And my response to it


your response to my response


my response to that


Which brings us here :o


:giveup:

I'm sorry. :hug: I don't mean to be confusing. I was following my line of thought depicting Adam and Eve in Paradise as a birth. Wouldn't you agree we are born with ability to do good or evil.

Teke
Jun 10th 2008, 01:19 PM
Oh, we can learn from rebellion. But it is not the preferred way. Rebellion is sinful and always brings death. It is not necessary for one to learn through rebellion. There are preferable ways.



Rom 5:13-14
13 for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
NASB

It is worse to sin when there is a law. Adam's sin was worse.



But children don't reason clearly. As for a sin nature, that's for another discussion. But to compare the mental processing ability of a 4 year old to that of Adam is not very good. Adam named all the animals. He was created mature enough to marry. He wasn't a child.



The verse above it gives context. It means that breaking a law is worse. When one knows what is wrong and does it anyway, that is a greater sin.



Adam said some good things about his wife. You think he didn't recognize her as good?



It was prior to eating it. Death did not have to occur in the way we know it. Enoch, 7th from Adam (i.e. the mature Adam) was translated. So each of us could have been too had Adam not sinned.

All of humanity is condemned in Adam. It is not a minor thing that he ate of the tree. Nor was he a simpleton or child that he was just fooling around. He disobeyed and it was costly.

Let me put it this way, Adam was ignorant about a lot of things. He didn't possess life experience to not be ignorant about many things. I can only think to use the analogy of the womb to compare Adam in Paradise to. He definitely isn't "in the world" until after he eats from the tree and is commanded to go there.

I believe what we are really to understand from the story isn't the law, but God's great mercy toward us.

And as to the law, according to the law if your ignorant of your sin God forgives you. (Lev. 4, and this Adam did in his manner when his ignorance as blindness was taken away, as there is no priest except Adam at the time, lest we consider the Lord also) Once your aware of your sin you make a sacrifice, and this Adam did outside Paradise.


Hbr 5:2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.

IamBill
Jun 10th 2008, 07:44 PM
Wouldn't you agree we are born with ability to do good or evil.

:hug: :)

Yes I would, but I also see a very fine line in understanding there.
And that is "ability to do".

"Born with" I won't address because we only have ability for intake and output at birth( :lol: ) -and then are Taught Generally the parents/guardians reasoning and understanding. which can lead us down many different paths.

I was atheist most my life Teke, yet I still was raised under good strict moral standards, maybe more so than many "christians" do. But there was no "Godly" knowledge involved, Nothing Spiritual,
--Ability to do, Yes

in those days though (without the Holy Spirit) I considered things like "abortion" to be ok IF the baby were to be brought to suffering.
Or say to "end life" if it was better off, shoot the Horse because of it's broken Leg ..etc etc etc.
The examples "seemed to be" thoughts of compassion. But was it TRULY knowledge of good or evil ? right and wrong ?
See what I'm saying ?
All we can really do is Guess at what the bigger picture is, we don't really "Know"

Only the Holy Spirit can Now teach us these things and even then it can be a matter of trust in the HS, because we may not understand.
Example - God, WHY did my Child have to suffer and die ? -WHY God ? -What is the Good in this God? - it seems so evil, So wrong, WHY was it part of the plan ? :cry:

See what I'm saying ? What do we REALLY KNOW ? (besides the petty)

Teke
Jun 10th 2008, 09:39 PM
See what I'm saying ? What do we REALLY KNOW ? (besides the petty)

That is the point. :saint:
And that is why it becomes a psychological issue in relation to our consciousness.
Which is also in relation to anthropology, ontology......basically a lot of other issues of our make up. :D

BTW I wasn't raised in a Christian home either, but we weren't atheist either.;)

theothersock
Jun 11th 2008, 08:14 AM
Does anyone ever wonder wether or not the tree of knowledge of good and evil was what we would call a hallucinogen today? That by virtue of its psychoactivity it caused the minds of adam and eve to be changed/broadened so that they realized things that would not naturally have occurred to them such as being naked?

It seems really really likely to me.

Teke
Jun 11th 2008, 01:27 PM
Does anyone ever wonder wether or not the tree of knowledge of good and evil was what we would call a hallucinogen today? That by virtue of its psychoactivity it caused the minds of adam and eve to be changed/broadened so that they realized things that would not naturally have occurred to them such as being naked?

It seems really really likely to me.

Then birth involves a hallucinogen......that's a bit far fetched for me. :lol:

Brother Mark
Jun 11th 2008, 01:33 PM
Let me put it this way, Adam was ignorant about a lot of things. He didn't possess life experience to not be ignorant about many things. I can only think to use the analogy of the womb to compare Adam in Paradise to. He definitely isn't "in the world" until after he eats from the tree and is commanded to go there.

He didn't need life experiences to obey the simple command "Do not eat".


I believe what we are really to understand from the story isn't the law, but God's great mercy toward us.

It's both. And more. We are to understand that God always will test us and that we are to die to our base desires. We are to understand the cost in disobedience. We are to understand his mercy.


And as to the law, according to the law if your ignorant of your sin God forgives you. (Lev. 4, and this Adam did in his manner when his ignorance as blindness was taken away, as there is no priest except Adam at the time, lest we consider the Lord also) Once your aware of your sin you make a sacrifice, and this Adam did outside Paradise.

Adam did make a sacrifices. Sadly, his ignorance of evil was gone. There are some things we are better off not knowing.

It was a GREAT sin for Adam to eat of the fruit and the consequences were severe.




Hbr 5:2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.[/quote]

Teke
Jun 11th 2008, 01:53 PM
He didn't need life experiences to obey the simple command "Do not eat".



It's both. And more. We are to understand that God always will test us and that we are to die to our base desires. We are to understand the cost in disobedience. We are to understand his mercy.



Adam did make a sacrifices. Sadly, his ignorance of evil was gone. There are some things we are better off not knowing.

It was a GREAT sin for Adam to eat of the fruit and the consequences were severe.



So God wants blind obedience with no conscience involved.
Hmm.......I'm thinking of the implications of that. That would seem to contradict martyrdom. IOW right or wrong you'd have to obey an authority over you that is ordained by God. Even if your conscience says otherwise.

Brother Mark
Jun 11th 2008, 02:25 PM
So God wants blind obedience with no conscience involved.
Hmm.......I'm thinking of the implications of that. That would seem to contradict martyrdom. IOW right or wrong you'd have to obey an authority over you that is ordained by God. Even if your conscience says otherwise.

What does sin have to do with having eyesight? Sin blinds not faith. Blind obedience isn't even scriptural. When one obeys, one gets light to see. When one sins, one lives in darkness and becomes blind.

Any man that disobeys God according to his conscience is still in sin. Are you suggesting that we obey our conscience instead of obeying God? The only authority over Adam was God.

Teke
Jun 11th 2008, 04:36 PM
What does sin have to do with having eyesight? Sin blinds not faith. Blind obedience isn't even scriptural. When one obeys, one gets light to see. When one sins, one lives in darkness and becomes blind.

Any man that disobeys God according to his conscience is still in sin. Are you suggesting that we obey our conscience instead of obeying God? The only authority over Adam was God.

These are some excellent questions. So my reply isn't to debate but to explore these types of questions.

"What does sin have to do with having eyesight?" Eve "saw" the tree. Was the response physical or sensational, meaning in what way did it effect her ontologically. She is in a state of being.

"Sin blinds not faith". Isn't faith blind also. (meant in the physical sense)

So is blind obedience scriptural. ;)

When we obey we get light....:hmm:

"Any man that disobeys God according to his conscience is still in sin." This is debatable. Jonah wasn't sinning when he didn't want to go to Ninevah, nor where others when they said no to God. God just didn't accept their no.

I'm not suggesting, just exploring the subject.:)

Brother Mark
Jun 11th 2008, 04:46 PM
These are some excellent questions. So my reply isn't to debate but to explore these types of questions.

"What does sin have to do with having eyesight?" Eve "saw" the tree. Was the response physical or sensational, meaning in what way did it effect her ontologically. She is in a state of being.

Right. But that was before she sinned. It wasn't seeing the tree that was a problem. It was eating the fruit that was a problem.


"Sin blinds not faith". Isn't faith blind also. (meant in the physical sense)

Depends. Scripture says by faith we understand. If you mean that can my physical eyes see God, then no. So the problem is not that faith is blind but that my physical eyes can't see spiritually. It is my physical eyes that are blinded!


So is blind obedience scriptural. ;)

You mean complete and total trust in God? Yea, that's very scriptural.


When we obey we get light....:hmm:

Sure. When did Naman get healed? When did the ten lepers get healed? When did the man who Jesus put clay in his eyes see?


"Any man that disobeys God according to his conscience is still in sin." This is debatable. Jonah wasn't sinning when he didn't want to go to Ninevah, nor where others when they said no to God. God just didn't accept their no.

Oh yes Jonah did sin! Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft!