Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 35

Thread: Tree of knowledge of good and evil

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,313

    Re: Tree of knowledge of good and evil

    The text doesn't say knowledge was in food. It just doesn't.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    15,108

    Re: Tree of knowledge of good and evil

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    The text doesn't say knowledge was in food. It just doesn't.
    It doesn't say it wasn't either. But it is certainly implied knowledge was in the fruit. For instance, they were kicked out lest they eat the Tree of Life and live forever. Life was in the Tree of Life's fruit. That also implies knowledge was in the food of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

    We even see God's words later imply it as well:

    11 And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"

    Again, he referred to the eating. He didn't just say "did you disobey me".
    Matt 9:13
    13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
    NASU

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,089

    Re: Tree of knowledge of good and evil

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    I didn't call a thing of God bizarre, is the point. Nothing in the text indicates food imparted knowledge. When they disobeyed their eyes were opened, is what it says. That has happened to you, right?
    Actually I inherited it. But you are right. I have the tendency to judge by good and evil, and I am certainly going to die unless the Lord returns before that. This is sure proof that I and my ancestors ate of this Tree.

    But as to your opinion about food and knowledge, if we put Genesis 3:6 and Genesis 3:22 together ...
    6 "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
    ...
    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 for ever"


    I think the plain language is that the fruit of the Tree EATEN made them to KNOW good and evil.

    But, if you object that it is symbolism, I might just agree.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    15,108

    Re: Tree of knowledge of good and evil

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    I think the plain language is that the fruit of the Tree EATEN made them to KNOW good and evil.

    But, if you object that it is symbolism, I might just agree.
    I think it is both. The actual tree gave them knowledge. But that tree still exists today, spiritually speaking.
    Matt 9:13
    13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
    NASU

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,155
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Tree of knowledge of good and evil

    Let's say you ate a poison. Which was like a cancer. Then you transmitted to all generations. One thing for sure it was not until they ate the fruit that they were able to die.

    Death was transmitted thru the fruit. Now we are liked by blood with Adam.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,313

    Re: Tree of knowledge of good and evil

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    It doesn't say it wasn't either.
    I don't find arguments from silence worthy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    But it is certainly implied knowledge was in the fruit.
    I disagree. Knowledge was a result of eating the forbidden fruit.


    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    For instance, they were kicked out lest they eat the Tree of Life and live forever. Life was in the Tree of Life's fruit. That also implies knowledge was in the food of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

    We even see God's words later imply it as well:

    11 And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"
    Implication by assumption. It's easy to see how fruit can contain elements to keep a human alive, but knowledge in fruit? Not so easy to see.


    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    Again, he referred to the eating. He didn't just say "did you disobey me".
    Didn't he though? --Who told you that you were naked? Have you disobeyed me?-- Again, "Knowledge was a result of eating the forbidden fruit."

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,313

    Re: Tree of knowledge of good and evil

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    Actually I inherited it.
    Impossible. Just like everyone else the day came when you sinned and your eyes were opened to behavior being wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    I think the plain language is that the fruit of the Tree EATEN made them to KNOW good and evil.
    Knowledge was a result of eating the forbidden fruit.


    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    But, if you object that it is symbolism, I might just agree.
    I do not argue it's symbolic because it is not said that knowledge was in the fruit.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    15,108

    Re: Tree of knowledge of good and evil

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    I don't find arguments from silence worthy.
    Me either. That's why I believe the Tree of Knowledge of Good and evil gave knowledge when it was eaten rather than saying it was something else that did so. It was given that name for a reason. To argue the tree didn't impart knowledge is more an argument from silence for God named it. Obviously the name meant something.

    I disagree. Knowledge was a result of eating the forbidden fruit.
    Knowledge came because the Tree of Knowledge was eaten from.

    Implication by assumption. It's easy to see how fruit can contain elements to keep a human alive, but knowledge in fruit? Not so easy to see.
    Whether it is easy to see or not doesn't matter. I don't know how Jesus walked on the water. Doesn't matter. He did it. Since God chose to impart knowledge through a tree, it happened that way.

    Didn't he though? --Who told you that you were naked? Have you disobeyed me?-- Again, "Knowledge was a result of eating the forbidden fruit."
    No. His exact words "Did you eat from the tree..." We can't separate the tree from the action. We can't separate the tree from the result. Eating from the right Tree brings life. Eating from the wrong tree brings death. Thing is, now there is spiritual eating that can bring life or death. In the garden it was both spiritual and physical. Or said another way, there are still two trees we can eat from.
    Matt 9:13
    13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
    NASU

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,089

    Re: Tree of knowledge of good and evil

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    Impossible. Just like everyone else the day came when you sinned and your eyes were opened to behavior being wrong.


    Knowledge was a result of eating the forbidden fruit.


    I do not argue it's symbolic because it is not said that knowledge was in the fruit.
    OK. Just so we don't sink into ambiguous one-liners, can you give a us short exposition of the Tree of Knowledge of God and Evil. Thanks.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    127

    Re: Tree of knowledge of good and evil

    A couple relevant verses:

    *[[Rom 5:14]] KJV* Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

    *[[1Ti 2:14]] KJV* And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

    The point from these 2 verses: we all die because of Adam's transgression, not the sin of Eve. God gave the command to "not eat" from the Tree, before he "formed" eve from his rib. Eve is her 2nd name. Adam called her woman, God called her Eve later on when they sinned.
    2:4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.note 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.note 8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

    2. Gen 2:15-25 KJVLite 15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. note 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: note 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.note 18 And the LORD God said, It isnot good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. note 19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. note 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. note21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. note 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. note note 24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

    this is where it gets difficult. The 1st male and female was created from the ground: and God called their name Adam. When we get to genesis 2, we see these words:
    *[[Gen 2:1]] KJV* Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. *[[Gen 2:2]] KJV* And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
    *[[Gen 2:3]] KJV* And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

    The point being that God ceased from his creation workings. He rested. But then we see the genesis narrative shift to:
    Gen 2:4- the GENERATIONS of the heavens and of the earth...
    Gen 5:1 - the GENERATIONS of Adam...
    Gen. 6:9 - the GENERATIONS of Noah...
    Gen. 10:1 - the GENERATIONS of the sons of Noah...
    Gen. XX: xx - the GENERATIONS of Shem, Terah, Ishmael, Isaac, Esau, and Jacob.
    Each one has a specific verse about the "Generations of ...", except Abraham. I found that very odd. Any way, generations is used to convey what was the natural result or progression of God 's creation.

    But it was not the direct result of God's creative acts, AFTER creation week was over.
    The creation of "male and female " in Gen. 1 is in the image of God. God created man from the dust of the earth. But when God created woman, it was from one of Adam's ribs, in the generations of the heavens and earth. I.e., after the creation week had ended. God rested from all that he had "created and made". Verse 3. But of the woman it is said that she was "formed", or built from the man. The word for formed is different from the words used to describe God's creative acts of "created and made".

    There's more. All of the trees in the garden of Eden were planted by the Lord from seeds. This includes the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God gave the forbidden command "not to eat" only to the man, before he formed the woman. How do we know this with certainty? It was because death entered into the world on account of Adam's transgression, which took place AFTER the woman sinned. All of creation dies because of, not the first [previous] act of sin by Eve, but because of the transgression of Adam.

    *[[Rom 5:14]] KJV* Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

    The point of this verse is to tell us that everyone from Adam till the giving of the law to Moses, died because of Adam's transgression, not because of their own sin. Sin is not imputed, before the institution of the law at Sinai. Yet men died, because of Adam's transgression. What was the direct result? Men started dying. It was not because Adam was then given a sin nature, that they then inherited. They had that before Adam sinned. They died because they were sinners forbidden access to the tree of life. Even before God forbid access to the tree of life, God's forbiddance to the tree was to assure Adam that he would die. He said this:

    *[[Gen 3:22]] KJV* 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 for ever:

    Eve, was not given the command of not to eat. Look at the order of events in genesis 3. God gave the forbidden command, THEN he formed the woman. Because God had given the command only to the man, but he was given responsibility to tell that to his wife, Adams sin was a transgression of God's command, but to EVE it was but a sin that resulted from the deceptive lie of the serpent, when he said to her, "Has God said..." She only knew what Adam had told her. She did not "inherit" Adamic nature [after the fact] , when she sinned. She knew instantly that she was naked, and proceeded to give of the tree to Adam.

    *[[Gen 3:7]] KJV* And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

    This was BEFORE their subsequent encounter with God. It was eating of the tree that opened their eyes, and not as a resulting punishment from God. The fruit was the substantive (physical) evidence of the essence of God and what constitutes holiness. She immediately knew that they was a sinner without the need for the expressive commandment of God [thou shalt not eat...]. Why did they subsequently physically die? It was not because BOTH of them were given an "Adamic" nature. They had that before they sinned. The adamic nature is merely a blood driven existence of life. They had that when they were created. Man became a living "soul" when God breathed within them the breath of life... his spiritual essence. Man and woman die because they, as living souls, were forbidden access to the tree of life. Beasts of the air, land and sea, die because man was condemned to die because he was forbidden access to the tree of life, because of the transgression of Adam, and not because of the sin of Eve.

    I said all of that to get back to this point.

    Notice the generational order of things:
    1. God created...seeds, etc,
    2. God created "Adam", male & female
    3. God rested.
    4. God planted a garden
    5. God formed woman
    6. The seeds grew into trees that produced fruit.
    7. Man sinned by eating that fruit.
    8. Death came to all of creation, man & animal.
    9. Generations were the result.

    Peter says that in the last days scoffers would come bearing willful ignorance of the flood that destroyed the previous world. They intentionally exclude God's judgment of the flood, saying "all things continue as from the beginning of the creation..." They will come preaching that man can live forever, without God's help, or intervention. When Genesis 2 speaks of the generations of the heavens and the earth , it adds this clarifying clause, "in the day that God created them". Look at those verses without the clause:

    *[[Gen 2:4]] KJV* These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, And [the generations of] every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew:

    What is he referring to here in these shortened verses? The toiling and tilling by man, in the generations of the earth, BEFORE he caused it to rain upon the earth. I.e., before the flood.

    Genesis 2 thru 4 is the generational account of the heavens and earth, before the flood, down to Lamech, the descendent of Cain. Adams wife, later to be called EVE, were created before the fall, because of their unawares of their naked state. Cain and Abel were apparently born before the fall because, Cains punishment involved, "he went out from the presence of the Lord". God's presence was in the Garden, therefore, he must have been born before the fall. There is no doubt that Cain and Abel were born before Seth was. So why is Seth listed in the generations of Adam that begins in chapter 5? Both generations [heavens & earth, AND of Adam] end with a man named Lamech.

    *[[Gen 4:23]] KJV* And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.

    *[[Gen 5:28]] KJV* And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:
    *[[Gen 5:29]] KJV* And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.

    The generations of Adam shows that Noah's father Lamech, died 5 years before thee flood. The Cainite Lamech, does not state his fate. But we do know that he was a part of the generations of the earth before the flood. I think them to be the same person. Some Jewish writings think so too. I don't know for sure. But it is a strange part of the narrative. The two genealogies of Lamech contain chronological name similarities.

    *[[Gen 4:17]] KJV* And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. *[[Gen 4:18]] KJV* And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.

    *[[Gen 5:11]] KJV* And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died. *[[Gen 5:12]] KJV* And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel: *[[Gen 5:13]] KJV* And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters: *[[Gen 5:14]] KJV* And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died. *[[Gen 5:15]] KJV* And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared: *[[Gen 5:16]] KJV* And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters: *[[Gen 5:18]] KJV* And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch: *[[Gen 5:22]] KJV* And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:

    My point being that the two sacred trees were grown from seeds that the Lord had planted.

    My points to be made are that Cain and Abel were born before they were banished from the garden and that the "sacred" trees did not immediately produce fruit, because they originated from seeds. A period of time had elapsed [years] before the fall of Adam and Eve.

    One more point. Adam's wife was not called Eve, until she had sinned, with Adam, bringing death unto the whole of creation. My point? The name [Eve] means "mother of ALL living", as in the occurrence of life before pine dies. Her name was given in remembrance of her deed. Bringing death to the world. Now if Cain was born before the fall, why did he die? He did not "inherit" the "Adamic nature " seeing that the fall came later in history, after Cain was born. Cains banishment from God's presence testifies to that fact. So, for Eve to be the Mother of all living creatures [men and beast die, groaning in expectation of the redemption of creation], means that her actions, in indirect fashion, brought the hand of death to every one and every living thing. How? Banishment from the tree of life. Death was instituted by God forbidding access to the tree of life. It was not an inordinate change being made to Adams nature as a result from the fall, but it was denial of access to the tree of life that caused Adam and all living creatures to die. Which brings me to this ultimate conclusion. Because the "Generations of Adam" do not go thru his firstborn son, but thru Seth, and the underlying point of Adam's generations is the time that he lived before physical death took life from him, the point is that, In other words, the 130 years of the age of Adam, was from the point of the fall, a point that has an unknown measurement of years. I think that it was impossible for Adam/ Eve to sin until the tree began bearing fruit, several years later!

    Blessings
    The PuP

    P.s. I may have to come back and edit this long post.

  11. #26

    Re: Tree of knowledge of good and evil

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    Actually I inherited it. But you are right. I have the tendency to judge by good and evil, and I am certainly going to die unless the Lord returns before that. This is sure proof that I and my ancestors ate of this Tree.

    But as to your opinion about food and knowledge, if we put Genesis 3:6 and Genesis 3:22 together ...
    6 "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
    ...
    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 for ever"


    I think the plain language is that the fruit of the Tree EATEN made them to KNOW good and evil.

    But, if you object that it is symbolism, I might just agree.
    I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. John 6:51
    In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) John 7:37,38
    And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. n the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. Reb 22:1,2


    Can we equate the tree of life and the fruit thereof, in Eden with any or all of the above?

    Would have, to commune with, or intercourse with, either the serpent or God have been the same as eating the fruit thereof?

    In your opinion.


    In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes. Jud 21:25

    Would have to eaten of the tree of life equated to having God as king and eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil resulted in doing what is right in your own eyes?
    Last edited by percho; Jul 14th 2018 at 03:46 AM. Reason: To add a thought

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,089

    Re: Tree of knowledge of good and evil

    Quote Originally Posted by percho View Post
    I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. John 6:51
    In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) John 7:37,38
    And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. n the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. Reb 22:1,2


    Can we equate the tree of life and the fruit thereof, in Eden with any or all of the above?

    Would have, to commune with, or intercourse with, either the serpent or God have been the same as eating the fruit thereof?

    In your opinion.


    In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes. Jud 21:25

    Would have to eaten of the tree of life equated to having God as king and eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil resulted in doing what is right in your own eyes?
    I believe that they are the same, but show rather the effect and function of the Tree of Life.

    In Romans 1:19-20 we have an unwavering principle. It reads;

    19 "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
    20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"


    This text shows that God has made physical things to show and explain mysterious and hidden things of Himself. A Tree in scripture, when used in Parable, depicts a King and His Kingdom. If we interpret scripture with scripture, then Judges Chapter 9, Daniel Chapter 4 and Ezekiel Chapter 31 show a Tree to be a king and his kingdom. Israel is depicted by the Vine until she is dispersed. Then, the remnant, Judah is depicted as a Fig Tree. The Church, a kingdom if Life, which does bring forth fruit, is the new Vine (John 15), and the coming kingdom when Israel is restored is an Olive Tree (Romans 11). And in each case the Tree in Parable either brought forth fruit, like in Judges 9, or it did not like Judah the Fig Tree, or Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom in Daniel 4.

    So the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil have their appearance to show hidden thing. And because of the fall of man, there had to be changes made. The Tree of Life is replaced by the Lamb of God. Man must still eat to get divine and eternal life, but after the fall blood must first be shed. So also with the bread of Life in John 6. Man must eat to receive eternal and divine Life. But the "Wheat" must go through a process of being ground to power and then passing through the Fire before it can be eaten.

    Thus, when we study the Tree of Life we see different depictions of the same thing because (i) it is so rich in revelation, and (ii) it must deal with various sets of circumstances. So, the Life of God is first fruit. Then sin comes in and blood must be shed so it become "flesh". Then, it becomes a River to drink from, which in turn becomes a river inside the believer to make his outward behavior a testimony of the River in him/her. That is, the inner and divine Life is shown outwardly. Then, In Revelation 22:1-2 the grammar and concept is difficult.

    1 "And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
    2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations."

    • Here the RIVER is introduced first. The River of Water of Life is the constant supply for those who are IN New Jerusalem - the Christians and Israel.
    • But the River is from the THRONE - bringing us back to the TREE of Life which depicts a King and His Kingdom. Thus, the virtues of having eternal life in constant supply produce (i) glory for the City, and (ii) Equitable government on earth. "... the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom.14:17)
    • The Tree of Life is in the midst of the Street, but either side of the River. The Street is Gold (21:21) depicting the nature of God, and the centrality of God's nature towards men is His supply of Divine Life. But alas, the Tree is ONLY for the City, not the whole earth because not all men believed in Jesus.
    • This SINGE Tree of Life is on BOTH sides of the River of Life. To avoid an absurdity, this must be taken as that the Branches, like a Vine straddle the River, and so produces the vast harvests of 12 different fruits every month, giving a yearly harvest of 144 fruits. Twelve indicates that the fruit is ONLY for God's People. If there is a deeper meaning to the SINGLE Tree being on both sides of the SINGLE River, I have not yet seen it.
    • The nations do NOT possess Eternal Life. They did not believe in Jesus in the season when He was available by FAITH. How then are they to be kept alive? The Christian can never die again by virtue of the Eternal Life Dwelling IN him/her. But not so the nations. They are prone to death, so they "healed" by the Leaves of the Tree. The word "healed" indicates innate weakness and shortcoming. Leaves are the covering of a tree and this depict WORKS (Gen.3:7; Rev.19:8). So, by virtue of Christ's Works - the leaves of the Tree of Life - the nations are sustained. God gives them "healing" based on Christ's WORKS. But, as we see, they need to visit the city, and this, NOT ALL CAN DO! Those in the Lake of Fire are not allowed in (21:24-27), so they cannot be "healed". They have no access to the Tree or its Leaves, So Isaiah 66:24 tells us of these men and women, "And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." See also Mark 9:44-49. Although they are alive in resurrection, they are as "carcases", and THEIR (personal) worm and fire never cease to administer, not physical death, but "perdition" - the Second Death. "Perdition" in the Greek means, "exquisite lack of well-being". They have no recourse. They have no healing. They have no access to the City and its pleasures and healing. Their anguish is "for ever".

    This is a bit scanty, but I hope it gives some food for thought.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Oklahoma - USA
    Posts
    219

    Re: Tree of knowledge of good and evil

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls: Now, contemporary Christian teaching by teachers and pastors more bent on running the Assembly like a business, says that all who do not believe in Jesus are headed for "hell". But this is not the revelation of the Bible. Revelation 20:15 IMPLIES that not all of the "rest of the dead" will go to the Lake of Fire.
    Be careful here: you might labeled a univer****** !

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,089

    Re: Tree of knowledge of good and evil

    Quote Originally Posted by Deade View Post
    Be careful here: you might labeled a univer****** !
    Hi, and welcome to the Forum. I hope you profit much.

    As to your word of caution ... thank you. But if you could once see what I've already been called, you'd probably think that term was a bit lame. God bless and take care.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,422

    Re: Tree of knowledge of good and evil

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    Me either. That's why I believe the Tree of Knowledge of Good and evil gave knowledge when it was eaten rather than saying it was something else that did so. It was given that name for a reason. To argue the tree didn't impart knowledge is more an argument from silence for God named it. Obviously the name meant something.

    Knowledge came because the Tree of Knowledge was eaten from.

    Whether it is easy to see or not doesn't matter. I don't know how Jesus walked on the water. Doesn't matter. He did it. Since God chose to impart knowledge through a tree, it happened that way.

    No. His exact words "Did you eat from the tree..." We can't separate the tree from the action. We can't separate the tree from the result. Eating from the right Tree brings life. Eating from the wrong tree brings death. Thing is, now there is spiritual eating that can bring life or death. In the garden it was both spiritual and physical. Or said another way, there are still two trees we can eat from.
    The tree imparted knowledge via an internal realisation, but not because the food itself was revelatory (which the food didn't need to be; the mechanism already existed within human psychology, so adding an additional layer is unnecessary complexity). They ate, realised they had disobeyed, and the rest followed. Were Adam and Eve so completely unaware that they would have only realised the significance of their act if the food they ate imparted the requisite knowledge? I don't think so. After all, that they chose to eat means that they were already capable of making moral decisions, and it does no good to suggest that they only became morally aware after eating, when they had to have been to make the decision in the first place. They wouldn't have remained ignorant, either (of consequences); had they not eaten they would have also become aware of good and evil vis--vis explicitly obeying (rather than disobeying; this was, after all, the first recorded instance of them consciously having the decision to love, trust, and obey God when given another choice), but how could that be if they didn't eat the fruit? The fruit was an object lesson.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. knowledge of good and evil
    By jaybird in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: Dec 29th 2014, 09:07 AM
  2. Replies: 41
    Last Post: Mar 7th 2014, 01:33 PM
  3. The Knowledge of Good and Evil
    By Michae in forum Growing in Christ
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: Dec 28th 2011, 01:08 AM
  4. the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
    By awesomegod7777 in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Mar 2nd 2010, 04:47 PM
  5. The Knowledge of Good and Evil
    By crossnote in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Jan 22nd 2010, 10:20 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •