Adam and Eve

[bennaks]

Hello everyone,
I still haven't had my exam yet, but I felt like I had to write a reply .

Hi bennaks, and welcome to the forum!

Thank you tango.

Your explanation of what the Bible meant by knowledge of good and evil makes a lot of sense to me. It is similar to Rens and Stravinsk's explanations in that the experience of sinning against the Lord itself was an eye opener. They probably ate the forbidden fruit and enjoyed it for a moment, but soon after they were flooded with bitterness, shame and regret. They experienced the sin first had, knew how bad it was, the temporary pleasure it can have, and the devastating consequences it entails. They also became more appreciative of good, because before that all they did was good and they did not understand how valuable and important it is to not part away from good. Kind of like you can never fully appreciate good health until you become sick.
This process that they went through was a representative experience of all good and all evil. By this sense, eating the forbidden fruit made them fully understand good and its importance, and evil and why the should stay away from it.

That's what I understood from your answer.


As for the part where it says "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." I feel that Brighten04's explanation, in that it was spiritual death rather than actual death, makes more sense after the "knowledge of good and evil" dilemma was solved. I say that because God gave them the warning at a time when they were free to eat from the tree of life. That means that they could have eaten from the tree of life first, become immortal, and then eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So I don't think that God's warning of death referred to denying Adam and Eve access to the tree of life, because when God tells them that they will surely die then they will die regardless. And since they did not physically die on the day they ate from the tree, then spiritual death to me seems like a plausible alternative. I could be wrong though, I don't know. After all I've only started to read the Bible some days ago, so I'm a novice beginner (like beginners would consider me a beginner compared to them, if that makes any sense ).

The 9 year old boy example though

When you get to the part where it says man was created first crossreferenced with Paul's logic then maybe you can tell us what is meant that the animals were created before male. Do you see that as a progress in developement or a resort to previous in light of the progression of raw to culmination of mankind?

That was for tango not me right? Because I have no idea

 

[MoreCoffee]

Hello everyone,
I still haven't had my exam yet, but I felt like I had to write a reply ��.

Thank you tango.

Your explanation of what the Bible meant by knowledge of good and evil makes a lot of sense to me. It is similar to Rens and Stravinsk's explanations in that the experience of sinning against the Lord itself was an eye opener. They probably ate the forbidden fruit and enjoyed it for a moment, but soon after they were flooded with bitterness, shame and regret. They experienced the sin first had, knew how bad it was, the temporary pleasure it can have, and the devastating consequences it entails. They also became more appreciative of good, because before that all they did was good and they did not understand how valuable and important it is to not part away from good. Kind of like you can never fully appreciate good health until you become sick.
This process that they went through was a representative experience of all good and all evil. By this sense, eating the forbidden fruit made them fully understand good and its importance, and evil and why the should stay away from it.

That's what I understood from your answer.

As for the part where it says "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." I feel that Brighten04's explanation, in that it was spiritual death rather than actual death, makes more sense after the "knowledge of good and evil" dilemma was solved. I say that because God gave them the warning at a time when they were free to eat from the tree of life. That means that they could have eaten from the tree of life first, become immortal, and then eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So I don't think that God's warning of death referred to denying Adam and Eve access to the tree of life, because when God tells them that they will surely die then they will die regardless. And since they did not physically die on the day they ate from the tree, then spiritual death to me seems like a plausible alternative. I could be wrong though, I don't know. After all I've only started to read the Bible some days ago, so I'm a novice beginner (like beginners would consider me a beginner compared to them, if that makes any sense �&#56838.

The 9 year old boy example though ����

That was for tango not me right? Because I have no idea ��

You are doing well for one so new to the holy scriptures. Keep reading Genesis and if you want to then read the other books attributed to Moses (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) but when you finish those books move on the the new testament, Matthew's gospel, or Luke's then Acts, and then take some time reading Paul's letters, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and after that return to John's gospel. That is a lot to read but it will be a good plan. Eventually you can return to the other books in the old testament and read them in chronological order (I can help with that if you need help).

God be with you.

 

[tango]

Hello everyone,
I still haven't had my exam yet, but I felt like I had to write a reply ��.



Thank you tango.

Your explanation of what the Bible meant by knowledge of good and evil makes a lot of sense to me. It is similar to Rens and Stravinsk's explanations in that the experience of sinning against the Lord itself was an eye opener. They probably ate the forbidden fruit and enjoyed it for a moment, but soon after they were flooded with bitterness, shame and regret. They experienced the sin first had, knew how bad it was, the temporary pleasure it can have, and the devastating consequences it entails. They also became more appreciative of good, because before that all they did was good and they did not understand how valuable and important it is to not part away from good. Kind of like you can never fully appreciate good health until you become sick.
This process that they went through was a representative experience of all good and all evil. By this sense, eating the forbidden fruit made them fully understand good and its importance, and evil and why the should stay away from it.

That's what I understood from your answer.


As for the part where it says "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." I feel that Brighten04's explanation, in that it was spiritual death rather than actual death, makes more sense after the "knowledge of good and evil" dilemma was solved. I say that because God gave them the warning at a time when they were free to eat from the tree of life. That means that they could have eaten from the tree of life first, become immortal, and then eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So I don't think that God's warning of death referred to denying Adam and Eve access to the tree of life, because when God tells them that they will surely die then they will die regardless. And since they did not physically die on the day they ate from the tree, then spiritual death to me seems like a plausible alternative. I could be wrong though, I don't know. After all I've only started to read the Bible some days ago, so I'm a novice beginner (like beginners would consider me a beginner compared to them, if that makes any sense �&#56838.

The 9 year old boy example though ����

Good to see you back here When is your exam?

When Adam and Eve were driven out of Eden they were denied access to the Tree of Life. The text in Genesis doesn't indicate whether they had previously eaten from it, but the notion that God drove them away lest they ate from the tree and became immortal does arguably allow for the possibility that immortality was attained by ongoing eating of the fruit, rather than a "one and done" whereby eating the fruit once rendered the eater immortal for evermore. But then if we roll all the way forward to the end of the Revelation where John is describing the new heaven and the new earth we see that the Tree of Life is back. Therefore, once we reach the new heaven and the new earth we will get to eat from the Tree of Life again, and hence we can live forever in heaven.

Certainly the death described by God also incorporates spiritual death, since we know that sin entered the world when Adam and Eve chose to disobey God and do things their own way. But I think we can regard it as including spiritual death (in the sense that their spiritual purity was destroyed in a moment) as well as physical death (in the sense that God took away their access to the Tree of Life and pronounced that Adam would one day return to dust).

 

[bennaks]

You are doing well for one so new to the holy scriptures

Yeah, what can I do, being a genius is just part of my genetic make-up. No matter how much I try to hide it, people just keep noticing - Just kidding of coarse. I just summarized what I understood from your answers. Oh and talking about how smart I am, I actually had to stop reading KJV and continue with the New International Version because I was finding KJV hard to understand .

Keep reading Genesis and if you want to then read the other books attributed to Moses (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) but when you finish those books move on the the new testament, Matthew's gospel, or Luke's then Acts, and then take some time reading Paul's letters, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and after that return to John's gospel. That is a lot to read but it will be a good plan. Eventually you can return to the other books in the old testament and read them in chronological order (I can help with that if you need help).

God be with you.

I've already read the 5 books attributed to Moses. So I'll just skip the rest of the OT and start reading the NT as you recommended. Thanks MoreCoffee. God be with you too .

Good to see you back here When is your exam?

I'm having my exam in about 2 weeks, but before you all think "such a nerd , studying weeks in advance for an exam" I have to tell you that it's three years worth of study material that I'm trying to cram in my head in a few weeks. So I've actually began my studying late not early .

When Adam and Eve were driven out of Eden they were denied access to the Tree of Life. The text in Genesis doesn't indicate whether they had previously eaten from it, but the notion that God drove them away lest they ate from the tree and became immortal does arguably allow for the possibility that immortality was attained by ongoing eating of the fruit, rather than a "one and done" whereby eating the fruit once rendered the eater immortal for evermore. But then if we roll all the way forward to the end of the Revelation where John is describing the new heaven and the new earth we see that the Tree of Life is back. Therefore, once we reach the new heaven and the new earth we will get to eat from the Tree of Life again, and hence we can live forever in heaven.

When I read the verses, I got the sense that it is a "one time and done" thing for two reasons:
1- That seemed to be the case with the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So maybe that was how the tree of life was too.

2- The phrasing of the verse.

"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"

It seems to imply that once Adam gets hold of the tree of life and eats then that's it, he becomes immortal. A one time event rather than a continuous process. Do you get the same sense or is it just me?

 

[tango]

I'm having my exam in about 2 weeks, but before you all think "such a nerd ��, studying weeks in advance for an exam" I have to tell you that it's three years worth of study material that I'm trying to cram in my head in a few weeks. So I've actually began my studying late not early ��.

Good luck with the exam, I guess it's coming up very soon now!

When I read the verses, I got the sense that it is a "one time and done" thing for two reasons:
1- That seemed to be the case with the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So maybe that was how the tree of life was too.

2- The phrasing of the verse.

"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"

It seems to imply that once Adam gets hold of the tree of life and eats then that's it, he becomes immortal. A one time event rather than a continuous process. Do you get the same sense or is it just me?

Since the text isn't absolutely clear I'm minded to think that it's more likely to be an ongoing thing where the Tree of Life is concerned, simply because we have no way of knowing how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before eating the forbidden fruit and therefore no way of knowing if they had long enough to eat from the Tree of Life in the meantime. It could be a one-and-done thing but that would mean that, had Adam or Eve eaten from the Tree of Life (which was allowed) before eating from the Tree of Knowledge (which was forbidden) they would end up immortal and like God. Had that been the case then God would have been wrong in his assertion that they would die on the day they ate the forbidden fruit - it would have created the possibility that they could eat one fruit and then another, effectively bypassing any punishment from God.

I wouldn't say the text is particularly clear (and in many ways it's of little more than academic interest) but I think the provision that eating the forbidden fruit would result in death requires that eating from the Tree of Life be an ongoing event rather than a one-time event.

 

[Cassia]

Good luck with the exam, I guess it's coming up very soon now!



Since the text isn't absolutely clear I'm minded to think that it's more likely to be an ongoing thing where the Tree of Life is concerned, simply because we have no way of knowing how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before eating the forbidden fruit and therefore no way of knowing if they had long enough to eat from the Tree of Life in the meantime. It could be a one-and-done thing but that would mean that, had Adam or Eve eaten from the Tree of Life (which was allowed) before eating from the Tree of Knowledge (which was forbidden) they would end up immortal and like God. Had that been the case then God would have been wrong in his assertion that they would die on the day they ate the forbidden fruit - it would have created the possibility that they could eat one fruit and then another, effectively bypassing any punishment from God.

I wouldn't say the text is particularly clear (and in many ways it's of little more than academic interest) but I think the provision that eating the forbidden fruit would result in death requires that eating from the Tree of Life be an ongoing event rather than a one-time event.

Set before them seems to indicate that time was not involved in the decision of eating from either tree. But had they chosen the tree of life 1st it's an unknown factor whether tree of knowledge would have been available to them for their edification.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Set before them seems to indicate that time was not involved in the decision of eating from either tree. But had they chosen the tree of life 1st it's an unknown factor whether tree of knowledge would have been available to them for their edification.

The fruit of the tree of life wasn't eaten so we do not know what its effect would be.

 

[psalms 91]

The fruit of the tree of life wasn't eaten so we do not know what its effect would be.

Hmmmm, I thought the bible said they would live forever. But we will see it when we get to heaven

 

[MoreCoffee]

Hmmmm, I thought the bible said they would live forever. But we will see it when we get to heaven

Yes, and we see now because the faithful already eat the fruit of the tree of Life.

 

[tango]

The fruit of the tree of life wasn't eaten so we do not know what its effect would be.

WE don't know whether or not it was eaten - the text doesn't tell us one way or the other.

 

[MoreCoffee]

WE don't know whether or not it was eaten - the text doesn't tell us one way or the other.

There's a hint is there not in these words?

And Jehovah 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-- therefore Jehovah God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden the Cherubim, and the flame of a sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. [SUP]Genesis 3:22-24[/SUP]​

 

[tango]

There's a hint is there not in these words?

And Jehovah 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-- therefore Jehovah God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden the Cherubim, and the flame of a sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. [SUP]Genesis 3:22-24[/SUP]​

I think the text could support two possibilities:

1 - The Tree of Life was a "one and done" kind of deal, Adam and Eve had not eaten from it, and therefore had to be exiled to prevent them from ever eating from it.

2 - The Tree of Life had to be eaten regularly to maintain immortality, and Adam and Eve had to be exiled to prevent them from eating any more of its fruit.

I lean towards (2), simply because option (1) means that they could have become immortal and then eaten from the Tree of Knowledge.

 

[Lamb]

WE don't know whether or not it was eaten - the text doesn't tell us one way or the other.

You're right in that the text doesn't explicitly say they ate from it but the text does say this:

And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

The only tree God forbid them to eat was from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We have no reason to believe they did not take Him up on the offer to eat of the other trees including the tree of life.

 

[Brighten04]

You're right in that the text doesn't explicitly say they ate from it but the text does say this:

And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

The only tree God forbid them to eat was from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We have no reason to believe they did not take Him up on the offer to eat of the other trees including the tree of life.

I kind of think they did not partake of the tree of life because of the word also.
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 for ever:

Now imho this means they had not already taken and eaten, so God prevented them from taking and eating from it.

 

[psalms 91]

I kind of think they did not partake of the tree of life because of the word also.
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 for ever:

Now imho this means they had not already taken and eaten, so God prevented them from taking and eating from it.

Exactly right

 

[tango]

I kind of think they did not partake of the tree of life because of the word also.
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 for ever:

Now imho this means they had not already taken and eaten, so God prevented them from taking and eating from it.

I'm not sure that can be safely concluded.

We know that God didn't want them to eat from the tree of life after they ate the forbidden fruit, and so sent them out of Eden so they couldn't. I don't think we can safely conclude whether they had previously eaten - God had made it clear they were welcome to eat of all the fruit including the tree of life so it's entirely possible they did eat from it. Since we don't know how long they spent in Eden before eating the forbidden fruit we can't say whether they ate the forbidden fruit within a few hours (in which case they probably didn't eat the tree of life) or after many decades or centuries (in which case they probably did).

I'm not sure it's relevant whether they did or not, either way they were denied access to it and therefore denied immortality. We can also see at the end of the Revelation that, come the new Jerusalem, the tree of life is back and we will get to eat from it.

 

[Cassia]

Placing Adam before the tree of life and the tree of good and evil to choose between them seems to say that God's creation of mankind was incompleted. Adam (male and female) were still unfinished.
God's life is represented in the tree of life and as yet mankind had not reached the stage of a completed creation. Making the wrong choice in eating of the tree of knowledge delayed mankind's completion.
Because of that mankind didn't reach the highest level of attainment and was still in need of further developement.
Adam was a living soul but didn't have God's Spirit as life within him and for that reason he/they would die.
Adam had been made to contain God but w/o God's character within. In essence Adam "fell short of the glory of God"

What Jesus represented wasn't a super human. He was a normal person as was meant to be. He doesn't represent mankind but instead is THE representative of all mankind.
And in resurrection His power was completed to become transcendent even over death. Hebrews 1:5, 1 Peter 1:3, Acts 13:33-34. Death can no longer place any more limitations if we choose correctly.

We still have that choice in front of us to choose whether to trust in God that our best interest is where His heart is at or listen to satan say become your own God, you won't die.

Choosing the tree of life is to choose Christ.

 

[bennaks]

I'm baaack!

Sorry for taking so long, I had to take a break after my exam .

I think the text could support two possibilities:

1 - The Tree of Life was a "one and done" kind of deal, Adam and Eve had not eaten from it, and therefore had to be exiled to prevent them from ever eating from it.

2 - The Tree of Life had to be eaten regularly to maintain immortality, and Adam and Eve had to be exiled to prevent them from eating any more of its fruit.

I lean towards (2), simply because option (1) means that they could have become immortal and then eaten from the Tree of Knowledge.

I can see how we cannot conclude from the text either possibility with certainty, but even if it was the first possibility (one time and done), if death was explained as spiritual rather than physical then we wouldn't have a problem, right? Because then, isolating Adam and Eve from the Tree of Life would not be understood as the direct consequence of eating from the Tree of Knowledge, but rather an extra precautionary measure. Although I sensed from one of your answers that you do not agree with that explanation of death.

Also, since the text is not very clear, and since it is a translation, can't we go back to the original text (Hebrew?) to see if we can find an answer? I can't understand Hebrew myself, but if anyone here does, maybe he/she could help out?
I'll also look up the text in Arabic (my mother tongue) to see if I can get any clues.

Oh and Cassia, nice profile pic . That's the national dress of Arab Gulf States. Looks cute on a cat though .

 

[Josiah]

I'm baaack! ��

I'm glad! Welcome back!

 

[Brighten04]

Bennaks said in #38

I can see how we cannot conclude from the text either possibility with certainty, but even if it was the first possibility (one time and done), if death was explained as spiritual rather than physical then we wouldn't have a problem, right? Because then, isolating Adam and Eve from the Tree of Life would not be understood as the direct consequence of eating from the Tree of Knowledge, but rather an extra precautionary measure.

This is just my understanding, but, I look at it like this. Adam and Eve already had life. It was the life of God, which is eternal, so there would logically be no need for them to eat from the tree of life.Since they had not been forbidden to take from it and eat, it was, in a sense, taken for granted like all other trees. We learn from the NT that the strength of sin is the law. "don't eat from the tree of Knowledge of good and evil." Well, we know from our own experience that there is something about us that makes us want to do what we are forbidden to do. Sometimes that something is so powerful that we can't help but do that very thing. It is called lust. Now man did not lust for life because he already had that, so there was no need to eat from the tree of life. As we look at the text we see that the first temptation was lust of the flesh for Eve saw that the tree was good for food:drool: as all of the trees were but next was lust of the eyes, it was pleasant to the eyes . I imagine it was more beautiful than any other tree in the garden. Then spurning the knowledge she already had, she decided the grass was greener around the septic tank :dunno:, she wanted to know evil as well. That was pride in it's purest form. And pride is always a bitter pill :dead1: . I think too that man did not understand the concept of sin and death.Why? Because he was good. Sin and death is evil. Even though God had told him that he would die if he ate, there was no death for him to know it. Everything around him was good, living, whole. It was satan (peer pressure) that presented evil as something good. We know how that is from experience also.No we cannot say for certainty that they did not eat from the tree of life, but, in meditating on the text, I deduce that they did not eat from it.