Just a thought about the Tree of Knowledge

[fhansen]

Yes maybe it can be read as in that day, as one day, but we know they didn’t die that one day. It just meant that from that day they would die…that’s how I understand it.

Yes, physical death entered the man’s world that day according to the catechism. The Church also teaches about the “death of the soul”, which would’ve occurred on that day-a real spiritual change took place.

 

[fhansen]

Our lives are always about making choices, those of us who are capable.
It was the same for the first two, no doubt about it. Knowledge was given to them freely, only one tree was not to be eaten, because once it was there was no way back from that sort of knowledge, only a progression forward I think.
Once man had knowledge of good and evil more choices have to be made, we never stop trying to progress, even when evil reigns.

IMO once man knew good and evil intimately, once he* experienced both*, his choices would be even more informed, while not immediately resolved towards complete favor of the good alone. A struggle, of the conscience, had begun, with man “journeying to perfection” as he wrestled with those very choices that would ultimately either bind him definitively to God, or turn him away from Him.

 

[simpleas]

IMO once man knew good and evil intimately, once he* experienced both*, his choices would be even more informed, while not immediately resolved towards complete favor of the good alone. A struggle, of the conscience, had begun, with man “journeying to perfection” as he wrestled with those very choices that would ultimately either bind him definitively to God, or turn him away from Him.

Yes that’s a fine opinion, yet many believe A&E had enough knowledge to have made the right decision. We know trust in God is the lesson behind the “eating of the forbidden tree” and that it was man that brought sin into the world, with full knowledge, but full knowledge wasn’t present until the “last fruit of the tree” was eaten.

My interest was concerning if the other trees could have been knowledge of other human traits and the world, in the garden. Sort of leading them up to a decision of choice. We don’t have much to go on in the scripture provided in genesis.

Thanks.

 

[fhansen]

Yes that’s a fine opinion, yet many believe A&E had enough knowledge to have made the right decision. We know trust in God is the lesson behind the “eating of the forbidden tree” and that it was man that brought sin into the world, with full knowledge, but full knowledge wasn’t present until the “last fruit of the tree” was eaten.

My interest was concerning if the other trees could have been knowledge of other human traits and the world, in the garden. Sort of leading them up to a decision of choice. We don’t have much to go on in the scripture provided in genesis.

Thanks.

I also agree that they had enough knowledge, but also that they know even better now. Don’t have an opinion about the other trees-except the Tree of Life perhaps.

 

[simpleas]

I also agree that they had enough knowledge, but also that they know even better now. Don’t have an opinion about the other trees-except the Tree of Life perhaps.

So are you saying they needed to sin in order to know better?

We could imagine that they were very bounded to God as they were made free of any sinful desire, most especially selfish desire, yet selfish desire arose from within when prompted to make that choice. Maybe selfish desire was the out come of gaining knowledge from God, as only a human could experience. And so when tempted, this desire to gain more knowledge even of something prohibited wouldn’t stop man from breaking the friendship he had with God. This desire had to come from somewhere…

Apologies for using the word desire so much!!

 

[simpleas]

So the garden of eden could have been a metaphor for a real place were humans were gaining knowledge of how to live and survive as a human.
The author of genesis could have used a garden with trees to tell the tale of creation in a way that people of that time would understand.
The author inspired by God may have known exactly what happen to the first two humans, but knew that people would not be able to comprehend what he was saying.
When we look at ancient drawing and writings, we sometimes can’t comprehend what the people are trying to tell us, it seems so strange, out of this world even. But with much research and some evidence we can piece it all together and come up with a theory.

 

[fhansen]

So are you saying they needed to sin in order to know better?

We could imagine that they were very bounded to God as they were made free of any sinful desire, most especially selfish desire, yet selfish desire arose from within when prompted to make that choice. Maybe selfish desire was the out come of gaining knowledge from God, as only a human could experience. And so when tempted, this desire to gain more knowledge even of something prohibited wouldn’t stop man from breaking the friendship he had with God. This desire had to come from somewhere…

Apologies for using the word desire so much!!

I’m saying they know better now-in any case. I’m saying Adam would never make the same wrong choice now-and that’s not because he’s forced in anyway to make the right choice instead.

But they did not need to sin, even as their negative experience with sin might eventually lead them, with the help of God’s guidance and grace, on a journey back away from sin and towards Him, on a ‘journey to perfection’. God simply does not coerce or force man.

And Adam was* not *definitively bound, in the way the Beatific Vision binds us, because that immediate knowledge of God fulfils all possible desire for man-Adam could never want for anything else. God just wants us to hunger and thirst for that vision and the happiness it produces before we have full experience of it. He wants us to choose goodness and justice; He wants us to love now, with the BV as the goal.

 

[simpleas]

I’m saying they know better now-in any case. I’m saying Adam would never make the same wrong choice now-and that’s not because he’s forced in anyway to make the right choice instead.

But they did not need to sin, even as their negative experience with sin might eventually lead them, with the help of God’s guidance and grace, on a journey back away from sin and towards Him, on a ‘journey to perfection’. God simply does not coerce or force man.

And Adam was* not *definitively bound, in the way the Beatific Vision binds us, because that immediate knowledge of God fulfils all possible desire for man-Adam could never want for anything else. God just wants us to hunger and thirst for that vision and the happiness it produces before we have full experience of it. He wants us to choose goodness and justice; He wants us to love now, with the BV as the goal.

Ok, maybe we can dig alittle deeper into the reason they didn’t need to sin.

If they did not need to experience separation from God, how would they know they needed God in order to become bounded to him?

We all experience the desire to do our own thing, go our own way etc, and it may take time to rely fully on God for the out come of our lives. Never having to experience this would place us on an entirely different spiritual level, one maybe much much closer to God. One that A&E were experiencing before sin.

They know better now? They from what I’ve learnt knew what they were doing. We have the 3 conditions to meet in order to be culpable of mortal sin, this must have been true for A&E.

 

[fhansen]

Ok, maybe we can dig alittle deeper into the reason they didn’t need to sin.

If they did not need to experience separation from God, how would they know they needed God in order to become bounded to him?

We all experience the desire to do our own thing, go our own way etc, and it may take time to rely fully on God for the out come of our lives. Never having to experience this would place us on an entirely different spiritual level, one maybe much much closer to God. One that A&E were experiencing before sin.

They know better now? They from what I’ve learnt knew what they were doing.

And yet you’ve affirmed above that they needed to be separated from God in order for them to* know* of their need for Him.

I take a somewhat middle road-as I believe the Church does. Adam & Eve were not superhumans-in that they possessed a knowledge equal to God’s, for instance. They simply had enough knowledge to know better-and yet God, obviously, still deemed it worthwhile to let them fall and wallow in the pigsty for awhile if they made the wrong choice, if that’s what it took to convince them. His plan of salvation was in operation from “day one”.

 

[grannymh]

So the garden of eden could have been a metaphor for a real place were humans were gaining knowledge of how to live and survive as a human.
The author of genesis could have used a garden with trees to tell the tale of creation in a way that people of that time would understand.
The author inspired by God may have known exactly what happen to the first two humans, but knew that people would not be able to comprehend what he was saying.
When we look at ancient drawing and writings, we sometimes can’t comprehend what the people are trying to tell us, it seems so strange, out of this world even. But with much research and some evidence we can piece it all together and come up with a theory.

I still have to answer a previous post of yours.

My apology. The popular suggestion (I have seen various kinds) which really gets to me is that the Garden of Eden is either a metaphor or it existed some special place off earth.

Basically, if Adam were a real person, he would have to eat real food which had to be grown in a real place on the real planet earth which is so made that real trees in a real garden can produce real fruit.

Granted that there is some figurative language within the first three chapters of Genesis. However, the figurative language describes reality.

The above metaphor is well thought out. Thank you. Yet, when I look at my mirror, I do not see myself as a metaphor descendant.

 

[John_Martin]

Adam and Eve, as with us, were supposed to “come to know good and evil through experience and reasoning”. That is how humans come to know things. The angels know things by immediate and instant infusion of that knowledge, just like Adam and Eve instantly realized they were naked. They did not go through a course of years, reasoning about exposure of their bodies, especially after having children and a social group began to grow, then reasoning that it would be good to be clothed, and form a societal norm about that. The tree was about “Instant Knowing without reason”, which is not for humans.

But, as to their sin, if it was “eating” that was the spiritually mortal sin, why is it always in scripture attributed to Adam as the source of original sin rather than attributed to the woman?

Could it be that the actual “original sin” was something Adam did after Eve gave him the fruit? God asked him a question, like a loving Father asks his venially sinning child: “Where are you? Who told you (knowledge) that you were naked (did you learn of nakedness in a human way, or,) did you eat of the tree?” What did Adam (not Eve) do? He tried to justify himself (remember Romans self-justification by works) by blaming Eve and by blaming God for giving her to Adam. Adam sinned originally by not being God’s friend and child in that moment, but opposed himself to God as if God were to blame for all the evil now evident.

There are a few thoughts for you to chew on, …

 

[grannymh]

.

But, as to their sin, if it was “eating” that was the spiritually mortal sin, why is it always in scripture attributed to Adam as the source of original sin rather than attributed to the woman?"

Because Adam is the original human.

 

[simpleas]

And yet you’ve affirmed above that they needed to be separated from God in order for them to* know* of their need for Him.

I take a somewhat middle road-as I believe the Church does. Adam & Eve were not superhumans-in that they possessed a knowledge equal to God’s, for instance. They simply had enough knowledge to know better-and yet God, obviously, still deemed it worthwhile to let them fall and wallow in the pigsty for awhile if they made the wrong choice, if that’s what it took to convince them. His plan of salvation was in operation from “day one”.

In post 27 you said they didn’t need to sin. In order for them to be separated from God they need to sin and so giving them the realisation that they needed God.

 

[simpleas]

I still have to answer a previous post of yours.

My apology. The popular suggestion (I have seen various kinds) which really gets to me is that the Garden of Eden is either a metaphor or it existed some special place off earth.

Basically, if Adam were a real person, he would have to eat real food which had to be grown in a real place on the real planet earth which is so made that real trees in a real garden can produce real fruit.

Granted that there is some figurative language within the first three chapters of Genesis. However, the figurative language describes reality.

The above metaphor is well thought out. Thank you. Yet, when I look at my mirror, I do not see myself as a metaphor descendant.

If something is described as figurative how can it be reality?

So what is the figurative language in the first three chapters of Genesis?

The second question brings me back to my previous post where I asked you about symbolism.

Because the creation story could be read as a metaphor for some other way to understand what happen, it doesn’t mean one has to think of the two first humans as metaphors.

 

[fhansen]

In post 27 you said they didn’t need to sin. In order for them to be separated from God they need to sin and so giving them the realisation that they needed God.

But they didn’t *need *to be separated from God, nothing needs to be-or should ever be-separated from God. That is not His will, only something He allowed man to explore, presumably so man could learn by experience what he should’ve known and embraced by trust.

Another way to put it, man ultimately needs to come to love God with His whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. Then everything is in order-justice prevails.

 

[grannymh]

If something is described as figurative how can it be reality?

It is not something described as figurative. It is using figurative language to describe something real.

So what is the figurative language in the first three chapters of Genesis?

Satan is described by using figurative language.

The second question brings me back to my previous post where I asked you about symbolism.

Because the creation story could be read as a metaphor for some other way to understand what happen, it doesn’t mean one has to think of the two first humans as metaphors.

Because there is a lot of creation in the first three chapters, would it be possible to give chapter and verse? Never mind. I cannot imagine reading those first three chapters as being different from Catholic teaching.

 

[grannymh]

Sorry I took so long. I was going to put together a basic approach to understanding the first three chapter of Genesis. I have given up that project.

Do you consider the tree of knowledge of good and evil to be a symbol for something else that they were forbidden to have?

One of the suggestions is that Adam could not be God. He had to respect that insurmountable goal with trust. This means that Adam needed to live in free submission to his Creator. Therefore, my answer to the question is that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits. Information source: CCC 396.

That it need not have been an actual tree that they ate from, consuming a fruit that caused them to die spiritually and physically?

The key to the story is that obedience is a real action so I suppose you can throw any real disobedient action into the story and skip the problem of the tree or trees.

If not then the garden of eden is one of many stories told about how man gained knowledge from a supernatural source, and so the other trees could represent knowledge of any kind.

This is a free speech public message board. Any story about how a person gained knowledge from trees is permissible.

 

[simpleas]

But they didn’t *need *to be separated from God, nothing needs to be-or should ever be-separated from God. That is not His will, only something He allowed man to explore, presumably so man could learn by experience what he should’ve known and embraced by trust.

Another way to put it, man ultimately needs to come to love God with His whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. Then everything is in order-justice prevails.

So man didn’t need to be separated from God, yet he needed to learn by experience that he did indeed need God when making a choice…

 

[simpleas]

It is not something described as figurative. It is using figurative language to describe something real.

Satan is described by using figurative language.

Because there is a lot of creation in the first three chapters, would it be possible to give chapter and verse? Never mind. I cannot imagine reading those first three chapters as being different from Catholic teaching.

Thanks, I misinterpreted what you said

 

[fisherman_carl]

Jesus said you know a tree by its fruit. What is the fruit that Adam and Eve ate? The knowledge of good and evil. I think it means they came to “know” sin. Not just a mere intellectual knowledge but a participation in it. When the Bible talks about a man knowing his wife it means not a mere intellectual knowledge,but the act of the marital embrace.

If it was merely a tree of knowledge of good it would not have been forbidden. They already knew God. Man become corrupt by rebelling from God. They wanted to be God.