Just a thought about the Tree of Knowledge

[fhansen]

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…

To say that they could benefit from experiencing evil is not the same as saying they needed to-that the experience was necessary, absolutely essential. They had a choice; they could’ve chosen otherwise; they could’ve eaten from the Tree of Life, for example. The Prodigal benefited from time spent in the pigsty, but that isn’t to say that the pigsty was good-or that his father wanted him there. If the experience of sin/evil was necessary, then God created all evil; He desired man to sin. We do not believe this.

 

[simpleas]

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.

So how do you think man became corrupt by rebelling from God. What was within man that prompted this idea that he could become his own God?

 

[simpleas]

To say that they could benefit from experiencing evil is not the same as saying they needed to-that the experience was necessary, absolutely essential. They had a choice; they could’ve chosen otherwise; they could’ve eaten from the Tree of Life, for example. The Prodigal benefited from time spent in the pigsty, but that isn’t to say that the pigsty was good-or that his father wanted him there. If the experience of sin/evil was necessary, then God created all evil; He desired man to sin. We do not believe this.

No, but it was inevitable, because God already knew it would happen. They didn’t.

True they had a choice, they could have asked God, but they didn’t. They believed they were making a good choice because they had never known evil or what it could do. They could not have been vindictive or corrupt in that choice because of their innocence, they only helped satan in his quest, but not in a full knowledgeable way. They were only human after all, satan is supernatural. And he was the liar.

The Prodigal son learnt from his mistakes, was given a second chance so to speak.
Whatever A&E got involved in, there was no second chance, only punishment.

 

[fhansen]

No, but it was inevitable, because God already knew it would happen. They didn’t.

True they had a choice, they could have asked God, but they didn’t. They believed they were making a good choice because they had never known evil or what it could do. They could not have been vindictive or corrupt in that choice because of their innocence, they only helped satan in his quest, but not in a full knowledgeable way. They were only human after all, satan is supernatural. And he was the liar.

The Prodigal son learnt from his mistakes, was given a second chance so to speak.
Whatever A&E got involved in, there was no second chance, only punishment.

Of course there was a second chance. They’re journey-to perfection-had only just begun in fact. They weren’t perfect in Eden-or else their choice would’ve been right-and they ended up taking the long road home instead. But as you said, God already knew it. This doesn’t mean their disobedience was inevitable, however, just foreknown, even before they were created. Their choice, their sin, along with God’s plan of salvation, was all factored into God’s determination to create-and to eventually end up with what He wants, the divine Potter molding His clay.

 

[fisherman_carl]

So how do you think man became corrupt by rebelling from God. What was within man that prompted this idea that he could become his own God?

To be like God. Not to be God. Pride and envy. The devil tempted them with something good,to be like God, but in a way that was disordered. To take a natural good, but to distort it and twist it to our own selfish ends. Isn’t this sin? Instead of waiting for God they disobeyed in order to achieve what they thought was a good end, but using a destructive means.

 

[simpleas]

Of course there was a second chance. They’re journey-to perfection-had only just begun in fact. They weren’t perfect in Eden-or else their choice would’ve been right-and they ended up taking the long road home instead. But as you said, God already knew it. This doesn’t mean their disobedience was inevitable, however, just foreknown, even before they were created. Their choice, their sin, along with God’s plan of salvation, was all factored into God’s determination to create-and to eventually end up with what He wants, the divine Potter molding His clay.

If something is foreknown then it is inevitable that it will happen, that’s how my logic flows…

I wonder how much foreknowledge satan had, as he was a liar, he knew something more than the humans, how this knowledge of good and evil would be the down fall of a almost perfect world God had imagined for his human creation.

Satan is still the ruler of this world isn’t he? Using us in our frail, or weak moments to doubt God is even there.

 

[simpleas]

To be like God. Not to be God. Pride and envy. The devil tempted them with something good,to be like God, but in a way that was disordered. To take a natural good, but to distort it and twist it to our own selfish ends. Isn’t this sin? Instead of waiting for God they disobeyed in order to achieve what they thought was a good end, but using a destructive means.

So are you saying man had pride and envy within before he sinned? And selfishness was present also?

Man was created good, but not prefect, so it would depend how much goodness God gave man in order for him to make a good choice…

 

[grannymh]

Maybe sometime in my life, someone will figure out what Original Sin is based on. Maybe sometime in my life, someone will figure out what square one is when it comes to the first three chapters of Genesis. In the meantime …:sad_bye:

 

[fhansen]

If something is foreknown then it is inevitable that it will happen, that’s how my logic flows…

Only if you can somehow logically say that it’s inevitable while still maintaining that man has free will- his actions aren’t predetermined.

I wonder how much foreknowledge satan had, as he was a liar, he knew something more than the humans, how this knowledge of good and evil would be the down fall of a almost perfect world God had imagined for his human creation.

Satan’s purpose just seems to be to pull everything down-with or without foreknowledge about the outcome I’d think.

Satan is still the ruler of this world isn’t he? Using us in our frail, or weak moments to doubt God is even there.

Or exploiting or encouraging our own desires, lusts, pride, etc, He has no power except that which we give over to him.

 

[Neoplatonist]

It was a slow death, obviously not instantly, or yes we would not be here.

When we are born we are dying in a way, but they had the gift of immortality as long as they remained obedient to their creator.

Then why was there a tree of eternal life in the Garden? I don’t get that part…

 

[Neoplatonist]

To be like God. Not to be God. Pride and envy. The devil tempted them with something good,to be like God, but in a way that was disordered. To take a natural good, but to distort it and twist it to our own selfish ends. Isn’t this sin? Instead of waiting for God they disobeyed in order to achieve what they thought was a good end, but using a destructive means.

So these two innocent hearts - bumpkins or children in many ways - are outsmarted by an angelic intellect, and they and all men for all time after suffer for it?

Now I’ve heard it said, “They knew in their hearts it was wrong.” How? They hadn’t eaten from the tree that gave them knowledge of good and evil yet. We think they should’ve seen it, but that seems like armchair quarterbacking. We have seen violence and corruption and depravity and so on, and we have experienced the consequences of sin - they hadn’t. They hadn’t seen or felt or done any of those things. Ever.

How would they know disobeying would make God angry? Again, it had never happened before. Had he given them any sense of what consequences would actually look like? “On that day you will die.” What did that mean? They’d never seen anyone die before.

There might be some simple obvious answer to these questions, I’ve just never seen it brought up in these conversations about the Garden, so it seemed worth hearing people’s thoughts.

 

[davidv]

So these two innocent hearts - bumpkins or children in many ways - are outsmarted by an angelic intellect, and they and all men for all time after suffer for it?

No, they were outsmarted by their own pride.

Now I’ve heard it said, “They knew in their hearts it was wrong.” How?

By knowing God, who they spoke with daily.

They hadn’t eaten from the tree that gave them knowledge of good and evil yet. We think they should’ve seen it, but that seems like armchair quarterbacking. We have seen violence and corruption and depravity and so on, and we have experienced the consequences of sin - they hadn’t. They hadn’t seen or felt or done any of those things. Ever.

How would they know disobeying would make God angry?

We don’t. Where does the text of Genesis say God became angry?

Again, it had never happened before. Had he given them any sense of what consequences would actually look like? “On that day you will die.” What did that mean? They’d never seen anyone die before.

There might be some simple obvious answer to these questions, I’ve just never seen it brought up in these conversations about the Garden, so it seemed worth hearing people’s thoughts.

 

[Neoplatonist]

No, they were outsmarted by their own pride.

Then why bring the serpent into it at all?

By knowing God, who they spoke with daily.

Yet apparently did not teach them about good or evil. Was talking about how beautifully the trees were growing or how clever that whole “separating night from day” idea was supposed to give them discernment? (Even then, how can we say “discernment” is not a knowledge?)

We don’t. Where does the text of Genesis say God became angry?

Fair enough. I could have said something like “bring down an eternity of hurt on them.”

 

[davidv]

Then why bring the serpent into it at all?

I am not sure. Have you asked the author?

Yet apparently did not teach them about good or evil. Was talking about how beautifully the trees were growing or how clever that whole “separating night from day” idea was supposed to give them discernment? (Even then, how can we say “discernment” is not a knowledge?)

Why do you think lack of teaching was the problem? What is the student’s role in the instructional process?

Fair enough. I could have said something like “bring down an eternity of hurt on them.”

 

[Neoplatonist]

Why do you think lack of teaching was the problem? What is the student’s role in the instructional process?

Because they hadn’t learned good from evil and it would appear the teacher did not want them to. What math teacher would be upset that students had eaten the math fruit and now understood calculus?

There is also no indication that they are being punished for not attending to lectures on good/evil, only on obedience.

 

[grannymh]

So these two innocent hearts - bumpkins or children in many ways - are outsmarted by an angelic intellect, and they and all men for all time after suffer for it?

Now I’ve heard it said, “They knew in their hearts it was wrong.” How? They hadn’t eaten from the tree that gave them knowledge of good and evil yet. We think they should’ve seen it, but that seems like armchair quarterbacking. We have seen violence and corruption and depravity and so on, and we have experienced the consequences of sin - they hadn’t. They hadn’t seen or felt or done any of those things. Ever.

How would they know disobeying would make God angry? Again, it had never happened before. Had he given them any sense of what consequences would actually look like? “On that day you will die.” What did that mean? They’d never seen anyone die before.

There might be some simple obvious answer to these questions, I’ve just never seen it brought up in these conversations about the Garden, so it seemed worth hearing people’s thoughts.

The simple answer is that Adam and Eve are fully-complete human persons.

This means that Adam and Eve have the same human nature, I mean nature, as we do. Adam’s, Eve’s and our basic human nature is the unique unification of the material world (decomposing anatomy) and spiritual world (Genesis 1: 26-27). Adam and Eve have a conscience which goes with being human. Adam and Eve have the rational ability to observe the difference between themselves and God.

The fact that Adam could observe the difference between himself and God is expressed in the original relationship of humanity and divinity. This simple original rational relationship is usually ignored on CAF. Considering Adam a bumpkin is a lot easier than looking for reality. Blaming a tree is a lot easier than examining the nature of Adam.

 

[grannymh]

Then why bring the serpent into it at all?

The reason the “serpent”, a figure of speech for the reality of the devil, is in the Garden is because the devil Satan exists. It is that simple.

 

[grannymh]

Because they hadn’t learned good from evil and it would appear the teacher did not want them to. What math teacher would be upset that students had eaten the math fruit and now understood calculus?

There is also no indication that they are being punished for not attending to lectures on good/evil, only on obedience.

Math fruit – that is wonderful. Dang! I wish I had that fruit in university. I would have been able to remain in my math class.

When one reads the lectures, the same ones Adam heard, one knows the result of disobeying God and because of the original relationship between Adam and his loving Creator, one knows why obedience is key.

 

[davidv]

Because they hadn’t learned good from evil and it would appear the teacher did not want them to.

That is not what this implies:
Genesis 2:15:

The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”

What math teacher would be upset that students had eaten the math fruit and now understood calculus?

I have no idea how this addresses my question: What is the students role?

There is also no indication that they are being punished for not attending to lectures on good/evil, only on obedience.

Why was that not sufficient?

Based on the above, it is pretty clear that there is serious misunderstanding of what is recorded in Genesis.

 

[simpleas]

Only if you can somehow logically say that it’s inevitable while still maintaining that man has free will- his actions aren’t predetermined.

Satan’s purpose just seems to be to pull everything down-with or without foreknowledge about the outcome I’d think.

Or exploiting or encouraging our own desires, lusts, pride, etc, He has no power except that which we give over to him.

His actions may not be, but the out come was, I don’t know, if we say God knows all, then he knew they would sin, even having freewill, the out come was disobedience.