Why was the forbidden tree in the garden?

[JohnMac]

that’s because despite your post, a plain reading of the story does not depict the serpent as either a murderer or a liar. In order to view the serpent as such, you have to ascribe meaning to the story that isn’t there.

It’s called theology. It’s a deeper meaning that is there if you have the eyes to see it. Or you can just strip the story of all it’s meaning by seeing it as God sending a snake to trick people. That’s great! Why even bother reading the bible or posting on this site if that’s all you get out of it. There are certainly more interesting stories out there than a snake being sent by God to fool people. Skepticism is so fun though isn’t it? It really makes one feel good about themself. As if they are intelligent?

 

[samoht]

Sorry, I didn’t mean it disrespectfully. Most of the dialogs on these forums I’ve participated in have been good natured in spirit-more of a back and forth exchange of ideas and most people aren’t real sensitive about it but some can be and I became pretty perturbed once myself a while back when I felt I was being attacked or misunderstood so I understand that. But I did qualify my statement to stress that this was my understanding of davidvs’ comments. In any case it wasn’t meant as an attack on you. And in reconsidering his reply in post #167and in light of the topic, I still think that the gist of his meaning involved our being independent of God rather than about human independence in general. I was offering that as clarification and to see what he might say because I was interested to know but maybe I was being presumptuous. Maybe he could clear it up.

You needen’t apologize. I took nothing disrespectively. I do not take things personally as I know many people do and I think that is one of our great downfalls. We, at times, wear our emotions on our shirtsleeves and that will only bring hard feelings and errors in judgement.

I will state again that trying to imagine how someonelse means something is a dangerous thing. I, again, say that I will not superimpose my thoughts on anothers in order to try and explain what they meant. I know that I may be getting redundant but I must again state that when we (any of us) interpret what others mean we are going to fall somewhere along the line. I will ask you to think about this. Right now, stop what you are doing. Stop reading what I am writing and take a moment of silence and peace and think about what I am saying. You may find more truth in it than you first thought.

I will end by asking a question. Do you know what epistemology is? You do not have to take my word for it, look it up. It essentially means “How do we know what we know”. In other words just because we think we know something is it really true?
Or have we checked it our thru many different sources to verify its validity?

God Bless

Thomas…

 

[Valke2]

It’s called theology. It’s a deeper meaning that is there if you have the eyes to see it. Or you can just strip the story of all it’s meaning by seeing it as God sending a snake to trick people. That’s great! Why even bother reading the bible or posting on this site if that’s all you get out of it. There are certainly more interesting stories out there than a snake being sent by God to fool people. Skepticism is so fun though isn’t it? It really makes one feel good about themself. As if they are intelligent?

I didn’t nor did I intend to strip the story of all its meaning. My theology doesn’t endow the serpent with demonic powers or attribute to it an act that it didn’t commit, like murder.

IN a remarkable short amount of verses, the story explains a lot of things:

1. Why snakes crawl/have no legs
2. Man’s natural fear/revulstion of serpents, even nonposionous snakes.
3. Why we need to farm/toil to receive the grounds produce
4. Why humans feel the need to wear clothes
5. Why humans leave their parents for their spouses.
6. Why we do things against God’s will
7. Why women suffer through childbirth
8. Why humans make other humans

And a few more I can’t think of right now because I don’t have the story in front of me. There’s also some interesting puns if you read the original hebrew, especially between Eve’s name and the hebrew word for Serpent.

Of course there are deeper theological considerations, especially when the story is taken in conjunction with the rest of the Torah.
As I stated earlier, the fact that man’s actions result in the ground being cursed sets the stage for the Noah story (as does the cursing of the ground in the Cain/Able story). Also, the Torah becomes a substitute for the Tree of Life. And what was denied to us after being cast out of the Garden is finally made available to us at and after Sinai.

 

[Danno2281]

I didn’t nor did I intend to strip the story of all its meaning. My theology doesn’t endow the serpent with demonic powers or attribute to it an act that it didn’t commit, like murder.

IN a remarkable short amount of verses, the story explains a lot of things:

1. Why snakes crawl/have no legs
2. Man’s natural fear/revulstion of serpents, even nonposionous snakes.
3. Why we need to farm/toil to receive the grounds produce
4. Why humans feel the need to wear clothes
5. Why humans leave their parents for their spouses.
6. Why we do things against God’s will
7. Why women suffer through childbirth
8. Why humans make other humans

And a few more I can’t think of right now because I don’t have the story in front of me. There’s also some interesting puns if you read the original hebrew, especially between Eve’s name and the hebrew word for Serpent.

Of course there are deeper theological considerations, especially when the story is taken in conjunction with the rest of the Torah.
As I stated earlier, the fact that man’s actions result in the ground being cursed sets the stage for the Noah story (as does the cursing of the ground in the Cain/Able story). Also, the Torah becomes a substitute for the Tree of Life. And what was denied to us after being cast out of the Garden is finally made available to us at and after Sinai.

See above at #159

Sadly, this Hebrew perspective is incomplete because it neglects the one solution to the difficulty - Jesus, the Christ. His cross is the tree of life, for it is only from that tree that we havew life. The Torah was incapable of being an acceptable substitute, as Paul so ardently points out in Romans, but the Fruit that hung from the tree of the cross does indeed, not only substitute for, but far exceeds the original ("mirabiliter condidisti et MIRABILIUS reformasti). The true source of life is, and can be only, Jesus, the Christ Whose flesh and blood in the Eucharist enlivens.

 

[fhansen]

I will end by asking a question. Do you know what epistemology is? You do not have to take my word for it, look it up. It essentially means “How do we know what we know”. In other words just because we think we know something is it really true?
Or have we checked it our thru many different sources to verify its validity?

God Bless

Thomas…

I’ve weighed your words quite a bit and I don’t think I can agree, “epistemologically speaking” or otherwise. I think you’re stating that it’s improper to have an opinion, right or wrong, about another posters’ remarks and discuss them, even if that discussion is forwarded by a qualification that it’s an opinion. And even if that opinion is presented for the purpose of clarification or just for continuing to explore a point.

The point I brought up, and that I still believe the poster intended as well-and he can correct me if I’m wrong-was that we are dependent- ultimately on God. For that reason and due to the nature of the topic, I didn’t believe that survival skills were relevant except maybe as an interesting aside. Perhaps my reasoning wasn’t well enough supported-I thought it was, especially since we’re not doing world-altering theology here. Or maybe I didn’t have the right to post the way I did in any case.

If anyone else is bothering to follow this, care to chime in? If you all wanna chastise me and straighten me out that’s fine, too-I’m sure my ideas can be silly but maybe I’m of the wrong mind here as to my posting ethics as well.

In any case I still think I must’ve offended you. If so then sorry, again, for that.

 

[Brian_Millar]

AgnosTheist it might do better to change your screen name to agnostic, it’s more fitting of your perspective about God. I wonder why you take your anti christ perspective, then read in that post where some priest didn’t live up to your expectations. Well, guess what, that priest was a man and sometimes even preists make mistakes, then again, who are you to question him, what exaulted position do you come from to pass judgement on him?

I have zero repect for your position on any single thing that you have said, you are not convincing anybody anything other then your own arrogance. You are not God, you are not a saint, you are not any authority of any kind what so ever. I feel sorry for your bitter representational qualities, for it’s obvious, you are consumed with it.

All we can do is pray for you to find the way and to stop persecuting us Christians and most of all, to stop blaspheming the Lord, for he is not going to put up with it forever and I am in full support of all here that oppose your perspectives, for it’s clear, you are worldly on the most fundamental levels and woe to you for attempting to derrail our faith.

 

[Danno2281]

I’ve weighed your words quite a bit and I don’t think I can agree, “epistemologically speaking” or otherwise. I think you’re stating that it’s improper to have an opinion, right or wrong, about another posters’ remarks and discuss them, even if that discussion is forwarded by a qualification that it’s an opinion. And even if that opinion is presented for the purpose of clarification or just for continuing to explore a point.

The point I brought up, and that I still believe the poster intended as well-and he can correct me if I’m wrong-was that we are dependent- ultimately on God. For that reason and due to the nature of the topic, I didn’t believe that survival skills were relevant except maybe as an interesting aside. Perhaps my reasoning wasn’t well enough supported-I thought it was, especially since we’re not doing world-altering theology here. Or maybe I didn’t have the right to post the way I did in any case.

If anyone else is bothering to follow this, care to chime in? If you all wanna chastise me and straighten me out that’s fine, too-I’m sure my ideas can be silly but maybe I’m of the wrong mind here as to my posting ethics as well.

In any case I still think I must’ve offended you. If so then sorry, again, for that.

The following is meant for all participants, and not even primarily for the poster who is quoted.
I was taught by a genuinely wise man (Msgr.J.F.Coffey) that no one should speak declaritively unless he be an authority; that authority is a relative term (I am an authority on physics when talking to a six year old, but must not speak declaratively on the subject when in the company of a physicist), and that the essence of wisdom is to recognize and to listen to authority.
That said, I have suggested authorities in my previous posts on this topic and have spoken declaritively only in conformity with what I have recognized as authority. There is but One Authority, and He has given us a very certain method for knowing truth “Who hears you hears Me, who rejects you rejects Me, and who rejects Me rejects Him Who sent Me.” (Lk: 10,16)
This is a Catholic forum, and it should come as a surprise to no one that the Church is recognized as the authority in these matters. You may certainly disagree, but we are here to help you to see why we believe what we believe, to understand the reasonableness of our belief. Unless you have some other authority to appeal to, it might be best to be certain that your opinions are clearly presented as opinions, not as challanges to throw into the faces of believers, especially if the responses to those challanges are ignored in subsequent posts.
There is much that is speculative about the Garden and the details of the Fall, but some things are definite. If you wish to challange what the Church teaches, please be honest enough to present yourself as an intellectual adversary, not as a believer.

 

[fhansen]

The following is meant for all participants, and not even primarily for the poster who is quoted.
I was taught by a genuinely wise man (Msgr.J.F.Coffey) that no one should speak declaritively unless he be an authority; that authority is a relative term (I am an authority on physics when talking to a six year old, but must not speak declaratively on the subject when in the company of a physicist), and that the essence of wisdom is to recognize and to listen to authority.
That said, I have suggested authorities in my previous posts on this topic and have spoken declaritively only in conformity with what I have recognized as authority. There is but One Authority, and He has given us a very certain method for knowing truth “Who hears you hears Me, who rejects you rejects Me, and who rejects Me rejects Him Who sent Me.” (Lk: 10,16)
This is a Catholic forum, and it should come as a surprise to no one that the Church is recognized as the authority in these matters. You may certainly disagree, but we are here to help you to see why we believe what we believe, to understand the reasonableness of our belief. Unless you have some other authority to appeal to, it might be best to be certain that your opinions are clearly presented as opinions, not as challanges to throw into the faces of believers, especially if the responses to those challanges are ignored in subsequent posts.
There is much that is speculative about the Garden and the details of the Fall, but some things are definite. If you wish to challange what the Church teaches, please be honest enough to present yourself as an intellectual adversary, not as a believer.

We were discussing epistemology and now suddenly I’m an unbeliever? Did I misunderstand you or have you actually read the posts? I defend the Church and her teachings and quote the CCC all over and speculate only on what is undefined and even then do so within the parameters the Church sets in a spirit of openness. Or who, exactly, are you addressing?

 

[Danno2281]

We were discussing epistemology and now suddenly I’m an unbeliever? Did I misunderstand you or have you actually read the posts? I defend the Church and her teachings and quote the CCC all over and speculate only on what is undefined and even then do so within the parameters the Church sets in a spirit of openness. Or who, exactly, are you addressing?

You seem to have missed the first line of my post.

 

[fhansen]

You seem to have missed the first line of my post.

Thanks, I got that part but it was a response to my post after all and it was kinda hard not to take the last parts personally. Sorry if misread you.

 

[Danno2281]

Thanks, I got that part but it was a response to my post after all and it was kinda hard not to take the last parts personally. Sorry if misread you.

My apology. I should, perhaps, have been more specific in making clear that my concern was not with you, but I felt that singling out specific persons or posts might beget a defensive posture that would make it more difficult to listen to an “adversary”.

 

[samoht]

I’ve weighed your words quite a bit and I don’t think I can agree, “epistemologically speaking” or otherwise. I think you’re stating that it’s improper to have an opinion, right or wrong, about another posters’ remarks and discuss them, even if that discussion is forwarded by a qualification that it’s an opinion. And even if that opinion is presented for the purpose of clarification or just for continuing to explore a point.

The point I brought up, and that I still believe the poster intended as well-and he can correct me if I’m wrong-was that we are dependent- ultimately on God. For that reason and due to the nature of the topic, I didn’t believe that survival skills were relevant except maybe as an interesting aside. Perhaps my reasoning wasn’t well enough supported-I thought it was, especially since we’re not doing world-altering theology here. Or maybe I didn’t have the right to post the way I did in any case.

If anyone else is bothering to follow this, care to chime in? If you all wanna chastise me and straighten me out that’s fine, too-I’m sure my ideas can be silly but maybe I’m of the wrong mind here as to my posting ethics as well.

In any case I still think I must’ve offended you. If so then sorry, again, for that.

My friend, I will say again, you have not offended me but since you are insistent I would like to ask exactly what do you think you have offended me in? I really would like to know. As I mentioned before I do not take offense at anything anyone else says about me. That is not my nature. I have lived too long and learned too much to worry about what is said about me. That comes, incidentally, from confidence in myself and the Good Lord who made us all.

Again I ask you not to take offense but you are assuming again when you say “I think you’re are stating that it’s improper to have an opinion right or wrong” (end quote). You are presuming I am thinking that and that is a dnagerous thing to do. For once we presume anything about another we are bound to get into trouble.

I think I mentioned before that I will believe anything, within reason, that anyone tells me until I find they are wrong and then I will be wary from then on. I also only listen to the words spoken to me. I refuse to add my own thought process to someone else’s words because I will inevitably get some thing wrong and that would not be fair to him or myself.

Everyone has opinions and that is only right that they do. It is when we allow our opinions to take on meanings for someone else’s opinions or comments that we go wrong. I know it is very difficult for all of us (myself included) not to want to try to clarify what someone else has stated. I have struggled with that my whole life long. That is why I tell you this now. If we would all curb our great desire to interpret someone else’s comments think of what a great world we would have.

To illustrate let me say that while in the military I was in a very sensitive position. In that position I had to be absolutely sure that what I did or said was absolute without doubt or a great deal of trouble would ensue and innocents would be in grave danger. I would have loved to add my own interpretations, at times, but my training made me know better and if I did add my own interpretations I would be in danger of courts martial or worse.

What I am trying to get across to all is that we must know what we know thru varification of many sources not just one or our own opinion because it makes us feel good or we are adding something. I can assure we are not. We are only clouding the issue. Epistemology is what I am talking about. “How we know what we know”.

You do not need anyone else to chastise you and I certainley will not. And, it is world altering theology or whatever you wish to call it. I do not take lightly serious conversation that I enter into. If we are kidding around that is one thing. I can be as silly as anyone but not when it is serious. I take the fun side of my life with serious happiness and the serious side of my life in the same manner.

Would it not be great if we spoke from our mind and not our heart? Our heart brings us to love, kindness, charity, etc. and our mind brings us to better understanding and truth.

I will end here by saying that I have found in you a person of goodness and passion to do the right thing. You need not chastise yourself for anything.

God Bless
Thomas…

 

[samoht]

I didn’t nor did I intend to strip the story of all its meaning. My theology doesn’t endow the serpent with demonic powers or attribute to it an act that it didn’t commit, like murder.

IN a remarkable short amount of verses, the story explains a lot of things:

1. Why snakes crawl/have no legs
2. Man’s natural fear/revulstion of serpents, even nonposionous snakes.
3. Why we need to farm/toil to receive the grounds produce
4. Why humans feel the need to wear clothes
5. Why humans leave their parents for their spouses.
6. Why we do things against God’s will
7. Why women suffer through childbirth
8. Why humans make other humans

And a few more I can’t think of right now because I don’t have the story in front of me. There’s also some interesting puns if you read the original hebrew, especially between Eve’s name and the hebrew word for Serpent.

Of course there are deeper theological considerations, especially when the story is taken in conjunction with the rest of the Torah.
As I stated earlier, the fact that man’s actions result in the ground being cursed sets the stage for the Noah story (as does the cursing of the ground in the Cain/Able story). Also, the Torah becomes a substitute for the Tree of Life. And what was denied to us after being cast out of the Garden is finally made available to us at and after Sinai.

I find these 8 questions quite interesting. I wonder if you could send me the answere to each of them. I would really like to know.
It seems that I have seen these questions in the past but I do not know from where. As your time allows could you send me the answers?

Thank you…
God Bless
Thomas…

 

[JohnMac]

I didn’t nor did I intend to strip the story of all its meaning. My theology doesn’t endow the serpent with demonic powers or attribute to it an act that it didn’t commit, like murder.

IN a remarkable short amount of verses, the story explains a lot of things:

1. Why snakes crawl/have no legs
2. Man’s natural fear/revulstion of serpents, even nonposionous snakes.
3. Why we need to farm/toil to receive the grounds produce
4. Why humans feel the need to wear clothes
5. Why humans leave their parents for their spouses.
6. Why we do things against God’s will
7. Why women suffer through childbirth
8. Why humans make other humans

And a few more I can’t think of right now because I don’t have the story in front of me. There’s also some interesting puns if you read the original hebrew, especially between Eve’s name and the hebrew word for Serpent.

Of course there are deeper theological considerations, especially when the story is taken in conjunction with the rest of the Torah.
As I stated earlier, the fact that man’s actions result in the ground being cursed sets the stage for the Noah story (as does the cursing of the ground in the Cain/Able story). Also, the Torah becomes a substitute for the Tree of Life. And what was denied to us after being cast out of the Garden is finally made available to us at and after Sinai.

I like the points you make here. I do find in interesting, though, that you are willing to read the story in light of the rest of the Torah (which is good), but not in light of the New Testament. Why go beyond your “plain reading” of the text by reading it within the Torah as a whole, while ignoring or denying the light that Christ sheds on the story. Christ is the new Torah, the Torah that brings salvation. It is obvious that Christ is pointing us back to the serpent when he tells us that satan was a liar and a murderer from the beginning. Since Christ tells us that the serpent was a murderer, I think it is safe to conclude with the tradition of the Church that Satan/the serpant is a murderer of souls. What is the last line of your post referring to? I’m interested. Also, since you’re familiar with the Hebrew, do you take the serpant (nahash) to be your average variety of garden snake? Everywhere else the term is used in the OT it describes a deadly creature (like the Leviathon from Job). Curious on your thoughts.

 

[samoht]

AgnosTheist it might do better to change your screen name to agnostic, it’s more fitting of your perspective about God. I wonder why you take your anti christ perspective, then read in that post where some priest didn’t live up to your expectations. Well, guess what, that priest was a man and sometimes even preists make mistakes, then again, who are you to question him, what exaulted position do you come from to pass judgement on him?

I have zero repect for your position on any single thing that you have said, you are not convincing anybody anything other then your own arrogance. You are not God, you are not a saint, you are not any authority of any kind what so ever. I feel sorry for your bitter representational qualities, for it’s obvious, you are consumed with it.

All we can do is pray for you to find the way and to stop persecuting us Christians and most of all, to stop blaspheming the Lord, for he is not going to put up with it forever and I am in full support of all here that oppose your perspectives, for it’s clear, you are worldly on the most fundamental levels and woe to you for attempting to derrail our faith.

Brian, I wonder if you really mean what you say in your comment to Agnosttheist. I will not presume to know what you mean I just ask if you have thought about it in relation to this person who is a flesh and blood human being as you and I. We all have our burdens to carry and Agnost has his as well as you and I. As a kind and Godly man will you not see that this person is hurting and has many questions that so far others have not answered for him? I have known people like Agnost and their hurt is profound. They need the charity that our Lord instilled in us to impart to others. Would he not be voicing, in anger to be sure, a hurt that needs to be understood rather than chastized?

Think for a moment. Maybe Agnost is the most honest person in these forums for he says what he really feels. If you were a priest or counselor would you be so harsh with him? I do not think I could be and you probably would not be either.

As a not to all who reads this let us all be more charitable in our thoughts about one another. Agnost has not said he is a murderer, rapist, robber or child abuser. He is just a man like all of us with a heavy burden to carry and is hopeful of some understanding as we all are. There is goodness in all men if we will just try to see it. Let us all think about it.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The devil is quite adept at telling 99% truth to cover the big lie. Cunning is the word. Even to this day the serpent has conned us - look at what you just posted.

**The serpent was right every time - God was completely wrong. Far from dying, Adam lives 930 years. **​

**All I posted is what the texts say - isn’t it rather thought-provoking ? **

I think it’s very striking that the first prediction by God in the whole Bible is so completely & so hopelessly wrong. Those who told, perpetuated, wrote & edited these stories were not fools - they must have been able to realise that this text puts God in a rather uncomplimentary light. The question is, what did they mean by perpetuating this remarkable story ?

---

**BTW - the text says nothing about satan, or the devil, in any way. It does not even mention or imply anything about sin or “The Fall”. These are much later concepts & interpretations, & we mustn’t read them back into the text. We don’t do this kind of thing with other books, so why do it with those of which the Bible is made ? **

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

See above at #159

Sadly, this Hebrew perspective is incomplete because it neglects the one solution to the difficulty - Jesus, the Christ. His cross is the tree of life, for it is only from that tree that we havew life. The Torah was incapable of being an acceptable substitute, as Paul so ardently points out in Romans, but the Fruit that hung from the tree of the cross does indeed, not only substitute for, but far exceeds the original ("mirabiliter condidisti et MIRABILIUS reformasti). The true source of life is, and can be only, Jesus, the Christ Whose flesh and blood in the Eucharist enlivens.

**There is no reason to see any reference to Him in the text. To do so, one must read this text in the light of much later ones - it can be given a Christological meaning, but it should not be. To do that amounts to reading Christ into the text. He lived near the close of the Second Temple period; this text is at least 500 years older. If it has to be taken Christologically, that amounts to saying that an essential element in the meaning was missing from the text for 500 years after it was stabilised. That does not make sense. **​

---

**In any case, the story can be understood quite adequately as it stands - it is full of mythological themes, as one would expect of it. **

 

[Spirithound]

The serpent was right every time - God was completely wrong. Far from dying, Adam lives 930 years.

I think it’s very striking that the first prediction by God in the whole Bible is so completely & so hopelessly wrong. Those who told, perpetuated, wrote & edited these stories were not fools - they must have been able to realise that this text puts God in a rather uncomplimentary light. The question is, what did they mean by perpetuating this remarkable story ?

No, the serpent was NOT right every time. God was. You make a good note when you say that

“Those who told, perpetuated, wrote & edited these stories were not fools - they must have been able to realise that this text puts God in a rather uncomplimentary light.”

But what good is an incompetent (G?)god? Are you certain that you’re reading the passage correctly? What does your Church say??? Doesn’t a non-physical death actually fit the text more closely?

Hebrew has no superlative form, so you will note that Genesis 2:17 (in Hebrew) contains the root " MWT " twice, indicating a death worse than physical death. That sort was certainly imputed to them at the time of their eating.

 

[fhansen]

**BTW - the text says nothing about satan, or the devil, in any way. It does not even mention or imply anything about sin or “The Fall”. These are much later concepts & interpretations, & we mustn’t read them back into the text. We don’t do this kind of thing with other books, so why do it with those of which the Bible is made ? **​

But the Book of Revelation identifies the serpent as satan and Catholic theology recognizes that and reads original sin and the fall back into the text as well???

 

[Danno2281]

There is no reason to see any reference to Him in the text. To do so, one must read this text in the light of much later ones - it can be given a Christological meaning, but it should not be. To do that amounts to reading Christ into the text. He lived near the close of the Second Temple period; this text is at least 500 years older. If it has to be taken Christologically, that amounts to saying that an essential element in the meaning was missing from the text for 500 years after it was stabilised. That does not make sense.​

---

**In any case, the story can be understood quite adequately as it stands - it is full of mythological themes, as one would expect of it. **

What you are doing is reading Christ out of thr text, a perspective incompatible with His Person. All of history, and certainly all of scripure, points toward Him. Scripture is the history of God’s relationship with man, and Jesus is always the focal point of that relationship This is precisely what the disciples on the road to Emmaus learned, and it makes perfect sense that the full meaning of what the Holy Spirit revealed was not fully known to those to whom He made His revelation. The full meaning of the Transfiguration was not known to Peter,James, and John when it happened, and I dare say thast the full meaning of your life is not yet known because the full context has not yet appeared. Nothing taken out of context can be rightly understood, and unless one sees the the story in the context of Christ, the life giving Fruit that hung from the tree of the Cross, one does not see the whole picture.