Why was the forbidden tree in the garden?

[buffalo]

Actually, the serpent told the truth​

**Compare: **

• **Gen 2.17 - what God said **
• Gen 3.4f. - what the serpent said
  God

Gen. 2.17

• **15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 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 of it you will surely die.” **
  Fulfilled ? No - Adam lived for 930 years:
• **1 This is the written account of Adam’s line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them “man.” 3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died. **
  God: 0

The Serpent
**Gen 3.4f. **

• **1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” **
  **2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ " **
• **4 “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” **
• You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.
• You will be like God…
• **…knowing good and evil. **
  **They did not die **
  they did obtain knowledge of good and evil
  they did become God-like

Serpent: 3

**What is one to make of the complete accuracy of the serpent, & the complete inaccuracy of God ? God was completely mistaken in the one prediction He made - the serpent was completely accurate in all predictions that he made. It is at least very remarkable that the Torah should, so early on, show God being so spectacularly inaccurate & wrong. **

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.

 

[Danno2281]

Getting back to why the tree was in the garden to begin with. It was probably a story that biblical man was familar with. A magic tree guarded by the Gods. (similar to the story of stealing fire?).

What is interesting is that, unlike other stories of its kind, the Garden of Eden focuses on a tree of knowledge, rather than a tree of immortality, which is regulated to the sidelines of the story.

Why didn’t the serpent tempt Eve with fruit from the tree of life? Don’t we usually prefer life over knowledge?

If we look at the begining of the story of man and his relationship with God we see that, as we get older as a people, our relationship becomes more distant. Adam speaks with God, Enoch, walks with God, God speaks with Abraham, Noah, Moses, and after Moses, through prophets via visions and after prophets, He remains silent (putting the Christian Bible aside for the moment).

LIke all children, we eventually strive for some independence from our parent. GOd cannot take care of every need without smothering something in us.

The fact is that they were already free to eat of the tree of life; life was already theirs. Preserving it through obedience was the challenge, and if they were to fulfill their destiny to become like God, it would have to be on God’s terms rather than on man’s. Because they were called to the very love of God, they woukd have to love God for God’s sake and not for their own self interest. But they were offered an easier, softer way and Eve succumbed. The tree of knowledge of good and evil (not just a tree of knowledge) was available because the garden would have been incomplete without it. The possibility of man’s arrogating to himself that which is properly God’s is a condition that each man faces whenever a moral choice is presented. How often we find ethical relativism offered as an excuse for moral failure: “Under the circumstances I felt that it was OK” when an action was patently in conflict with what we knew in our heart to be the case.
Adam seems not to have been deceived, but appeals to the God given unity between himself and Eve as his rationale for disobedience, as if to say, “What else could I have done?” when, with intellectual prowess far beyond ours, his primary responsibility was clear. It is, in reality, Adam who was the greater offender, because he placed creature before Creator when he knew full well the the creature was a gift from the Creator. He l desired the gift more than he desired the Giver.
But now we are called to and offered even greater intimacy than Adam, Abraham, Enoch, or any of those O.T. figures. Jesus, Who no longer calls us servants but rather calls us friends, dwells intimately with us (Emmanuel), in an ineffable union that places His very heart within the heart of each of is when we feed on the Tree of Life that is our Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The story of the man and the woman in the garden is a myth. It is an imaginative story that uses symbols to explore a realty beyond our comprehension. The reality being explored is “Why do human beings suffer?” Given the beliefs that God is all loving and all powerful, that God made humans human beings in God’s own image, and that we are very good, why do we suffer? You would think God would have created things in an order that didn’t involve suffering but suffering appears to be part fo the order of things. How can our belief that God is all loving and all powerful be made compatible with our experience of suffering?

The story is a myth with symbols, but what does it mean? Is the answer so obvious that it doesn’t need to be stated? What answer does it provide to the question “How can our belief that God is all loving and all powerful be made compatible with our experience of suffering?”

 

[Valke2]

The fact is that they were already free to eat of the tree of life; life was already theirs. Preserving it through obedience was the challenge, and if they were to fulfill their destiny to become like God, it would have to be on God’s terms rather than on man’s. Because they were called to the very love of God, they woukd have to love God for God’s sake and not for their own self interest. But they were offered an easier, softer way and Eve succumbed. The tree of knowledge of good and evil (not just a tree of knowledge) was available because the garden would have been incomplete without it. The possibility of man’s arrogating to himself that which is properly God’s is a condition that each man faces whenever a moral choice is presented. How often we find ethical relativism offered as an excuse for moral failure: “Under the circumstances I felt that it was OK” when an action was patently in conflict with what we knew in our heart to be the case.
Adam seems not to have been deceived, but appeals to the God given unity between himself and Eve as his rationale for disobedience, as if to say, “What else could I have done?” when, with intellectual prowess far beyond ours, his primary responsibility was clear. It is, in reality, Adam who was the greater offender, because he placed creature before Creator when he knew full well the the creature was a gift from the Creator. He l desired the gift more than he desired the Giver.
But now we are called to and offered even greater intimacy than Adam, Abraham, Enoch, or any of those O.T. figures. Jesus, Who no longer calls us servants but rather calls us friends, dwells intimately with us (Emmanuel), in an ineffable union that places His very heart within the heart of each of is when we feed on the Tree of Life that is our Christ in the Eucharist.

Do you read the story as Adam choosing Eve over God? It seems clear that Adam simply tries to blame Eve when confronted with God. Also, it is likely, or at least possible from a reading of the story, that Adam was with Eve the entire time the serpent was speaking. In the Hebrew, the serpent seems to be speakin in the plural – to more than one person.

Adam blames Eve. Eve blames the Serpent. And the Serpent has no one to blame and remains silent.
In fact, Adam tries to place the blame on God. "The woman, who YOU gave to me…

Aside from the usual intrepetations of this story, there is also the fact that God curses the very ground because of man’s actions. The very act of creation is compromised because of man’s action, opening the way for the great flood, which involves a breach of the “vault” of heavens.

 

[Spirithound]

Actually, the serpent told the truth​

Compare:

• Gen 2.17 - what God said
• Gen 3.4f. - what the serpent said
  God

Gen. 2.17

• 15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 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 of it you will surely die.”
  Fulfilled ? No - Adam lived for 930 years:
• 1 This is the written account of Adam’s line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them “man.” 3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.
  God: 0

The Serpent
Gen 3.4f.

• 1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
  2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ "
• 4 “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
• You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.
• You will be like God…
• …knowing good and evil.
  They did not die
  they did obtain knowledge of good and evil
  they did become God-like

Serpent: 3

What is one to make of the complete accuracy of the serpent, & the complete inaccuracy of God ? God was completely mistaken in the one prediction He made - the serpent was completely accurate in all predictions that he made. It is at least very remarkable that the Torah should, so early on, show God being so spectacularly inaccurate & wrong.

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.

I’m going to call you on several counts. First, my self-quote above. At least try to understand your Church’s position.
Second, giving the serpent a point for saying “be like God”, and then another one for saying “knowing good and evil”. That second clause there is subordinate to the first, so unless you can demonstrate that they obtained God-like abilities aside from knowing good and evil, you can’t give a point for the superordinate clause.
Third, actually keeping score. God only made one promise, the devil made 2 (3 by your count). According to your counting, even if all promises were true, the serpent still wins, 3-1.

God tells truth, the serpent tells half-truths. You pick.

(and a little coding tip. you don’t need to start and stop your colour-coding after each line. doing the whole block should work)

 

[AgnosTheist]

Do you read the story as Adam choosing Eve over God? It seems clear that Adam simply tries to blame Eve when confronted with God. Also, it is likely, or at least possible from a reading of the story, that Adam was with Eve the entire time the serpent was speaking. In the Hebrew, the serpent seems to be speakin in the plural – to more than one person.

Adam blames Eve. Eve blames the Serpent. And the Serpent has no one to blame and remains silent.
In fact, Adam tries to place the blame on God. "The woman, who YOU gave to me…

Aside from the usual intrepetations of this story, there is also the fact that God curses the very ground because of man’s actions. The very act of creation is compromised because of man’s action, opening the way for the great flood, which involves a breach of the “vault” of heavens.

Im confused, what is the jewish position on this story? How does it differ from Christian interpretation?

 

[Danno2281]

Do you read the story as Adam choosing Eve over God? It seems clear that Adam simply tries to blame Eve when confronted with God. Also, it is likely, or at least possible from a reading of the story, that Adam was with Eve the entire time the serpent was speaking. In the Hebrew, the serpent seems to be speakin in the plural – to more than one person.

Adam blames Eve. Eve blames the Serpent. And the Serpent has no one to blame and remains silent.
In fact, Adam tries to place the blame on God. "The woman, who YOU gave to me…

Aside from the usual intrepetations of this story, there is also the fact that God curses the very ground because of man’s actions. The very act of creation is compromised because of man’s action, opening the way for the great flood, which involves a breach of the “vault” of heavens.

Adam does indeed try place the burden on God pleading the unity established by God. Adam’s earlier words : “This then is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.” But this is not the only scripture dealing with this event 1Tim. 2,14 tells us that Adam was not deceived whereas Eve was. Adam’s motive then becomes explained in his defense, his union with Eve, a union established by God. As said earlier he places the gift (the woman that You gave me) before the Giver.
C.S. Lewis has a great take on this in PERELANDRA, the 2nd book of a fine trilogy.
The whole of the material world was affected; Previously, you might note, the animals were all vegetarian, Now harmony is replaced by strife.

 

[Valke2]

Im confused, what is the jewish position on this story? How does it differ from Christian interpretation?

Jews don’t see Satan involved in the story.

There’s no original sin or fall of man.

No veiled referenced to Jesus.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Jews don’t see Satan involved in the story.

There’s no original sin or fall of man.

No veiled referenced to Jesus.

What is the tree of life for?

What is the tree of knowledge for?

Why is something forbidden made accessible to the couple?

Were the couple really ignorant as not knowing whats good & bad?

Whats the serpent?

Was he working for god or against him?

Why did adam & eve’s children has to suffer with them?

please bear with me, man. i’m craving for a different view on this subject.

 

[davidv]

^ Valke, I almost said the same thing yesterday. But I thought it would further inflame the christians if that idea came from a complete infidel like me. Good thing you said it.

Children were meant to learn independence. If I am to make sense of that story, I’d say that God had set up the whole thing to teach the couple how to be independent. How to learn from mistakes.

Regarding “independence”, I believe one of the messages in the story is that total independence is not only unattainable but it is hazardous to our well-being as well. Independence is good, but only to a point.

 

[samoht]

The story is a myth with symbols, but what does it mean? Is the answer so obvious that it doesn’t need to be stated? What answer does it provide to the question “How can our belief that God is all loving and all powerful be made compatible with our experience of suffering?”

I have learned from a Rabbi that I correspond with that they respect their Christian brothers but find that Christianity, especially Catholics, portray God as a vengeanceful and angry God whereas Judaism sees God as a loving and merciful God. Jews also believe that there is only one God and He is the God of us all regardless of the religion we may attach ourselves to.

 

[Valke2]

What is the tree of life for?

What is the tree of knowledge for?

Why is something forbidden made accessible to the couple?

Were the couple really ignorant as not knowing whats good & bad?

Whats the serpent?

Was he working for god or against him?

Why did adam & eve’s children has to suffer with them?

please bear with me, man. i’m craving for a different view on this subject.

I’m going to address this in full later tonight after work.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

What is the tree of life for?

By eating the fruit of this tree Adam and Eve could live for ever.

What is the tree of knowledge for?

Eating the fruit of this tree would allow Adam and Eve to determine right from wrong (good from evil) for themselves.

Why is something forbidden made accessible to the couple?

It symbolizes the choice we have as free beings to accept right and wrong as God tells us, or to make up our own rules. Eating from the tree means that we take upon ourselves something that is God’s right only: the authority to define good vs. evil.

Were the couple really ignorant as not knowing whats good & bad?

They depended on God to tell them right from wrong. This includes the God-given natural law within them plus direct orders from God.

Whats the serpent?

It’s an animal in the story that hates God and convinced Adam and Even to rebel against God.

Was he working for god or against him?

Against God.

Why did adam & eve’s children has to suffer with them?

Adam and Even could give to their children only the nature that they had. Through sin, they lost the preternatural gifts. One can not give what one does not have.

 

[samoht]

Regarding “independence”, I believe one of the messages in the story is that total independence is not only unattainable but it is hazardous to our well-being as well. Independence is good, but only to a point.

Can you explain why total independence is unattainable and hazardous to our well being? I am not sure that I agree.

 

[davidv]

Can you explain why total independence is unattainable and hazardous to our well being? I am not sure that I agree.

First, at a very practicle, physical level, there is no possible way any of use can provide the basics of survival all by our selves. Not to meantion getting through infancy. Even the guy who lived by himself in Alaska for many years, had supplies delivered to him regularly.

Secondly, emotionally we are dependant on relationships with others. Without them we are unfulfilled and unhappy. Unfulfilled and unhappy because we would have no one to love.

 

[samoht]

First, at a very practicle, physical level, there is no possible way any of use can provide the basics of survival all by our selves. Not to meantion getting through infancy. Even the guy who lived by himself in Alaska for many years, had supplies delivered to him regularly.

Secondly, emotionally we are dependant on relationships with others. Without them we are unfulfilled and unhappy. Unfulfilled and unhappy because we would have no one to love.

David, to the degree that we cannot make it thru infancy alone you are quite right. But as far as being able to sustain ourselves alone in the wilderness that is not true. It is true that most would fall apart but there are many more than one that would survive quite well all alone if they had to. Not preferable by any stretch of the imagination to be sure but attainable.

To illustrate I will first tell you of a Japanese soldier from the second world war that survived in the jungles of the Philipines all alone for many years after the war ended. As I recall he stayed in those jungles because he would not believe the war was over. He survived strictly off the land. Another instance of a man in Alaska (not the one you mentioned) survived on his own without any assistance of any kind. He did this with intention of just living alone. He was not a nut or quack he just did it to prove he could. He came out after a year and ended his solitude. This took place in the 60 or 70’s as I recall. In survival training it is taught to survive without any tools whatever. And one can do it even without matches or a magnifying glass. Can you start a fire just using what nature provides? I can. This is not a boast…it is what I learned and can do. Difficult? You bet. But can be done.

When Jesus and John the Baptist went into the wilderness they survived without devine help. Many have been able to accomplish this and live to tell about it.

I believe God made us with the confidence that we can survive on our own if need be. Independence is a God given trait that I believe in.

 

[fhansen]

I believe God made us with the confidence that we can survive on our own if need be. Independence is a God given trait that I believe in.

I thought davidv was thinking more along the lines of how we can’t even exist without God even tho we’ve been given the freedom to delude ourselves that we can- and been given some time here on earth to experiment with the idea. But in the end death still ultimately trumps any survival skills we have and tells me that we’re certainly not in so much control as we might like to think.

 

[samoht]

I thought davidv was thinking more along the lines of how we can’t even exist without God even tho we’ve been given the freedom to delude ourselves that we can- and been given some time here on earth to experiment with the idea. But in the end death still ultimately trumps any survival skills we have and tells me that we’re certainly not in so much control as we might like to think.

Sometime I am not sure I understand what people say in these forums. I will explain. And this is not a put down on anyone it is just a statement of fact. You said, and I quote, “I thought davidv was thinking more along the lines of how we can’t even exist without God”, end quote. There is no doubt this statement is true for it is thru God that we are and that we exist but that is not what he said. If he said that I would reply to that comment. It was a presumption on your part. Not that it was not good intentioned but it was nonetheless a presumption. I spoke to the words he said to me and only those words.

As far as the end of life is concerned it will come to us all but while I am here I will use all the talents that God has given me to survive in the way that I know I can.

I will tell you what I have learned in my 72 years on this planet. I will never presume to know what others are thinking. I do not read between the lines. I will accept anything anyone tells me as truth until I find there is fault in it and then I will be wary from then on. We as human beings want to offer our words in place of anothers and that is wrong and dangerous. It can only lead to mis-understanding, confusion and ill will.

I, as a truthful man seek only the truth in all things and I will not put words in the mouth of friend or foe no matter how beneficial it may be to me. That is not how I can be a Godly person. He (God) is all knowing and is a perfect entity. I am not and neither is anyone else. I try to live my life not by saying what is in my heart but what is in my head and what I know to be true. I came by this after many years of search (which I am still doing and will continue to do) and prayer that I will do the right and just thing. I try never to speak of anything that I am not sure of. That, to me, is the way to my God and no other.

Again this is no put down to anyone but only a caution as to how we react to things we hear and see.

God Bless you and your search for the truth.
Thomas Eby…

 

[fhansen]

Sometime I am not sure I understand what people say in these forums. I will explain. And this is not a put down on anyone it is just a statement of fact. You said, and I quote, “I thought davidv was thinking more along the lines of how we can’t even exist without God”, end quote. There is no doubt this statement is true for it is thru God that we are and that we exist but that is not what he said. If he said that I would reply to that comment. It was a presumption on your part. Not that it was not good intentioned but it was nonetheless a presumption. I spoke to the words he said to me and only those words.

As far as the end of life is concerned it will come to us all but while I am here I will use all the talents that God has given me to survive in the way that I know I can.

I will tell you what I have learned in my 72 years on this planet. I will never presume to know what others are thinking. I do not read between the lines. I will accept anything anyone tells me as truth until I find there is fault in it and then I will be wary from then on. We as human beings want to offer our words in place of anothers and that is wrong and dangerous. It can only lead to mis-understanding, confusion and ill will.

I, as a truthful man seek only the truth in all things and I will not put words in the mouth of friend or foe no matter how beneficial it may be to me. That is not how I can be a Godly person. He (God) is all knowing and is a perfect entity. I am not and neither is anyone else. I try to live my life not by saying what is in my heart but what is in my head and what I know to be true. I came by this after many years of search (which I am still doing and will continue to do) and prayer that I will do the right and just thing. I try never to speak of anything that I am not sure of. That, to me, is the way to my God and no other.

Again this is no put down to anyone but only a caution as to how we react to things we hear and see.

God Bless you and your search for the truth.
Thomas Eby…

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.

 

[JohnMac]

yeah the bible god gave them everything including the serpent and the poisoned fruit. no daddy in his right mind would do that to his kids.

5yr olds have a state of integrity, but also a state of ignorance. The same with Adam & Eve. Those two did not have the sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision. Like Minors.

You obviously don’t understand what integrity means in this case. Do some research before replying as if you know what you’re talking about.