Two trees
- Thread starter Lanolin
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I did experience, and am yet still considering, the dilemma committing to the exact designation of whether the walnut or the tomato might be better representation of the tree of knowledge, when considering that the pictographic lettering of the word for "king," 'melech' suggests the head leading the heart, and the transposed letters, chof-lamed-mem, spell 'chalem,' from which the word 'calamity' is derived...
-
1
- Show all
^correction of my Hebrew transliteration for better clarity in order to differentiate 'chalam' (which means dream and is spelled with a 'chet,' from 'kalam,' which is spelled with a 'kaf' and means "to be humiliated," and so then, 'melek' would be a better transliteration of the word "king."
tho now... I am now wondering what significance this idiosyncrasy about the Hebrew language might be telling about dreams
tho now... I am now wondering what significance this idiosyncrasy about the Hebrew language might be telling about dreams
hmm best tree for making clothes...I would probably pick something other than fig.
Walnut...wouldnt you have to crack those first? They are nuts!
Tomato isnt a tree. Its more of a vine. Unkess you talking about tree tomato or tamarillo.
Manna a fungus? Never thought of that. Its said it tasted like coriander. Which is an acquired taste. I think I would have preferred it to taste like lime or parsley...or chocolate!
What about durian, now that fruit IS actually forbidden on public transport!
Walnut...wouldnt you have to crack those first? They are nuts!
Tomato isnt a tree. Its more of a vine. Unkess you talking about tree tomato or tamarillo.
Manna a fungus? Never thought of that. Its said it tasted like coriander. Which is an acquired taste. I think I would have preferred it to taste like lime or parsley...or chocolate!
What about durian, now that fruit IS actually forbidden on public transport!
Hindus and buddhists regard the fig tree as sacred...
They call it the Bo tree or Bodhi tree and they say it is the tree of enlightenment. So maybe I was right about the fig.
Also there is some species of fig called the Dinnerplate fig. Their leaves are HUGE. as big as well...dinner plates. I know as Ive held one.
apparently the fruit is not as tasty as the other kinds of figs...but they are bright purple and LOOK good.
They call it the Bo tree or Bodhi tree and they say it is the tree of enlightenment. So maybe I was right about the fig.
Also there is some species of fig called the Dinnerplate fig. Their leaves are HUGE. as big as well...dinner plates. I know as Ive held one.
apparently the fruit is not as tasty as the other kinds of figs...but they are bright purple and LOOK good.
As per the walnut, yes? a nut that appears to make people smart but in fact only makes them nuts! I know its a bit of a stretch, but... maybe the shells came about after, two flaming swords.... ok, a really stretch but...
yes, having to crack them first would leave no mistaking the intent to eat them, not even by accident... like you might get away with doing with a fig... Oopsie, I thought it was an avocado?
yes, having to crack them first would leave no mistaking the intent to eat them, not even by accident... like you might get away with doing with a fig... Oopsie, I thought it was an avocado?
Okay, I must be missing your point. The verses seem as clear to me as they can be:
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
The "Therefore" establishes cause to effect - for them to know good and evil the cause, sent forth from the garden, the effect.
Doesn't seem to me to be more to it, implicitly or explicitly, than that. How would you interpret those verses?
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
The "Therefore" establishes cause to effect - for them to know good and evil the cause, sent forth from the garden, the effect.
Doesn't seem to me to be more to it, implicitly or explicitly, than that. How would you interpret those verses?
I think, as verse 5:10 states, the commandment was intended by God as a warning to them to guard their life's, so, (and this gets into interpretation on my part so take the following for what its worth), I believe that evil and sin were not attributable to them until AFTER they had eaten because by their eating was law brought to fruition to judge them (and everyone else)- and as verse 5:13 informs, sin cannot be imputed where there is no law. So, it seems logical to me that for sin to have been levied there was breaking of law; for law to have been broken it would first have to exist but to that point law, even as a concept, did not exist. I think that the "knowledge" part of the name of the tree (tree of the knowledge of good and evil) represents law because only law can provide demarcation, distinction and notification of what is good and what is evil.
As to your specific question, He did give the commandment not to eat, so any what ifs along with all of their permutations that might accompany them would quickly exceed and swamp my limited analytical capabilities.
Sorry, I don't think I did a good job of clarifying with my explanation with above. in fact I probably made it more confusing not less -this not an easy topic to write about.
Suffice it to say that there is a lot, lot more that could/should be said about this topic. Please don't interpret this post to be a full explanation.
The verses below might help to explain it better than I have.
[Rom 5:13 KJV]
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
[Rom 7:10 KJV]
10 And the commandment, which [was ordained] to life, I found [to be] unto death.
[1Co 15:56 KJV]
56 The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
As to your specific question, He did give the commandment not to eat, so any what ifs along with all of their permutations that might accompany them would quickly exceed and swamp my limited analytical capabilities.
Sorry, I don't think I did a good job of clarifying with my explanation with above. in fact I probably made it more confusing not less -this not an easy topic to write about.
Suffice it to say that there is a lot, lot more that could/should be said about this topic. Please don't interpret this post to be a full explanation.
The verses below might help to explain it better than I have.
[Rom 5:13 KJV]
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
[Rom 7:10 KJV]
10 And the commandment, which [was ordained] to life, I found [to be] unto death.
[1Co 15:56 KJV]
56 The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
Ty, vm, for offering your best effort at answering my question, which is the better than a good job, that is if good is tangible. This brings me to a better understanding, yet in an intangible way, of your view, if that makes sense. If not, I don't know how I could explain myself, except maybe to say that there are a few posters that, if I notice has posted, I enjoy reading, and that I'll refrain from mentioning because I'd rather they remain humble but, I will risk it to say that I am adding you to my good read list.
-
1
- Show all
hmm not following peoples debates here too much
but...did God banish Adam and Eve because they were primarily disobedient and broke His rule or did He banish them primarily because they ate something that they shouldnt thave eaten that caused them to do something so stupid (realising nakedness) that they then feel horribly ashamed that they have to hide.
Ok Im picturing the tree of knowledge of good and evil like some irresistable drug that can kill you. Satan is the drug peddler. God gave them fair warning about it. Was God expecting adam and eve to always obey him, well, I would venture not really. Anybody who has children knows this you cant control what they do at all times, or that they will even listen to you. Despite how much you love them.
Now imagine your children fall prey to consuming those drugs. Are you going to banish them because they disobeyed you or are you going to banish them because the effects of those drugs on them will create absolute chaos and plus, now they are DYING and need to go out to recover and also to be removed from the source of that temptation...because they cannot be trusted with anything else, not even the good drugs that have no side effects, they will have to work hard to grow their own.
I dont think it was an arbitrary thing to banish adam and eve from the garden just cos they disobeyed. God wasnt going to give up on them that easily. He later helped Eve have children, gave them clothing, and gave Adam some work to do since he was so lazy he wasnt even bothering to pick any fruit himself.
ok well I dont know about the last one thats just my speculation.
but...did God banish Adam and Eve because they were primarily disobedient and broke His rule or did He banish them primarily because they ate something that they shouldnt thave eaten that caused them to do something so stupid (realising nakedness) that they then feel horribly ashamed that they have to hide.
Ok Im picturing the tree of knowledge of good and evil like some irresistable drug that can kill you. Satan is the drug peddler. God gave them fair warning about it. Was God expecting adam and eve to always obey him, well, I would venture not really. Anybody who has children knows this you cant control what they do at all times, or that they will even listen to you. Despite how much you love them.
Now imagine your children fall prey to consuming those drugs. Are you going to banish them because they disobeyed you or are you going to banish them because the effects of those drugs on them will create absolute chaos and plus, now they are DYING and need to go out to recover and also to be removed from the source of that temptation...because they cannot be trusted with anything else, not even the good drugs that have no side effects, they will have to work hard to grow their own.
I dont think it was an arbitrary thing to banish adam and eve from the garden just cos they disobeyed. God wasnt going to give up on them that easily. He later helped Eve have children, gave them clothing, and gave Adam some work to do since he was so lazy he wasnt even bothering to pick any fruit himself.
ok well I dont know about the last one thats just my speculation.
Yahweh punished them (working hard/pain in childbirth) because of disobedience. He kicked them out to keep them from eating from the Tree of Life and living forever in their sin.
Adam not picking fruit because he was too lazy is more than speculation, it's spurious.
I've noticed this before in your comments. You seem to have little regard for men (even when it comes to Adam, apparently) and put them down every opportunity you can and I've wondered why? Why are you so negative when it comes to the male gender?
Adam's punishment for eating the fruit was that he would have to toil and sweat to produce food. The ground would no longer easily provide for them. There was nothing ever recorded that gives a hint that Adam refused to pick fruit or work. In fact, in a world suddenly changed, I'm sure he had his hands full taking care of a potentially willful wife and, eventually, children. Making sure they had food to eat and keeping them safe from predators would be hard work. No doubt, Adam worked hard and wasn't a lazy man!
Adam not picking fruit because he was too lazy is more than speculation, it's spurious.
I've noticed this before in your comments. You seem to have little regard for men (even when it comes to Adam, apparently) and put them down every opportunity you can and I've wondered why? Why are you so negative when it comes to the male gender?
Adam's punishment for eating the fruit was that he would have to toil and sweat to produce food. The ground would no longer easily provide for them. There was nothing ever recorded that gives a hint that Adam refused to pick fruit or work. In fact, in a world suddenly changed, I'm sure he had his hands full taking care of a potentially willful wife and, eventually, children. Making sure they had food to eat and keeping them safe from predators would be hard work. No doubt, Adam worked hard and wasn't a lazy man!
Ty, vm, for offering your best effort at answering my question, which is the better than a good job, that is if good is tangible. This brings me to a better understanding, yet in an intangible way, of your view, if that makes sense. If not, I don't know how I could explain myself, except maybe to say that there are a few posters that, if I notice has posted, I enjoy reading, and that I'll refrain from mentioning because I'd rather they remain humble but, I will risk it to say that I am adding you to my good read list.
that kind of approach does not lend itself to identifying and focusing on the really important issues to the point of being misleading. So, if you'll bear with me a bit longer, I'll try to emphasize some of them now. Primary among them is that the law of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is one not intended to be to our good. Adam and Eve were fooled into eating its fruit by Satan, so any fruit it produced was of Satan - to include its law, thereby making it his law, not God's. The law in question, and one which natural man is moved to follow, is a law which ostensibly leads to eternal life - but it doesn't and can't. How do we know that that law was intended by Satan to provide a counterfeit to God's law, thereby making Satan appear as God? We can know because its antithesis is the Tree of Life - God's tree, also in the garden - but both being mutually exclusive of each other. If you'll notice, the fruit of the Tree of life only gives eternal life - no preconditions or prerequisites were associated with it whatsoever - it is life in its purest and most eternal form. So, with the law of Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, as with all laws, comes the requirement to satisfy or achieve it. But, it trying to do so, we violate God's law from the Tree of Life.
The Book of Romans names the equivalent post garden of Eden laws for us. In the New Testament, God named the law of the Tree of life as the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, and the law of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, as the law of sin and death:
[Rom 8:1-2 KJV]
1 [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
While we tend to take our focus off what occurred in the garden of Eden and place it into the background as something over and done, however, I believe it is the very foundation upon which the entire Bible was built and rests - to both the good and the bad. blessing and curse. It is the root cause, and directly related to, everything else that occurred afterwards.
[Rom 5:19-20 KJV]
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
(** "one man's disobedience": Adam
"obedience of one": Christ)
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
(** the law entered" from Adam's disobedience i.e.. the eating of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil)
i really hope this reply makes sense and adds missing detail to my prior reply. If it doesn't, or if it's unclear,
please don't hesitate to let me know.
:Thanks,
Roger
Then said Yahweh unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day that I may prove them, whether they will walk in My law, or no." (Exodus 16:4)
And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is manna: for they knew not what it was. And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which Yahweh hath given you to eat." (Exodus16:15)
It was bread.
And I assume they gathered it by picking it up with their hands and putting it in baskets. Though they only took enough for each man to eat for the day (Exodus 16:18)
And it tasted like "wafers made with honey" (Exodus 16:31)
And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is manna: for they knew not what it was. And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which Yahweh hath given you to eat." (Exodus16:15)
It was bread.
And I assume they gathered it by picking it up with their hands and putting it in baskets. Though they only took enough for each man to eat for the day (Exodus 16:18)
And it tasted like "wafers made with honey" (Exodus 16:31)
Jesus' words in John 6:63, "The Spirit gives life: the flesh profits nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." work well as a brief synopsis of the above content, iyam. ...but, I will go over it more carefully given more adequate time to be sure I have no question about it.
I'm not exactly sure of your point, but I'm guessing that you believe the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was from God.
So, at least for now, I'll proceed on that basis. i think the answer is in the verse you quoted: the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, definitely wasn't good for food since God warned them emphatically not to eat from it or to even touch it or they would die. The tree(s) God made had to be both at the same time: good for food AND pleasant to the sight. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil definitely didn't meet the criteria, so it couldn't have been from God.
I think the above verse only informs that both trees were in the midst of the garden- symbolically demonstrating they are the centerpieces of two mutually exclusive, completely incompatible gospels: one from God, one from Satan.
If I've misunderstood your point, please let me know.
Thanks
So, at least for now, I'll proceed on that basis. i think the answer is in the verse you quoted: the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, definitely wasn't good for food since God warned them emphatically not to eat from it or to even touch it or they would die. The tree(s) God made had to be both at the same time: good for food AND pleasant to the sight. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil definitely didn't meet the criteria, so it couldn't have been from God.
I think the above verse only informs that both trees were in the midst of the garden- symbolically demonstrating they are the centerpieces of two mutually exclusive, completely incompatible gospels: one from God, one from Satan.
If I've misunderstood your point, please let me know.
Thanks
"In the beginning God ... And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, where He placed the man He had formed. Out of the ground the LORD God gave growth to every tree that is pleasing to the eye and good for food. And in the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Genesis 1:1, 2:8-9.
Pretty clear scripturally that God created the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Pretty clear scripturally that God created the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
-
1
- Show all