Two trees

[posthuman]

Her choices (from the examples you sited), were not made between good and evil. They were made by her exclusively because they were pleasing in one way or another to her.

no, the only 'pleasing' part is 'pleasing to the eye'
then it's 'good' for food and 'desirable' for wisdom.
that's distinguishing ((tho deceived about)) between good/evil for the body and good/evil for the soul.

but this also indicates she has a concept of visually pleasant vs. unpleasant, and she has the capability both to distinguish between and to choose between.

so clearly Eve displays intimate functional knowledge of good/evil distinction in terms of the spirit, the body, and the soul.
that's true regardless of the fact that she was in deception, making the wrong judgements of those things. she still has the capability and understanding of moral/ethical choice in every part of her existence.

 

[posthuman]

Probably because a fig tree was handy. Also its leaves are broad and sturdy. It is significant that Christ cursed a fig tree which was full of leaves, but had no fruit (because it was not the season for fruit). That tree just withered away from its roots. It says that Jesus was hungry at that time and found no fruit on it.

they're standing there at the tree. guess what leaves are handy, lol

banana leaves are way more suitable to making a tunic. fig leaves are small and irregularly shaped. why would you spend 40 times as much energy and time to make a tunic out of 160 fig leaves when 4 banana leaves would give you the same yardage? i can make a palm leaf tunic in 15 minutes. it's going to take me all day to do the same with fig leaves. this ain't no small undertaking Adam and his wife undergo. a lot of time passes. a lot of time they could have spent doing a lot of other things, like eating from the tree of life. but they didn't. why? because Adam isn't stupid. he's thought all this through.

nothing in God's word is arbitrary or meaningless. there's a reason, and a meaning, to the fact they used fig leaves. it's a calculated, purposeful choice.

 

[JerryInBoston]

you're leaving out the fact she was deceived.
the narrative indisputably shows she has the capability to make moral & intrinsic value judgements.
whether she was right about the decisions she made is immaterial to the fact she makes them. she has concepts of good and evil and is able to distinguish between them. awareness of ethics & morality is not something gained by committing sin. she has intelligence & conscious will. she has the ability to discern between 'good' and 'bad' choices. she understands that it is right to obey and wrong to disobey.
and she is tricked into calling evil, 'good' and calling good, 'evil' -- Satan makes moral arguments to her. he uses ethical persuasion. he appeals to her sense of justice, tho he does so with lies.

Alright. She was deceived, but only about the consequences that flowed from eating the fruit, not about whether it was good or evil to do so because she had no knowledge of good and evil.

In our oh so fallen world, it's hard to imagine the completely blissful condition of humanity; it existed only for a very short time in the beginning between only two people.

 

[posthuman]

she had no knowledge of good and evil.

that's indefensible. you're repeating Satan's argument.
yes i realize that's what 95% of modern preaching and commentary teaches. but it is indefensible all the same.

'she saw that it was good'
she absolutely knows what good is.
she has the commandment of God. she knows that obedience is right and disobedience is wrong. Satan convinces her God is a liar. that's a moral argument that requires she understands the concepts of goodness & evil.

 

[JerryInBoston]

i consider Adam to be a very very smart fellow. he's not an idiot. he knows God sees all things, i.e. "they're naked" -- they have been naked from the beginning, but before sin, they had no shame. that is specifically written in Genesis 2:25

so when 'they realized they were naked' what they realized is that their shame could not be hidden.
so he and his wife covered himself with their shame. this isn't trying to make it so that God can't see them: Adam and God walk together all the time; he knows God deeply and personally. He isn't stupid enough to think some foliage can keep God from finding him.
he hides because he's afraid; it is an appointed meeting time and he's supposed to be in an appointed place to walk with God in the cool of the day. instead he doesn't keep the appointment. that's what 'hiding' means.

it's cool you don't think it is a fig. i reckon you think it's a date palm because they're common in the Levant. that's fine.
but i want you to understand why i'd say the evidence points to figs. it's the tree Christ curses, the only thing ever recorded that He curses. it's the thing Adam covers himself with in his shame. it's the thing God removes from them when God accepts their confessions and covers them with new garments. it's the tree that, in describing a state of peace, everyone sits under their own.

I'm not committed to the date palm tree. I know it's native to the middle east and northern Africa. I'm just throwing out kinds of trees whose fruits I enjoy. I accept the fact God chose not to reveal to us the specific type tree outside the fact it was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

[posthuman]

In our oh so fallen world, it's hard to imagine the completely blissful condition of humanity; it existed only for a very short time in the beginning between only two people.

don't be silly.
the situation you're describing, the state of awareness you say they had, we can recreate by destroying most of your brain cells by huffing paint, or hitting one's head hard enough with a rock.

 

[JerryInBoston]

that's indefensible. you're repeating Satan's argument.
yes i realize that's what 95% of modern preaching and commentary teaches. but it is indefensible all the same.

'she saw that it was good'
she absolutely knows what good is.
she has the commandment of God. she knows that obedience is right and disobedience is wrong. Satan convinces her God is a liar. that's a moral argument that requires she understands the concepts of goodness & evil.

Yes, but in context when quoted completely: she saw that is was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for obtaining wisdom. Obviously she'd been eating other fruits from other trees in the same garden. For her to see that the forbidden fruit appeared good for food and pleasing to the eyes as all the other fruits should be no surprise.

 

[posthuman]

i'm not mad or anything @JerryInBoston
we're just talking about the Bible, and we're both passionate about it

of course we're both going to be really confident about what we're convinced of and won't back down easily from things we think we can justify.


just, you know -- thought it's probably time to back off a bit and smile.
how good it is that we can spend a saturday evening chatting about this, isn't it?

 

[JerryInBoston]

don't be silly.
the situation you're describing, the state of awareness you say they had, we can recreate by destroying most of your brain cells by huffing paint, or hitting one's head hard enough with a rock.

Not so fast. You're describing the destruction an organ that has been inundated with sinful thoughts and machinations of sinful deeds: it's poisoned before it's grown to adultsized. Further, there's no bliss in destroying your brain cells to the point of being in a vegetative state. Whereas the brains of Adam and Eve were perfectly sinless, without blemish, uncorrupted, therefore perfectly blissful.

 

[JerryInBoston]

i'm not mad or anything @JerryInBoston
we're just talking about the Bible, and we're both passionate about it

of course we're both going to be really confident about what we're convinced of and won't back down easily from things we think we can justify.


just, you know -- thought it's probably time to back off a bit and smile.
how good it is that we can spend a saturday evening chatting about this, isn't it?

I hear you. 😃

 

[Mem]

I think it was a walnut.

 

[JerryInBoston]

I think it was a walnut.

Isn't walnut a seed?

 

[Mem]

All fruit end up in seed, yes.

 

[rogerg]

"notice that God never says Woman has become like Him, knowing good from evil. \"

God referenced only Adam because he was first formed, then was Eve, so God held Adam primarily responsible. Nevertheless, what happened to Adam also happened to Eve, how Adam was judged was Eve judged.

Adam had up to that point only *known* good because everything God made was good and Adam only did what was good. he had never *known* evil in that he had never *done* evil.

Adam (and Eve) did not do evil before then because evil was not present before then. They had to eat the fruit of the tree first for that to be possible or to happen. Notice that in Gen 3:23, when they came to know good and evil, they were driven from the garden, but not until then. So, had they known good and evil sooner, they would have been driven from the garden sooner - which they weren't - meaning the eating of the fruit of the tree caused it. I think that was made extremely clear in Gen 3:22-23. Eve too was driven from the garden.

23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

[1Ti 2:13-14 KJV]
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Besides this, I don't understand the rest of your reply.

Also, maybe you already have done so and I missed it, but please explain (again?) what you believe the name of the tree to mean.

 

[Mem]

Going by an article, "16 Foods That Look Like The Body Part They're Good For," I deduced that the tree of knowledge is the walnut because it resembles a brain. Also, considering the midrash of the exodus Jews accepted the Torah before understanding it, which I think infers an acceptance of heart knowledge over head knowledge. And so, the walnut would represent head knowledge, and the tree of life might've been a type of tomato tree, because tomatoes are good for the heart.

 

[Mem]

"notice that God never says Woman has become like Him, knowing good from evil. \"

God referenced only Adam because he was first formed, then was Eve, so God held Adam primarily responsible. Nevertheless, what happened to Adam also happened to Eve, how Adam was judged was Eve judged.



Adam (and Eve) did not do evil before then because evil was not present before then. They had to eat the fruit of the tree first for that to be possible or to happen. Notice that in Gen 3:23, when they came to know good and evil, they were driven from the garden, but not until then. So, had they known good and evil sooner, they would have been driven from the garden sooner - which they weren't - meaning the eating of the fruit of the tree caused it. I think that was made extremely clear in Gen 3:22-23. Eve too was driven from the garden.

23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

[1Ti 2:13-14 KJV]
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Besides this, I don't understand the rest of your reply.

Also, maybe you already have done so and I missed it, but please explain (again?) what you believe the name of the tree to mean.

Although death was not present, can we be sure that evil was not present ?

 

[rogerg]

Although death was not present, can we be sure that evil was not present ?

I think we can, meaning that it was not a threat relative to mankind, until and unless Adam and Eve were to eat of the fruit of the tree. Evil, like sin, was (I think) present but dormant and could not be levied until after the eating. I believe the eating brought forth the law of law by which sin and evil could then be assessed and levied to man .

[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 7:8-11 KJV]
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin [was] dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which [was ordained] to life, I found [to be] unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew [me].

Hope this makes sense. If it requires clarification, please let me know

 

[rogerg]

so clearly Eve displays intimate functional knowledge of good/evil distinction in terms of the spirit, the body, and the soul.
that's true regardless of the fact that she was in deception, making the wrong judgements of those things. she still has the capability and understanding of moral/ethical choice in every part of her existence.

Again, Gen 3-22 - 24 tells us otherwise. When Adam and Eve knew of good and evil, they were driven out of the garden. Looking at it in the reverse we can trace back (their) being driven out to its causation event. That event was the eating of the fruit of the tree.
Regardless of any surmising we may choose to do, God left no doubt regarding His assessment/judgement of it.


[Gen 3:22-24 KJV]
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.
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

 

[posthuman]

Again, Gen 3-22 - 24 tells us otherwise. When Adam and Eve knew of good and evil, they were driven out of the garden. Looking at it in the reverse we can trace back (their) being driven out to its causation event. That event was the eating of the fruit of the tree.
Regardless of any surmising we may choose to do, God left no doubt regarding His assessment/judgement of it.


[Gen 3:22-24 KJV]
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.
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

They are not driven out of the garden because they have become knowledgeable.
Because they have sinned and are poisoned with sin, & through Adam death has entered the world. that's why they cannot remain in His Eden. Because of sin, no because of some newfound wisdom.

God is saving them by preventing them from being able to eat from the tree of life until the Redeemer, the Christ appears. If they did they would be eternally in death. Why did they not when they had a chance? Adam knew. So he spent his time making shame-coverings instead. It would take you all day to make a fig leaf tunic. It would take you 30 seconds to pick a fruit from a tree and eat it.

The narrative that God wants them to be fools and is upset that they've gained knowledge is Satan's narrative. It's what he deceived Woman with. Do you think he was telling the truth?

 

[Mem]

I think we can, meaning that it was not a threat relative to mankind, until and unless Adam and Eve were to eat of the fruit of the tree. Evil, like sin, was (I think) present but dormant and could not be levied until after the eating. I believe the eating brought forth the law of law by which sin and evil could then be assessed and levied to man .

[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 7:8-11 KJV]
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin [was] dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which [was ordained] to life, I found [to be] unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew [me].

Hope this makes sense. If it requires clarification, please let me know

I think I'm following your thoughts as per the qualification of evil as 'dormant,' but to clarify, if God had not given man the commandment, 'thou shalt not eat of,' would no one then have been culpable of sin if they had eaten of it? That is, the evil is de facto going against the (known) commandment?