Tree of "Good and Evil". What is it really?

  • 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Feb 9, 2010
2,486
39
0
#81
The trees in the garden of Eden were trees,for Adam and Eve needed to eat,which they did not eat meat at that time,and God told them to dress it,which would mean prune them and clip them.

The tree of good and evil would mean the tree of choice between good and evil.Adam and Eve were created knowing God so they had an innocent nature.God had to have the tree of knowledge in the garden because He gave them a choice to follow Him or do their own thing.When they ate the tree on knowledge then they had to make the choice between doing good or evil,instead of only doing good.

I do not believe that Adam and Eve could have sinned unless an outside source tempted them.

The garden of Eden was more beautiful than any other place,because of it's lack of sin and fellowship with God,but Assyria or any other nation can be considered greater because they were more bigger and vast,which Babylon was considered the greatest of all kingdoms,which king Nebuchadnezzar recognized the God of Israel as the God of gods,and proclaimed that throughout his kingdom.

Babylon would be considered greate than the garden of Eden,but not in the sense of beauty and fellowship with God.

The garden of Eden was perfect in temperature,perfect in fellowship with God,and a garden where the trees never wilted or died.

There were 2 cherubims at the garden of Eden though,to protect the tree of life from Adam and Eve touching it.

The Bible never says that it was an apple that Adam and Eve ate.
 
Last edited:

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
60,189
29,495
113
#82
I do not believe that Adam and Eve could have sinned unless an outside source tempted them.
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. (Pride of life, lust of the flesh.)

***

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them.For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world.
 
Jun 5, 2015
447
6
0
#83
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. (Pride of life, lust of the flesh.)

***

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them.For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world.
If we look at this from they were listening to a teacher of "Good and Evil, can we get:
The fruit of the tree was good for food- good for learning
Pleasing to the eye-
the teaching from an over all perspective looked good
desirable for gaining wisdom-
the teaching would enable better understanding
she took and ate-
she freely received and learned the teaching
she gave some to her husband-
she taught her husband what she had learned
he ate it-
he freely received the teachings
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
#84
If we look at this from they were listening to a teacher of "Good and Evil, can we get:
The fruit of the tree was good for food- good for learning
Pleasing to the eye-
the teaching from an over all perspective looked good
desirable for gaining wisdom-
the teaching would enable better understanding
she took and ate-
she freely received and learned the teaching
she gave some to her husband-
she taught her husband what she had learned
he ate it-
he freely received the teachings
WOW, and you think I am the one who does not understand the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
 
Last edited:
Jun 5, 2015
447
6
0
#85
If you read Ezekiel 1-3, what you say combined with what RussellJBenigno is saying makes more sense.

Its a very interesting thought.
The thought is this to recap.
There is a physical world and spiritual world.
The prophet is dealing with both.
The prophet is addressing to kings and making comparisons in the physical.
The prophet then speaks about the spiritual entities as doing the same thing as the kings.
The prophet reveals that behind the kings there are spiritual entities [possibly fallen angels].
These spiritual entities are said to go back as far as the Garden of Eden and refereed to as "Trees".
These entities are not to be confused with real fruit trees.
These spiritual
entities and their puppet kings will all be thrown into hell.
Tah-Dah! End of story and that simple.
So far most have not been able to explain what these trees were, totally ignore the text and even went as far as denying the prophet. If anyone has a rational explanation or cognizant thought about this I'm all ears. But many here just to tell me they were regular trees, because they said so does not cut it.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
60,189
29,495
113
#86
The thought is this to recap.
There is a physical world and spiritual world.
The prophet is dealing with both.
The prophet is addressing to kings and making comparisons in the physical.
The prophet then speaks about the spiritual entities as doing the same thing as the kings.
The prophet reveals that behind the kings there are spiritual entities [possibly fallen angels].
These spiritual entities are said to go back as far as the Garden of Eden and refereed to as "Trees".
These entities are not to be confused with real fruit trees.
These spiritual
entities and their puppet kings will all be thrown into hell.
Tah-Dah! End of story and that simple.
So far most have not been able to explain what these trees were, totally ignore the text and even went as far as denying the prophet. If anyone has a rational explanation or cognizant thought about this I'm all ears. But many here just to tell me they were regular trees, because they said so does not cut it.
Nobody who accepts Scripture can deny that Jesus is referred to as the true vine. He says so Himself! "I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener." Rejecting that he is the Tree of Life kind of makes no sense to me. Kind of? Strike that. Absolutely makes no sense to me. All life is in Him. In Him we live and move and have our being.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
#87
I really do not know what this guy is truing to pull off on the Gen 3 but perhaps this will help others put his nonsense into proper perspective about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

As we move from creation to the garden there develops an emerging discontinuity between man and his association with forbidden things. When man is unconstrained by revelation, he quite naturally draws conclusions based upon how he relates to the world around him. Man allows what he experiences to influence how he defines what is relevant. Once man learns to link the natural to the eternal, he learns to represent human events in quite a different way. One cannot build a triadic picture of reality based upon experiential logic. Human rationalization operating on its own cannot properly context the relationship of man to the natural world. Building a triadic picture of reality is only possible when one learns to represent human experience in the light of revelation. To do this, one must allow revelation to transcend experiential logic.


There is an example of triadic structure that demonstrates how the natural world and the supernatural world relate to one another in the eternal continuum. At the beginning of man’s history in the garden, the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were mentioned in the context of man’s relationship both to God and to the natural world. The text never seems to indicate that in the beginning there was any prohibition to the tree of life but that man was only denied access to the tree of knowledge. It was not until after the fall of man that God placed an angel with a flaming sword at the east of the garden to prohibit man’s access to the tree of life. The way in which Adam chose to represent these trees would reflect his understanding of his association with both God and the natural world. As the narrative unfolds, it becomes clear that access to the tree of life was predicated upon man’s observance of the divine prohibition of the other. Man was to have absolutely no contact with the tree of knowledge. God had provided every tree of the garden for man’s use and pleasure, but this tree was to be left strictly alone. These two trees stand as symbols of a world beyond man’s sensory existence. The tree of forbidden knowledge represents the holiness, the superiority, and the sovereignty of God. It suggests that God always reserves unto Himself the things that belong exclusively to him. It is not merely the tree that has exclusivity, but what that tree represents. As a whole, man is never content to abide by prohibitions. Here, he desires the one thing he is denied. How characteristic this has proven to be of human nature!


Although man was given the highest place of honor as the crowning creation of God with dominion over all creation, this tree was a reminder that even man is not God. Man must stand in the index position of this triadic structure and link the tree of knowledge that he can see to the will of God whom he cannot see. He must also link this tree to revealed consequences that he cannot see and has never before experienced. For Adam to properly relate to both worlds he must learn to link the eternal world to the natural world by bringing God’s warning to bear upon his relationship to this tree. He must learn how to define the nature of his relationship to this tree based on what God had told him about it. Now, this epistemology did not just apply to this tree but extended to everything in man’s dominion. He must understand his relationship to all of his domain based upon this triadic epistemology. God had already defined his function in creation and man must relate to his world according to the words of the Lord.



From the beginning, man was confronted with a decision in his association with this icon of good and evil. This tree was a symbol of an unseen reality. There is a particular type of knowledge man was not equipped to handle and should not seek to obtain. The accessibility of the tree shows that man was also given the ability to obtain this knowledge. The prohibition laid down by God says that this knowledge is destructive to man. This reinforces man’s position as a subordinate creature to what is unseen. God had said, “From this tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shalt not eat of it; for in the day that you eat from it, you shall surely die.” Here is a divine standard given to instruct man on how to think when he considers this tree. Since God has decreed that punishment will follow disobedience, the validity of God’s word is upheld. Divine judgment preserves divine justice because it is through the exercise of justice that God protects his holiness. Observance of this revelation becomes a matter of life and death. The ethics were simple; God said, “Don’t touch it.” This did not require a human analysis of ethics to decide what might be the right thing to do. Contact with the tree was evil both because God said it was evil, and because of what man would suffer as a result.


We know, because of how this tree is interpreted by the physical senses in the text that man, left on his own, could not arrive at this conclusion. Adam could not see what the tree represented. He could only see the physical dynamics of the tree. For the rest, he must rely upon what God had told him about the tree. Man requires instruction from God to protect him from that which he has no point of reference to understand. As the Creator, God understood things about the nature of man and his relationship to his environment that man did not know and was not created to know. Man was not endowed with the capacity to distinguish between good knowledge and evil knowledge. This truth has not changed. The knowledge provided by this tree was not a necessary component for man to fulfill his role within his assigned environment.


The environment of the garden supplied every conceivable human need. He was even given access to the tree of life and the garden was a secure environment where man had no experience with fear, shame, and disgrace. These were yet unknown elements. It was an aesthetic environment where God controlled access to knowledge. There were certain things that man knew by design, but the prohibition of the tree says that there were those things which man should never want to know or seek to know.


In the garden, man enjoyed the presence of God and the full awareness of God. God knew that through disobedience man would be exiled from this controlled and protected environment and from his fellowship with God. By violating God’s prohibition, man challenged the sovereignty of God. Man does not have the authority to mandate a standard of moral conduct. The text of Genesis shows us that this level of knowledge belongs exclusively to God. Because man chose to behave sinfully, he is now confronted with a new reality. Adam is now aware of a particular type of knowledge that will forever change the way mankind represents the relationship he has with the natural world and with his God. It also laid a foundation by which humanity would forever be forced to choose between these two epistemologies. Should we represent reality based on revelation from God or should we rely on those things learned from pragmatic experiences? Which one will we depend upon to tell us the truth about what is relevant?


Now, man has access to the knowledge of good and evil. This presents two problems: First, man does not know the difference between good and evil and secondly, history shows us that when man is left to his own, he will more often than not choose the evil to his own destruction, even when revelation is present. In Genesis 6:5, we see that by the time Noah comes on the scene, “every imagination of the thoughts of the heart is only evil continually,” (RSV). The fact that revelation was available to that generation is evident in the character of Noah. God regarded Noah as “righteous in his generation.” Righteousness is the result of submitting one’s self to revealed constraints. This deterioration of a divinely established ethic shows a complete reversal of a revealed epistemology. This is what happens when the mind of man becomes isolated from the revelation of God. This isolation was willful, deliberate, and fatal. When man is left to himself without a desire for revealed knowledge, he is characteristically self-destructive. If man is to survive spiritually in a cursed environment, it will require a revealed ethical standard that will enable him to represent properly his assigned place within creation.


When Satan approached Eve in the garden, he confronts her about the tree of knowledge. Eve rehearsed the commandment that God had given to them about this tree saying, “from the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat, but of the tree that is in the midst of the garden you may not eat from it or touch it lest you die.” This represents a revealed language structure about certain truths concerning this tree that she could not know any other way. Satan then introduced a new way of thinking about what is true. He portrays this revealed grammar as unreliable and not to be trusted. “You shall not surely die for God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God knowing good and evil.” The idea obviously appealed to Eve but the force of the temptation was more than just a desire to be like God. This new way of representing truth offered a means by which control could be shifted from God to man.


She relies upon an unrevealed method for making decisions. Rather than consulting God and relying upon revelation which, by her own admission she understood, she relied instead upon her five senses operating in this natural world to formulate her epistemological base. She “rationalizes” why it would be acceptable to eat that which had been forbidden. This reveals a distorted ethic in the misappropriation of things that belong to God. She contemplated stealing that which belongs to God and then attempted to justify the rightness of it in her own mind.


Satan’s temptation was two-fold based upon the decision matrix of the woman. This would imply that Satan understood something of the psychology of the woman and he capitalizes on her naiveté. Experientially, Eve knew nothing of Satan, temptation, evil, craftiness, the pain of disobedience, or death. The serpent created doubt in her mind about the motives, character, and purpose of God. He accused God of lying and planted the seed of evil ambition. “God knows that in the day you eat of it you will become like God.” The reality was that she was already like God. He creates suspicion in the mind of the woman by implying that God is deliberately withholding something from her that is both desirable and beneficial. It implies that, 1) man is just as good as God is, 2) God is unjust in this prohibition, and 3) man has the right to be God. This is a challenge of God’s sovereignty. At the heart of this, is the question of who has the right to be in control? Who has the right to decide what is best for man? A worldly epistemology says that man has the wisdom to decide what is best for him. A revealed epistemology says that God not only knows what is best but he is also able to supply it.


Satan then makes an appeal to the empirical and aesthetic observation. Eve saw that the fruit was good for food and was pleasing to the eye. He also appeals to the subjective impulse; it was desirable to make one wise, which the text defines as knowing good from evil. Where then was the sin? The sin was allowing human logic and rationalization to overrule the revelation of God. This is a propensity of humanly derived standards of ethics. The decision was made by appealing to an uninspired epistemology rather than to the words of the Lord. Human logic and rationalization are not valid determinants for deciding what is right or wrong. God said, “Don’t touch it.” This alone determines what is right or wrong.
 
J

jaybird88

Guest
#88
If we look at this from they were listening to a teacher of "Good and Evil, can we get:
The fruit of the tree was good for food- good for learning
Pleasing to the eye-
the teaching from an over all perspective looked good
desirable for gaining wisdom-
the teaching would enable better understanding
she took and ate-
she freely received and learned the teaching
she gave some to her husband-
she taught her husband what she had learned
he ate it-
he freely received the teachings
you think the tree was always meant to be off limits or maybe it was forbidden because they were not ready for it?
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#89
i don't know if it is just me or if it really is happening more lately...but recently i have been noticing a lot of threads presenting themselves as careful exegesis but really adhering to basically this pattern...

1...start with a scripture
2...ignore common sense and sound hermeneutics
3...start making a daisy chain of non sequitur assertions using your proof text as a springboard
4...claim that you have established your point from scripture because you started the process with a bible verse

and if you are challenged on it...

5...demand that your detractors present scripture to disprove your outlandish theory
6...declare victory when your detractors are understandably unable to present scripture to refute a brainstorm that had very little to do with scripture in the first place
 
J

jaybird88

Guest
#90
i don't know if it is just me or if it really is happening more lately...but recently i have been noticing a lot of threads presenting themselves as careful exegesis but really adhering to basically this pattern...

1...start with a scripture
2...ignore common sense and sound hermeneutics
3...start making a daisy chain of non sequitur assertions using your proof text as a springboard
4...claim that you have established your point from scripture because you started the process with a bible verse

and if you are challenged on it...

5...demand that your detractors present scripture to disprove your outlandish theory
6...declare victory when your detractors are understandably unable to present scripture to refute a brainstorm that had very little to do with scripture in the first place
normally i dont reply to troll accts but here is a question, when Jesus spoke in parables were those just daisy chains?
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#91
normally i dont reply to troll accts but here is a question, when Jesus spoke in parables were those just daisy chains?
that is an apples and oranges comparison...

jesus' parables are extended analogies...they were not an attempt at exegesis...
 
J

jaybird88

Guest
#92
For what its worth I like Russ and his views. He may not be right about everything but he presents thought provoking subjects and I like that.
I think if we went back and stepped into one of the early churches established by one of the 12 it would be nothing like today. I seriously doubt any of them called their Sabbath day sunday or the day of Apollo.
Someone else here said they believe Christianity has become watered down and I agree. Since the days of Jesus little by little we have changed things here and there so it fits more conveniently into our way of life. I would like to get back to finding the things we have lost.
 
J

jaybird88

Guest
#93
that is an apples and oranges comparison...

jesus' parables are extended analogies...they were not an attempt at exegesis...
thats exactly my point, prophesies and parables are both symbolic of deeper meaning.

and whats wrong with discussing these things to understand the deeper meaning?
 
Dec 19, 2009
27,513
128
0
71
#94
I'm not sure, but I sometimes think eating of the tree of good and evil means judging others.
 
Jun 5, 2015
447
6
0
#95
This is the kind of teaching that gives Protestants a bad name. The writer is simply using vivid illustrations and hyperbole in order to get over his point of the glory that these kings claimed for themselves. The trees in Eden did not really envy the king of Assyria. It is hyperbole..

And I cannot even accuse you of over-literalism. Although it is partly, so making trees in Eden into angels is hardly literalism. It is fantasy.

There were two important trees in the garden. One renewed life when it was eaten, the other enabled man to experience good and evil. By the very fact that it was forbidden it made evil possible. It was the ACT of eating that made the participants experience evil. It was not something in the fruit.. Neither of them had magical qualities. They enabled man to partake of life or death.
No! its your attempt at explaining away the scripture and denying its authority. This is the kind of teachings which give Christianity a bad name.
 
Jun 5, 2015
447
6
0
#96
you think the tree was always meant to be off limits or maybe it was forbidden because they were not ready for it?
Yes! They were not ready for its knowledge, and that's why it was detrimental for them to learn. If it was meant for them to never learn that knowledge, then that Tree would not be in the garden. So it was placed there by God for their benefit at the right time.
 
Jun 5, 2015
447
6
0
#98
I really do not know what this guy is truing to pull off on the Gen 3 but perhaps this will help others put his nonsense into proper perspective about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. .........
........
I noticed one thing missing from all this, "Scripture". Its just ramblings from commentaries and pure conjecture from a vain imagination. Nothing provable in scripture.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
#99
I noticed one thing missing from all this, "Scripture". Its just ramblings from commentaries and pure conjecture from a vain imagination. Nothing provable in scripture.
I can assure you, you will find none of that material in any commentaries. I knew you would not understand it. It was written for the benefit of others.
 
J

jaybird88

Guest
This is the kind of teaching that gives Protestants a bad name. The writer is simply using vivid illustrations and hyperbole in order to get over his point of the glory that these kings claimed for themselves. The trees in Eden did not really envy the king of Assyria. It is hyperbole..

And I cannot even accuse you of over-literalism. Although it is partly, so making trees in Eden into angels is hardly literalism. It is fantasy.

There were two important trees in the garden. One renewed life when it was eaten, the other enabled man to experience good and evil. By the very fact that it was forbidden it made evil possible. It was the ACT of eating that made the participants experience evil. It was not something in the fruit.. Neither of them had magical qualities. They enabled man to partake of life or death.
when you say hyperbole are you suggesting our Lord is telling tall tails? exaggerating which would be miss leading. why would our Lord do that? was Jesus real or just an exaggerated character? i dont mean to sound sarcastic here but im trying to prove a point. when you start pulling out parts of the bible and calling them exaggerations you are destroying the credibility of the book. and once we go down this road whwere does it end?
when the Almighty stopped the sun for 24 hours i believe with all my heart thats exactly what happened.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.