The Tree of Knowledge

snr5557 · Jan 20, 2014

No one has been able to answer this to my satisfaciton.

So, God said not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, because it would give them knowledge of good and evil right?

So, that must mean that Adam and Eve had no idea what was considered good or evil, what is right or wrong right?

So, when they commited the first sin by eating from the Tree of Knowledge, they did not know what they had done was wrong, and how can someone be punished for something they didn't know was wrong?

People will say, "They knew it was wrong to go against God." But, if they knew right from wrong from the beginning, the Tree of Knowledge was not really important.

Please provide textual evidence to prove your point, not just emotions.

williemac · Jan 20, 2014

I can't believe that no one could answer this one. In the first place, you are incorrect as to the name of the tree. It is not the tree of knowledge. It was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But this knowledge is not about intellectual knowledge. It is about experiential knowledge.

They were not told that they would be punished for eating of the tree, nor were they told it was wrong to do so. They were merely given strict warning that they were not to eat of the tree or else they would die. Why would you think that the death was a punishment? Why would they need to know it was a punishment.? They were simply told what would happen if they ate of it and this is why it was forbidden. Obviously they refused to believe God.

To them, this was not a matter of right or wrong, as you said. However, after they ate of the tree, their conscience was awakened and they "learned' through experience, right from wrong. The problem is that you are thinking of this from the perspective of knowing right from wrong, so you assume one has to know right from wrong before they can make a responsible decision. Who says your assumption is correct? Are you as well, refusing to believe God? Or at least are you refusing to believe the account of man's fall? Do you suppose if you don't get a satisfactory answer, that this means you have grounds for rejecting what was written about it?

snr5557 · Jan 20, 2014

williemac said:
I can't believe that no one could answer this one. In the first place, you are incorrect as to the name of the tree. It is not the tree of knowledge. It was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But this knowledge is not about intellectual knowledge. It is about experiential knowledge.

So the tree is supposed to give you experience? But when they ate from the tree they had not experienced anything.

They were not told that they would be punished for eating of the tree, nor were they told it was wrong to do so. They were merely given strict warning that they were not to eat of the tree or else they would die. Why would you think that the death was a punishment? Why would they need to know it was a punishment.? They were simply told what would happen if they ate of it and this is why it was forbidden. Obviously they refused to believe God.

But they didn't know that disbelief as wrong. Plus, I thought nothing died in The Garden. Would they even know what death was?

To them, this was not a matter of right or wrong, as you said. However, after they ate of the tree, their conscience was awakened and they "learned' through experience, right from wrong.

Yes, after eating from the tree they knew right from wrong, not before.

The problem is that you are thinking of this from the perspective of knowing right from wrong, so you assume one has to know right from wrong before they can make a responsible decision.

It's not that a person has to know right from wrong to make a decision, it's the punishment for it.
For example: a small child hits another for the first time. As a parent, you would tell them to not do it again because it was wrong. From that point on, you would punish them, because they know that hitting others is wrong. I wouldn't punish them for the first time because they were not aware it was wrong. And chances when a person hits another for the first time they are very young.

Who says your assumption is correct?

Who says mine is incorrect?

Are you as well, refusing to believe God? Or at least are you refusing to believe the account of man's fall? Do you suppose if you don't get a satisfactory answer, that this means you have grounds for rejecting what was written about it?

It was just a question that came up.

Madad21 · Jan 21, 2014

snr5557 said:
No one has been able to answer this to my satisfaciton.

So, God said not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, because it would give them knowledge of good and evil right?

So, that must mean that Adam and Eve had no idea what was considered good or evil, what is right or wrong right?

So, when they commited the first sin by eating from the Tree of Knowledge, they did not know what they had done was wrong, and how can someone be punished for something they didn't know was wrong?

People will say, "They knew it was wrong to go against God." But, if they knew right from wrong from the beginning, the Tree of Knowledge was not really important.

Please provide textual evidence to prove your point, not just emotions.

Hi snr557

Im not massively clued up on this subject but it seems to me that as the Word says that after they ate of the fruit they became aware that they were naked.
God came in to the Garden and was asking Adam where he was. Which is kind of strange considering God should already know right?
Well think about it this way, us as Christians already with that knowledge even though we try to be obedient and repentful when we slip up and do things we know is wrong we tend to try and hide from God.
We feel unworthy and ashamed because we think we should know better, so we might stay in that sin for a while or feel to ashamed to worship or pray etc.
In this way we too like Adam are hiding.
God knew where Adam was, but Adam was hiding his shame from God and therefore his Spirit was in darkness and out of Gods reach.
The punishment came after both Adam and Eve who by this time know right from wrong try to avoid ownership of their sin. Adam blames the woman God gave him, like it was somehow indirectly Gods fault, Eve blames the snake, but neither of them take accountability for their own sin. Thats when they were punished.

When we sin, we need to confess straight away, Jesus died so that we could and be free from sin no longer held captive by it. If we dont do this the darkness overwhelms us and we feel to ashamed to go back to God, some times falling heavier into sin before we hit rock bottom and sometimes thats what it takes before we finally cry out to God again.

Dont hide in the darkness, live in the light and the Life!!!

digging · Jan 21, 2014

To go one more step, death was not a punishment it was simply the truth. God told them where the limit was between life and death and they failed to trust him, not listen to his voice and took something that was not offered, something that could kill them and he warned them about that.

Digging

lforrest · Jan 21, 2014

snr5557 said:
No one has been able to answer this to my satisfaciton.

So, God said not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, because it would give them knowledge of good and evil right?

So, that must mean that Adam and Eve had no idea what was considered good or evil, what is right or wrong right?

So, when they commited the first sin by eating from the Tree of Knowledge, they did not know what they had done was wrong, and how can someone be punished for something they didn't know was wrong?

People will say, "They knew it was wrong to go against God." But, if they knew right from wrong from the beginning, the Tree of Knowledge was not really important.

Please provide textual evidence to prove your point, not just emotions.

You raise an interesting question: Without knowing right from wrong what incentive was there for Adam and Eve to obey God and refrain from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? They would have to first know it is wrong to disobey God before they would be deterred from eating of the tree.

I would say while they didn't know right from wrong and weren't at all prepared for the serpent's deception, they would have known to trust what God says. Trust doesn't require knowledge of good and evil because it is rooted in love 1 Corinthians 13:7. I don't believe that death was intended to be a purely punitive measure, I see it as the inevitable result of sin. Romans 6:23

horsecamp · Jan 21, 2014

snr5557 said:
No one has been able to answer this to my satisfaciton.

So, God said not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, because it would give them knowledge of good and evil right?

So, that must mean that Adam and Eve had no idea what was considered good or evil, what is right or wrong right?

So, when they commited the first sin by eating from the Tree of Knowledge, they did not know what they had done was wrong, and how can someone be punished for something they didn't know was wrong?

People will say, "They knew it was wrong to go against God." But, if they knew right from wrong from the beginning, the Tree of Knowledge was not really important.

Please provide textual evidence to prove your point, not just emotions.

no God never said what you said..

read what God said in Gen. again.

Now some quick truths Adam and Eve before the fall only knew Good.. Their companion was God..

once they believed a stranger and ate from the tree of knowledge and took his word over what God said .. God the God who was always good to them and provided for them even giving them life and each other.

they now knew evil ! and so they tried to hide from God .. yet God showed his mercy to them even promising a savior from sin who would come one day
and crush Satan's head..

so God chased them out of the garden so they would not eat from the tree of life
and live for ever in a sinful state! God loved them so much he wanted them to be reconciled to him through This savior from their sin that would come ..that is the reason they were chased out of the garden so they would not live for ever in a sinful state..

TO THE SERPENT SAY HE WILL CRUSH YOUR Head

the reformation poem

he will crush your head

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnAUx5sOKp8

Quantrill · Jan 21, 2014

snr5557 said:
No one has been able to answer this to my satisfaciton.

So, God said not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, because it would give them knowledge of good and evil right?

So, that must mean that Adam and Eve had no idea what was considered good or evil, what is right or wrong right?

So, when they commited the first sin by eating from the Tree of Knowledge, they did not know what they had done was wrong, and how can someone be punished for something they didn't know was wrong?

People will say, "They knew it was wrong to go against God." But, if they knew right from wrong from the beginning, the Tree of Knowledge was not really important.

Please provide textual evidence to prove your point, not just emotions.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil and God's command not to eat of its fruit is all important. Because, there was absolutely no reason not to eat of the fruit other than to obey God.

To know 'good and evil' is not the same as right or wrong. Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge of 'good' either.

Quantrill

lukethreesix · Jan 21, 2014

You all are taken this as a literal account, like an actual fruit was eaten?
It was necessary for Adam (as it is for each one of us) to understand/experience evil. God teaches us the way (Ps 25:8) into light from the dark. Adam was in the dark, he had no knowledge of good or evil, but as a person must experience sour to know sweet, or cold to know heat, one must experience evil to know good. God introduced the Light to the darkness( Gen 1:2-3). God wants us to freely choose good, but one can't do that by ignorance. Knowledge is key.

snr5557 · Jan 21, 2014

@lukethreesix

I looked at it from a literal standpoint yes. But I personally think the Bible should be read as non-literal. I think most of it was meant to be poetic when they wrote.

I think you're explanation is best. That the creation story is more non-literal. God had to show us both good and evil etc.

lforrest said:
@Iforrest

You raise an interesting question: Without knowing right from wrong what incentive was there for Adam and Eve to obey God and refrain from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? They would have to first know it is wrong to disobey God before they would be deterred from eating of the tree.

I would say while they didn't know right from wrong and weren't at all prepared for the serpent's deception, they would have known to trust what God says. Trust doesn't require knowledge of good and evil because it is rooted in love 1 Corinthians 13:7.

They were only made like yesterday. They wouldn't know much of anything. Plus, wouldn't God be their direct parent? Hasn't everyone disobeyed either intentionally or unintentionally? And I don't think they were perfect from the moment they breathed life. That's expecting perfection from a person who is a day old, pretty high expectations.

I don't believe that death was intended to be a purely punitive measure, I see it as the inevitable result of sin. Romans 6:23

I personally see death as the natural breaking down of the body. At least a natural death anyway

I liked your thoughts though

horsecamp said:
@horsecamp

no God never said what you said..

'no God ever said what you said.." I am sorry but I had to once I read this

read what God said in Gen. again.

So I went and found the online version of KJB and the NIV. I know a lot of people use the KJB, but I personally use the NIV

KJB: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die .

NIV: 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 from it you will certainly die.”

Now some quick truths Adam and Eve before the fall only knew Good.. Their companion was God..

once they believed a stranger and ate from the tree of knowledge and took his word over what God said .. God the God who was always good to them and provided for them even giving them life and each other.

They had only been alive for one day by this time right? Do you know how easy it would be to trick a one day year old? They wouldn't even know they were being tricked. And, since they had not eaten from the tree of knowledge, they didn't know good or evil, which can be read as right or wrong. Plus, have you ever disobeyed your parents in any way? I will say yes because even though I don't know you I know this must be true.

so God chased them out of the garden so they would not eat from the tree of life
and live for ever in a sinful state! God loved them so much he wanted them to be reconciled to him through This savior from their sin that would come ..that is the reason they were chased out of the garden so they would not live for ever in a sinful state..

I doubt that last part. Unless you are going to say that Adam and Eve lived perfect lives from that point on.
Plus, they knew what was good and evil now, so they would have chosen at some point to do evil for whatever reason.

SolaGratia · Jan 21, 2014

snr5557 said:
I looked at it from a literal standpoint yes. But I personally think the Bible should be read as non-literal. I think most of it was meant to be poetic when they wrote.

You're on the right track in recognizing that poetry (Psalms, etc.) is interpreted differently from history (Kings, Chronicles, etc.), which is interpreted differently from prophecy (Daniel, Ezekiel, etc.), which is interpreted differently from the gospels (Matthew, Mark, etc.), which needs to be interpreted differently from the epistles. There are principles that apply to all of them, but there are differences, too.

You're wrong, however, that most of the Bible is meant to be poetic. And there's not a scholar out there who would say that it is -- not Roman or Protestant, not liberal or conservative.

snr5557 · Jan 21, 2014

SolaGratia said:
You're on the right track in recognizing that poetry (Psalms, etc.) is interpreted differently from history (Kings, Chronicles, etc.), which is interpreted differently from prophecy (Daniel, Ezekiel, etc.), which is interpreted differently from the gospels (Matthew, Mark, etc.), which needs to be interpreted differently from the epistles. There are principles that apply to all of them, but there are differences, too.

You're wrong, however, that most of the Bible is meant to be poetic. And there's not a scholar out there who would say that it is -- not Roman or Protestant, not liberal or conservative.

Actually there are, have you ever heard of the historical critical method of reading the Bible? If you haven't check it out, it's pretty cool.
There are scholars who believe more in this method, in not taking what is said literally and looking at the people who wrote, how the time period they were in would effect (affect?) the text etc.

And before anyone says he's just some random guy he's not.

"Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He came to UNC in 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies.
A graduate of Wheaton College (Illinois), Professor Ehrman received both his Masters of Divinity and Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude. Since then he has published extensively in the fields of New Testament and Early Christianity, having written or edited twenty-four books, numerous scholarly articles, and dozens of book reviews."

He often talks about how other scholars agree with him, or how their opinions differ.

SolaGratia · Jan 21, 2014

snr5557 -- You and I are using the terms poetry and poetic in different senses (sorry about that). I'm using it as a genre of literature. Some of the Bible is poetry, but most of it is not (and Ehrman would agree with me on that).

You're using poetic as a contrast to literal. That is, something that is not literal is poetic. I understand better what you're saying now.

Just so you know, Bart Ehrman used to profess Christ. He has since abandoned the faith and is now an avowed agnostic. I humbly and sincerely exhort you to look for others to help guide you in your understanding of Scripture.

snr5557 · Jan 21, 2014

SolaGratia said:
snr5557 -- You and I are using the terms poetry and poetic in different senses (sorry about that). I'm using it as a genre of literature. Some of the Bible is poetry, but most of it is not (and Ehrman would agree with me on that).

You're using poetic as a contrast to literal. That is, something that is not literal is poetic. I understand better what you're saying now.

Just so you know, Bart Ehrman used to profess Christ. He has since abandoned the faith and is now an avowed agnostic. I humbly and sincerely exhort you to look for others to help guide you in your understanding of Scripture.

Yeah, I sometimes interchange non-literal and poetic, so that's my bad.

Just because he is now an agnostic does not mean he is not knowledgable on the topic.

Madad21 · Jan 21, 2014

I dont understand why "The Fall of man" account in the bible should be taken as poetic-literal?
It is one of the most critical and necessary inclusions one could possibly hope to find in the History of mankind, and the next being Christ on a cross.
Was the account of Christ and his Crucifixion "poetic-literal-non- literal history" too?.......no, that part HAS to be factual or we are all in big trouble!!
They why should we assume that the creation account of the Fall of man is anything less.
How can we as self proclaimed BELIEVERS except fully what is offered to us freely on the cross if we say that the very reason Christ was nailed to it was "Non-literal" and not meant to be taken literally?

Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on EVERY word that comes from the mouth of God.'" (Matthew 4:4)

Does our creator here say "Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God except for the account on creation and the fall of man because he was not being literal, but on everything else you can relay." ...........................ar...um......no?

Jesus says "And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven"( Matthew 18:3)
Children trust every word their parents tell them as the absolute truth, and children have faith that they are not lied too and that they are protected by their parents.

The account of our Fall is not poetic-non-literal-literal-nonsense. It is as solid as Christ on the Cross.

SolaGratia · Jan 21, 2014

snr5557 said:
Just because he is now an agnostic does not mean he is not knowledgable on the topic.

According to 1 Corinthians 2:14, he is not able to understand the topics Scripture discusses.

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).

He may have some intellectual knowledge of the text or of hermeneutics or even of the meaning of the text. But he cannot understand the truth of Scripture, and that is what we need to be most concerned with.

KingJ · Jan 22, 2014

snr5557 said:
So, God said not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, because it would give them knowledge of good and evil right?

So, that must mean that Adam and Eve had no idea what was considered good or evil, what is right or wrong right?

It was not that they were ignorant to what rebellion was. Every free will creation has the ability to rebel against God. We simply need the opportunity. Thats' what the tree was.

Think of the angels. 1/3 chose to defy God and 2/3 chose not to. Lucifer knew he was lifiting himself up / defying God. He only grasped the full ramifications of his decision after (knowledge of good and evil). This was an opportunity for the angels to exercise their free will.

When you eat of the tree, you grasp what evil is because God's presence leaves you. You feel naked. You don't forget what you had (good)...but you certainly lose it. No spouse is naive to the power they have to break a marriage. But no spouse has quite got an idea of the pain and damage caused, until they actually commit adultery.

aspen · Jan 22, 2014

evil does not complete good.

Arnie Manitoba · Jan 22, 2014

There is some pretty heavy duty stuff in Genesis if you read carefully .... for example:

Genesis 3:5 .... (the serpent said) .... “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Genesis 3:22 ..... And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.

...................................

There is a well known religion based out of Utah who (according to high temple insiders) .... actually thank Satan for getting Adam & Eve to eat from the tree so that mankind can attain godhood !!!!!

This is a serious subject that should be handled with kid gloves.

Or maybe left alone.

Selene · Jan 23, 2014

snr5557 said:
No one has been able to answer this to my satisfaciton.

So, God said not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, because it would give them knowledge of good and evil right?

So, that must mean that Adam and Eve had no idea what was considered good or evil, what is right or wrong right?

So, when they commited the first sin by eating from the Tree of Knowledge, they did not know what they had done was wrong, and how can someone be punished for something they didn't know was wrong?

People will say, "They knew it was wrong to go against God." But, if they knew right from wrong from the beginning, the Tree of Knowledge was not really important.

Please provide textual evidence to prove your point, not just emotions.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was put there to remind man of his place.....that he is a creature despite that he is in the image and likeness of God, the Creator. Only God decides what is good and evil. Man has no say in it, but merely to trust in God's decision on what He determines to be good and evil.

God said, "Do not touch or eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil or else you would die." This was a rule that God has determine, and man's role is to obey. God makes the rules and determines what is good and what is bad because He is God. Man's role was never to make those decisions for himself, but to trust God's decisions. By eating from the forbidden tree, man now "becomes like God" in that man can now decide for himself what is good and evil.

Since that time, man has been doing a very poor job of deciding what should be good and what should be evil. Man legalized abortion because he has decided that abortion is good. Nevermind the fact that God said that abortion is murder. Man is now in the process of legalizing same-sex marriage. Nevermind the fact that it was God who instituted that marriage should only be between one man and one woman. Man has decided that homosexuality is okay despite that the Bible does not condone it. These are the results of eating from the forbidden fruit. Man decides for himself what he thinks is good and evil and follows what he thinks, rather than follow what God has already determine to be good and evil.

The Tree of Knowledge

Member

New Member

Member

Boast in Christ

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

Boast in Christ

New Member

New Member

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few

Well-Known Member

New Member

Similar threads