What's the difference between Adam and Eve eating the fruit from the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil; breaking any other law of God? Like refusing to name the animals or reproduce or tend the Garden?
Difference?
- Thread starter aspen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Hidden In Him
Well-Known Member
Before Adam ate of the fruit, he was created innocent; and therefore it was not in his nature to refuse to name the animals.
God put the tree in the middle of the garden to show to all of creation that there is a choice involved in our worship of the Lord.
God places free will even above the safety of His creation in all of this; that is how highly He regards it as a principle.
Because, as I'm sure you can see, because there is free will, there is sin; and some, because of sin, are going to be cast into everlasting fire and burned for all of eternity: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
God put the tree in the middle of the garden to show to all of creation that there is a choice involved in our worship of the Lord.
God places free will even above the safety of His creation in all of this; that is how highly He regards it as a principle.
Because, as I'm sure you can see, because there is free will, there is sin; and some, because of sin, are going to be cast into everlasting fire and burned for all of eternity: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
the Tree provided no more of a temptation, apart from the serpent, than any other opportunity to disobey God. Every opportunity to disobey existed before the Fall
If God had only given one command, then there was only one that could be broken, isn't that so?
Like when God brought Eve to Adam, are you thinking had he said something like, God, I'm not going to marry this one, make another. Is something like that what you have in mind?
I think of this as that nothing hold any temptation until first someone decides that they decide. First is "taking my life into my own hands", and after that come all the different sins.
That first sin was what Adam transgressed in choosing to eat contrary to God's command, and after that came the knowledge of good and evil, allowing a host of other choices, based on this new understanding of life.
Much love!
Genesis 2:15-19
15) And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Here, the Lord put Adam in the garden to dress and keep it. Is there a commandment here? I only see a purpose.
16) And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
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.
Here there is very clearly a command.
18) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Here, God brought the animals to Adam to see what he would call them. Is there a command there?
Genesis 1:28
28) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
This was spoken as a blessing.
It seems to me the only command was to not eat from That Tree. Otherwise, it seems to me that God and man were in harmony.
Much love!
Adam did not have the capacity to, for example, refuse to name the animals, before he partook of the tree.
There was nothing in his nature that would have prompted him to do so until after the sin-DNA entered into his system via the fruit.
I think you may be quibbling.
so it is ok to refuse to dress and keep the Garden because it is a purpose?
Genesis 1:28-29 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.
are these purposes or commandments?
the word 'knowing' means direct experience. Adam and Eve already understood the concept of going against God - God told them not to do it
Adam and Eve did not know (experientially) disobedience until they partook of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
correct. And, they could have experienced evil through disobedience anywhere in the Garden.
I'm trying to follow the Biblical language to make sure I'm thinking of everything rightly.
Your question is very interesting to me to think about, and especially as I've been giving a lot of thought on the nature of sin, and particularly as it relates to a child of God.
I don't see anything in the Bible that Adam was commanded to keep the garden, only that he was put there to do that. I don't see any indication that Adam might have thought of this vocation as anything other than the natural order of things. When he's hungry he eats, when he's sleepy he sleeps, and when he's active he keeps the garden, like that.
It's the same with naming the animals. It just looks to me that cooperation with God was something Adam just did, except as related to the tree.
Much love!
yes. The Creation story is my favorite part of the OT.
I see your point, but I can't agree with it.
With purpose comes commands - the purpose of going to school is to learn; expectations for behavior follow, regardless of tendency by students to break rules or not.
And I see your point also, my friend! Like you say, sin is sin.
I know that God makes a distinction about whether there is a commandment given regarding the judicial culpability for sin. Romans 5, sin was not imputed until the Law was given.
And I know that the commandment doesn't change the natural result of sin, that being death, again from Romans 5, all men died because all men sinned, even though it wasn't counted against them, and even though they didn't break the one commandment given. Or, that's more my understanding of what it says.
Even though they didn't transgress in the manner of Adam, I think it says.
It really seems to me that there is a real distinction between eating from That Tree, and anything else before or after. As far as After, I feel like I have a lot better understanding. But before, like I said, you thought here is very interesting!
I get the sense that everything God did with Adam was the natural order of things to Adam, so that he would have no more thought of not naming the animals then he would have thought to stop breathing.
With that one exception of the tree, where God put it to Adam as something he could or could not do, it was up to him, and he was not supposed to, it would kill him.
But that's just the sense I get from reading it, I can't think of any passages which illuminate this for me.
Much love!
Maybe this is at the heart of my thinking, that this tendency only came from eating from that tree.
Much love!
No; the only way that they could initially disobey God was to eat of the forbidden tree.
Possibly.
You should realize that the religion of Wicca (witchcraft, magic) has to do with the use of plants as material components for spells that affect the mind.
Similar threads
