Do Not Eat Of The Tree Of Knowledge Of Good And Evil

Re: Davidgrouchy

It's always been like that. The underdogs carry the burden of sin, and those on the sunny side have the privilege of being in the right. (Because they define it).

I don't believe any kind of hierarchy is without it.

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
I have often wondered if this "law," if you will, is for our own good or for control of the masses.

Actually, there is no biblical law in which says, "Do not eat from the tree of knowledge". It was a one time occurrence in which took place in the Book of Genesis. At the end of the Great Flood of Noah's Ark, God takes a different approach with humanity and freewill. Instead of destroying the entire world, he tells Noah that man is now responsible for how knowledge is used. It was God's way of promote freewill, so that mankind would find their own path to him and salvation. Knowledge itself is not evil. How knowledge is used can cause good or evil things to happen. Mankind is the only entity in which can carry out good or evil acts.

reply to post by bogomil

Thanks again for your input bogomil, this is a learning process for me so I don't have much to add, but rather am enjoying the various perspectives on the subject. I see what you mean about the translation and source of inquiry playing a part in the meanings of the tree and I too sensed a touch of Eastern flavor in the parable. Of course I am one who believes Jesus spent time absorbing some Buddhist philosophies and practice.

reply to post by IAMIAM

Hey IAM, I actually like your take on this, for I had not considered breaking it down to apply towards our "animal natures." Thanks for the reply.

reply to post by Nkinga

Trust....I like your analogy Nkinga, I wonder if Eve's pre "knowledge" of good and evil you mention came from instinct, as in an innate fear of snakes that most living creatures seem to share.
I agree about the symbolic aspect I am just curious of the writers intent. Was it good wisdom or prison walls to keep the masses in check?

spec

reply to post by jennybee35

Hey Jeenybee, thanks for the comment and info, I will check into it!

spec

reply to post by zroth

Makes sense to me zroth, thanks!

reply to post by davidgrouchy

Hey david, thanks for the reply and I agree....

reply to post by Section31

Thank you for the clarification and your input! I am still working out whether or not the phrase is addressing knowledge or knowledge of good/evil. I think both aspects are/should be examined here.

spec

I would like to add this story for the sake of good vs evil. I think it illustrates the "2 sides of the same coin" notion, and suggests that perhaps we should not get too caught up in the duality.

A Blessing in Disguise (Chinese Folk Story)
by Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming, December 28, 2007

An unlucky event can bring about happiness
A long, long time ago, there was a kind old man who lived on the plains outside the Great Wall of China. The gentle old man had only two passions in his life: collecting rare breeds of horses, and his son, whom he loved more than anything else.

The old man and his son would ride their horses every day. They would travel great distances to trade horses, meet new people, and enjoy the good fortune that life had bestowed upon them.

One morning, a servant left the stable door open and one of the old man’s favorite stallions escaped. When the neighbors heard the news of the stallion’s escape, they came to comfort the old man. They told him they were sorry he had had such bad luck.

But strangely enough, the gentle old man was not upset. He explained to his neighbors that losing the horse wasn’t necessarily bad luck. There was no way to predict that the horse would escape, it just happened, and now there was nothing that could be done about it. “There is no reason to be upset,” said the old man. The neighbors soon realized that there was nothing they could do to help get the horse back, and that they shouldn’t feel sad for the old man’s misfortune.

One week later, the stallion came back, and he brought with him a mare. This was not just any mare, but a rare and valuable white mare. When the neighbors heard of the old man’s good luck, they quickly came to congratulate him. But again, the old man was not excited. As he had explained before, it was not necessarily good luck that had brought him this new and beautiful white horse. It just happened, and there was no reason to get excited over it. Still a bit puzzled, the neighbors left as quickly as they had come.

A short time later, while his son was riding the white horse, she slipped and fell. She landed on the son’s leg, and broke his leg, so that he would always walk with a limp. Again, the neighbors came to the old man’s house to give their sympathy for the bad luck that had befallen his son. One of the neighbors suggested that the old man sell the mare before anymore bad luck could happen, and others said that he should take his revenge and kill the mare. However, the old man did neither. He explained to the neighbors that they should not feel sorrow for his son, nor anger towards the mare. It was purely an accident that could not be predicted, and there was nothing he or they could do to change it. At this point, the neighbors thought the old man was crazy and decided to leave him alone.

Two years later an enemy invaded the country, and all of the old man’s neighbors were drafted to defend the country against the attack. Because the old man’s son was lame, he did not have to join in the fighting. The war was very bad, and most of the old man’s neighbors were killed, but his son was spared because he had been hurt by the white horse two years earlier.

Very often, when an event takes place that everybody thinks is good luck, the end results are disastrous. In the same way, an unlucky event can bring about happiness. Therefore, you should not lose your will to continue if an unlucky event happens, nor should you be too overjoyed or feel too self-satisfied because of a lucky event, or because something that you desire comes very easily to you.

spec

Re: Speculativeoptimist

I tried to unravel it last night.

It's possible to consider 'good and evil' as an expression of either common good/bad morality or as understanding 'higher wisdom principles' (esoteric, divine or whatever).

'Good and evil' in 'christian' (and buddhist) perspectives.

1/ Gnosticism and Buddhism: No autonomous principle of evil. They use ignorance/error instead. Common morality and intellect are subsidiary parts of a greater wisdom without a conflict between the levels of understanding.

2/ Judaism: Little, if any, autonomous principle of evil. Mankind can create A specific evil through disobedience. This doesn't lead to general evil.

3/ Paulinism: Based on pauline theology and gen 3:22 'Man' achieved the same level of understanding as Jahve (from the fruit). Though some say, that 'Man' fell FROM higher wisdom. Evil is an autonomous principle (though subsidiary to Jahve).


The actual activity (action of Eve/Adam):

1/ Gnosticism: Eve/Adam bypassed the false 'god' Jahve and achieved higher wisdom against Jahve's will.

2/ Judaism: Through disobediance mankind created A sin, for which we pay now.

3/ Paulinism: If Eve/Adam had no previous knowledge of 'good and evil', it would be like 2/: Disobedience resulting in A sin. If they however had previous knowledge of 'good and evil', they co-operated knowingly with the autonomous principle of evil, which helped them to a/ either achieve higher wisdom or b/ to loose higher wisdom. Co-operation with autonomous evil is a general sin, endagering all cosmic existence.

I'll let the paulinites sort this out themselves. Personally I go other ways.

As you can see, there are no definite black/white answers from a christian perspective. I prefer to let other perspectives, such as science, philosophy, other religious suggestions etc be part of an inclusive (and approximate) answer.

The easily observed principle of duality can be a great help to solve the equation; if you've got the patience. I would be curious to your own conclusions or somewhat conclusions.

reply to post by Nkinga


If the bible never stated any particular fruit, then theres a good chance it may well have been an apple, so i may not be wrong. Anyway i know what your saying but generaly as a rule of thumb its just easier to say apple as apposed to avocados, some berries, pears, peaches, plums, cherries, bananas, guava, pineapples, pomegranate, mangoes oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, limes,lemons,oranges etc.

All of which are infact good for you eh. The jew god can pretty much go # himself, personaly i like fruit

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


fruit = orgasm
tree of knowledge of good and evil = nervous system and carnal knowledge (sex)

eat the fruit and drain your chi / prana /lifesource

hold in the fruit.. and guide it's energy up your spine.. and activate your kundalini and pineal and evolve into a higher being with supernatural abilities.

simple.. gnosis.

not a freaking apple...
not a freaking tree..

serpent = kundalini tempting you to sneeze in orgasm.


educate yourself here -

Hi Prevenge,

that was a good example of a practical approach to dualism and much in context with this thread.

One outcome of the alleged pauline 'original sin' is ofcourse defamation of women, around which a christian fundamentalist culture of rapism has emerged. And cessation of dualism (through sexual tantra) can't be effectuated in a rape situation.

For those who want to find a scriptural link, google 'Lilith', Adam's first wife. She gives a lot of added information to the Eden scene.

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


Thank you for the nice story. I prefer this to the one about a snake telling some girl to eat knowledge from a tree, and she gets in trouble for it. That one doesn't teach me anything beyond what I already know. That if someone owns the gharden, they have the authority to kick you out if you don't obey their rules.

Hell, everyone knows that's how it goes in life. The old man and his horses story gives me some optimism and that's a good thing.

I noticed jenny bees post.
The chronicle project says there is only one tree and that it is the tree to improve. All info gets downloaded by eating the fruit. Then, how you react to the info is the problem. It is called the tree of the knowledge of being well ordered inside or to fear.
Fear as a lifestyle causes a person to die, well ordered, to mature. The info also transformed adam and eve into the form of the supreme ones (and they were not naked)
Its an amazing read. Suddenly this stuff doesn't sound so stupid any more.
If these guys at the chronicle are right, they've broken the oldest conspiracy out there.

www.thechronicleproject.org...

Be sure to read the study notes so you know they didn't just make this stuff up.

Re: Dude with the long name

When I looked at the link from your post, what I basically found was a new epistemological methodology, including some reference to general semantics.

Commendable; but in this case based on rather undigestable assumptions. As copying from this link was impossible for me, I can only refer to it slightly.

One assumption is, that biblical texts can be retranslated if the language used is considered the ur-form of language, which 'god' himself spoke; THE language. And that you can find the code to it.

Fine with me, no world-wars will start from this. But not exactly where I would like to start a search for truth myself.

reply to post by prevenge

The tree; I believe is referring to a blood line.
The fruit; can mean children of a blood line.
I do not remember most of the chapters or verse numbers.
I did read satin did not watched his tree (blood line in the garden of eden).
my opinion and thinking is satin was the first to have sex with eve, she bore his child.
Therefore knew she was naked., and hide from God.
Cain I think was satin and eve's son, who later killed his brother able.
Evil had enter into a sinless garden of eden.
The nice thing about reading the bible. We can look at things in many
different ways. Probably why it is the most read book in the world.

reply to post by bogomil

As you can see, there are no definite black/white answers from a christian perspective. I prefer to let other perspectives, such as science, philosophy, other religious suggestions etc be part of an inclusive (and approximate) answer. I was most curious about the King James interpretation and how/if it differs from original Hebrew intent.

My conclusion embodies your statement here, and I was personally curious about the King James version of translation and what it means to Christians. I found this breakdown of variation on the parable:

The major advantage to the Mechanical Translation for the student of the Bible is that it consistently translates each Hebrew word in the exact same way each time it occurs in the text. This allows the reader to see the Hebrew text, without even knowing Hebrew, in its pure form void from any personal interpretation being interjected into the text. Below are a few examples from the book of Genesis comparing the Mechanical Translation (MT) and the Revised Mechanical Translation (RMT) with Young’s Literal Translation (YLT), King James Version (KJV), the Revised Standard Version (RSV) and the Stone’s Edition Tenach (SET).

Genesis 2:17
MT:
and~from~Tree the~Discernment Functional and~Dysfunctional Not you(ms)~will~Eat From~him Given.that in~Day you(ms)~>~Eat From~him >~Die you(ms)~will~Die
RMT:
and from the tree of the discernment of function and dysfunction you will not eat from him given that in the day you eat from him a dying you will die,
YLT:
and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'
KJV:
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.
RSV:
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.
SET:
but of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad, you must not eat thereof; for on the day you eat of it, you shall surely die.

The English words "good" and "evil" (or bad) do not completely convey the Hebraic meaning of the word tov and ra which are more related to the function of a person, place or thing rather than their appearance or morality

www.ancient-hebrew.org...

I also like this differentiation:

Rabbi David Fohrman of the Hoffberger Foundation for Torah Studies, citing Maimonides's Guide for the Perplexed, states that "the tree did not give us moral awareness when we had none before. Rather, it transformed this awareness from one kind into another." After eating from the Tree, humanity's innate sense of moral awareness was transformed from concepts of true and false to concepts of good and evil. Genesis describes the tree as desirable (3:6), and our concepts of good and evil, unlike our concepts of true and false, also have an implicit measure of desire.[2]

en.wikipedia.org...

spec

reply to post by prevenge

Thanks for the input and vid, it is a good addition to the postulating....
spec

reply to post by NorEaster

Glad you got some use of the story NorEaster, that one was a "light going on" moment for me.
spec

reply to post by shoulda taken the blue pi

I will have to take some time to read thru her reference, sounds intriguing, thanks.
spec

reply to post by 19rn50

Thank you for the comment and interesting angle there.
I have enjoyed all the perspectives here, which is what I was hoping for...
spec

My view on it isn't that we were never intended to not eat of it and know good and evil but that we were not ready for the knowledge when we did. To me we exist were created to eventually not just be children and servants to God but to eventually walk in a kind of adulthood with him, much in the same ways you would with your mother and father now. They are still your parents they have raised you but now that your older and wiser on your own path the relationship has changed to now your not only their child but also their friend.

The original sin to me isn't the eating of the fruit, it was the not trusting God, further complicated by not owning up to the error in judgment. So now we had to endure things and grow into the knowledge we were not quite ready for. After we have done that we will be given the fruit from the tree of life.

[The Garden of Eden is Metaphorical ; irrationaltheorist.blogspot.com...] - My interpretation is that the key is to realize that Garden is your mind, God is interpreted as Truth, and the Tree of Life is Knowledge but that the Tree of Good and Evil is Emotion. The mind of a wise man seeks objective truth whereas the tongues of the foolish seek only to express their emotions. For you see, we all make the decision to view the world through an emotional lense of good and evil which leads to demise (of civilization as we know it), or we can make the decision to view the world through the rational lense of objective knowledge. I invented the idea of [Secular Morality of OTRAUMP ; irrationaltheorist.blogspot.com...] to dictate morality which is largely based in the tradeoff idea where morality of good is dictated by maximizing the ability of intelligent life while minimizing the amount of entropy caused to the universe (maximizing civilization technological capabilities while also maximizing civilization efficiency of material resources and energy).

[A mathematical demonstration is displayed here ; 1.bp.blogspot.com...]

It's all symbolic and not to be taken literal.
The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is actually the introduction to Science itself.
Think about it, after eating from that tree they became wiser about themselves and their surroundings.
Of course this came at a price because as a result they turned their backs on everything natural, including nature itself.
Now man is on the verge of creating life themselves so in a way man has indeed become God-like.

reply to post by 19rn50


i think the fairy tale version that you percieve .... it past due.. and the real root wisdom within it is time to share

sexuality, intimacy, tantric lovemaking... no snakes or devils.

the snake is the kundalnii energy up the spine tempting you to have orgasm..
this isn't my "opinion" .. .this is base meaning.. it is portrayed in every religion.


every religion.

i think that saying is definitely intended to control the masses, and since people disobey it, it is not an absolute law (an absolute law is something nothing can break, a law of the universe that no other law can contradict). As for the devil is in the detail, it all depends on where the mind is focused, if the mind is focused on the physical details, then there is the possibility of suffering, but if the mind is focused on the esoteric, then there is a chance for liberation.