Gods Intention.

a reply to: Smigg
The tree of knowledge of good and evil is about division.

It has two ways to be......good or evil.

But the tree of life is about no division.....no separation.

What is is.

But thought says.....no not like this, I want other.

Is there other than what actually is?

There's only one:

Not two.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Smigg
The tree of knowledge of good and evil is about division.

It has two ways to be......good or evil.

But the tree of life is about no division.....no separation.

What is is.

But thought says.....no not like this, I want other.

Is there other than what actually is?

There's only one:

Not two.

Then the only reason for The Tree Of Knowledge Of Good And Evil was God wanted to see if Adam would sin against Him ?

I'm sure if God wanted to create a sinless being he could but what good would that being be in reality where good and evil exist ?
To Know good you have to know evil and vice versa so a being created that is only good is half a creation.

To live and exist on this Earth there are many obstacles, the harder the life is the path to understanding your existence here on Earth, a spoiled existence creates and delivers nothing.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Smigg

True. Unfortunately, there will still be some humans who won't learn or grow from their mistakes.

God wouldn't have it any other way.

a reply to: Smigg

Life is what is happening...... there are not two lifes.

Life is the only way.

But thoughts say there is a you that can be good or bad.

The belief that there is a choice...is the mistake (sin).

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Smigg

Life is what is happening...... there are not two lifes.

Life is the only way.

But thoughts say there is a you that can be good or bad.

The belief that there is a choice...is the mistake (sin).

What was Gods reason for the Tree Of Knowledge Of Good And Evil and why did He name it so ?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

But thoughts say there is a you that can be good or bad.

The belief that there is a choice...is the mistake (sin).

Create your own religion all you want, by God gave everyone free will to choose and to be held responsible for those choices...

Isaiah 65:12

12 Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.

The story might be alot older then most think, but it was said that there were 2 trees/fruits in the Garden.

The Fruit of Knowledge and the Fruit of Immortality, but God specifically tells Eve, a woman, not to eat from the TOK. The Serpent in Eden, also makes a comment about being gods if she are the FOK, without mentioning the FOI.

However, when the FOK was eaten, Eve an Adam both became aware of her nakedness/shame or mortality for the first time instead of being indifferent like they always were. Got kicked out, and has a giant fire wall angel keeping it barred for good. And thus, they started to reproduce, and that where all babies come from, instead of consenual Sin in a wasteland.

For arguments sake, if we bit from the TOI, we might as well still be animals, or develop a serious exoskeleton, and wouldn't need arts or science to compensate of fragility, which is what makes us dangerous.

Artistole said if a man can actually live an be alone, he might as well be a Beast or God. Thus kind of proving our dependence on civilization, and that we are social creatures, rather then solitary Predators.

a reply to: Proto88

As a parallel, in the story of Gilgamesh, Enki was a wild man intune with nature until the gods tempted him with a woman. The woman "civilized" him but he lost his animal closeness in the exchange.

The tree of knowledge being the ability to see past your animal self.

a reply to: Proto88 The story might be alot older then most think, but it was said that there were 2 trees/fruits in the Garden.

Seems there are a lot more trees with fruit on them than two.

Gen 2:9, 16-17 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. . . And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 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.

It would seem every tree was edible at that time.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Yea, but none of the other trees or their fruits have elaborate names like those two. God had to point to it, to a woman, not go there, which she eventually does anyways. All while the fruit of Immortality/Life seems completely accessible, and preserving their innocence or ignorance sort of speak.

originally posted by: Randomname2
a reply to: TzarChasm

If it was Gods intention he would have told them to eat from that rotten poisoned tree, Adam and Eve are his children, he didn’t trick them to kill them.

It is commonly held among those of the faith that God never makes mistakes and is never surprised. As such it logically follows the events in Eden known as "the fall of man" happened exactly as God foresaw because that's what he had planned all along.

a reply to: oddscreenname

Dont know, but what really separates man from beast, cause it ain't woman...ill say that right now.

Then again, maybe it sub/un-conscious thing, some thing akin to Instinct vs Ego maybe. Yes, it from Dragon Ball, but it kind of fits, since animals don't aren't psychologically as driven, as they are physiologically.

a reply to: Proto88

I've often wondered if innocence and ignorance are the same thing. Does knowledge breed corruption or does corruption breed knowledge? Or perhaps corruption falsely conflates itself with knowledge to suppress the discipline of collecting and processing data that would inevitably expose it? Being ignorant doesn't mean you are gentle and kind, while being innocent doesn't mean you are uneducated. So what kind of information is dangerous and by what metric is that hazard determined?

a reply to: TzarChasm
Info is never the complete story....so knowledge is corruption.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I am as befuddled as you are, and is usually up to hindsight, and after the fact.it just one of those topics that has a fine line, like love an hate, or courage an stupidity, while crazy is both.

"I think I can", dangerous as it gets.

a reply to: Proto88

Again you assume. The other trees may very well have had elaborate names but these were the two trees God points out. To say they only had elaborate names is wrong. Better to say, "there were the only two trees mentioned by name in the Bible so this draws our attention to why these trees are named . . ." And from their build on your teaching.

Now my last reply was not about just these two trees. You said rather dogmatically there was no other trees with fruit. and I quote:

. . . but it was said that there were 2 trees/fruits in the Garden.

All there trees had fruit, leaves, roots all of which were also to e eaten. Look again carefully at the wording of Gen 2:16-17

And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. . . And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 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.

OF EVERY TREE (MORE THAN THE TWO) OF THE GARDEN THOU MAYEST FREELY EAT. That is important for there were more than two fruits.

The only tree that was forbidden was the only one they ate from. And it was this tree that Eve saw that was "a tree that was desired to make one wise" This was Eve's desire that was given to her husband as part of her curse because she disobeyed.


They were never told they could not eat of the Tree of Life. But once they ate the forbidden tree's fruit God did not want them to eat the tree of life because they would be forever in a sinful state, and that is against GOD'S Nature and plan for man. So he kept man from it.

My point in pointing this out is, one small word can mislead without the intention of misleading. I hear pastors all the time say the silliest things that are not even true to God's word, the holy scriptures of the KJB1611. Most of which is designed to get them to follow law after salvation with things like Tithing (not a church doctrine taught by Paul), Abstaining from going into certain places(NOT A CHURCH DOCTRINE), looking at certain things and even some go as far as to put on the church dietary restrictions(NOT A CHURCH DOCTRINE).

To say only two fruits makes it sound that the other trees had none, but that would be our opinion not a bible fact. Especially when Genesis two tells us they could eat of all the tress of the garden but the one they ate from. Even Eve admitted such when she replied to the serpent "We may eat of the fruit of the trees PLURAL of the garden:But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it,

I think the best thing we can do is not add our opinions to our teaching or sharing of God's words so we don't cause anyone to be misled. I have pointed this out to others here on ATS R,F&T Forum about this very issue, but they refused to accept the correction and still do it. That is making their opinions equal to the word of God and that is where we err. I learned this and it took time but I am getting to where if my statement is not scripturally supported I will reword my statement so it is as not to mislead. Because if it is not lined up with the bible then it is my opinion.

Let me give you an example, I will use a verse from the Gen Chapter Two which you are familiar with.

Genesis 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Read the verse and then identify from what we already know from Genesis chapters 1,2 & 3:1-5, what was added to God's words and what was not. (if you want too, later do it for the whole section vv1-5 it is mind blowing). Eve's unscriptural addition to God's word was this

neither shall ye touch it

is not fact from what is known from the last three chapters, therefore it is her opinion added to it.

Beware of news agencies as they do this all the time one added word or opinion can change the whole story and that is what the MSM are doing today.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

The only tree that was forbidden was the only one they ate from. And it was this tree that Eve saw that was "a tree that was desired to make one wise" This was Eve's desire that was given to her husband as part of her curse because she disobeyed.

The stories in the bible are about you.

Which tree do you eat from?

a reply to: Smigg
Life is what is happening.

To eat from the tree of life.....is to be in direct contact with what is actual....non conceptual.

Knowledge.....good and bad ..... symbolic.....words...... descriptions.....ideas.....concepts.

Eating from the tree of knowledge is not being with what is actual..... it's abstraction.

Do you live in the past and future?
Is the head full of what happened and what will happen?
Full of stories about you and what will become of you?

The one life is not about becoming......it is already being all that is.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

None, My faith on Jesus Death on the cross, his burial and his resurrection alone have already given me eternal life and when I am gathered unto him I will receive my new perfect body. Nothing to add to it and nothing can take it away from me.

a reply to: Smigg

I'm going to have to disagree with that. That tree may have had something planned for it in the future or maybe just to serve as an option. We chose wrong..