It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


I believe I may have found the tree of knowledge!

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 07:31 AM
At the risk of ridicule and flames, I am about to post something that has been on my mind. I believe I may know where the tree of knowledge that adam and eve ate from, may be found. Let me first explain that I do not interpret the bible as most would preach it. I believe that the book is there and can be read just fine by me. I do not need someone to tell me what it means or how I am supposed to interpret it any more than I need them to come over to my house and translate the directions for me on how to cook mac and cheese, I consider myself somewhat capable.
I could not help but notice the other day when I was reading about the rise of Homosapians that what set them apart from the neandrethal man who was also living at the time, was the fact that they ate meat. This action is was caused the brain to grow faster and bigger, increasing the Homo's mental capacity and allowing them to flourish while the Neandrethal slowly dissapeared.

This is where the story gets fun, at least for me.

I am not a Christian but I was raised in a born again household and was indoctrinated with scriptures from the bible for as long as I can remember so I am somewhat knowledgeable when it comes to biblical stories so my mind made a connection. I began thinking about the bible and about Adam and Eve gaining knowledge by eating some fruit from a tree. Or at least that is what I was told happened. Did it? Yes and no. Lets take a look.

Genesis Chapter 3

1 (J) Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
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.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

So it was ok to eat of every treee of the garden, but the tree in the midst of the garden was off limits. Let's take a closer look at that statement.

I was told in sunday school that the tree was in the middle of the garden like most I'm sure, but this is not what it says, is says in the midst of the garden not the middle. Big difference! "In the midst" of the garden means that the tree would be existing in the garden but not of the Garden. Adam and eve where in the midst of the garden but where not a tree or plant, they simply existed there. What is my point you ask? I believe that the tree of knowledge was not a tree at all, at least not in the literal sense. I believe that what they could have been referring to was a tree but more along these lines.

Veins, they are the givers of life and certainly bare fruit. ie: Meat.

I believe it is possible that we were never supposed to eat meat and that is the tree that is referred to in the bible. Adam and eve were given protective care of all of the animals in the garden and where told to eat the fruit of the trees of the garden but do not eat the fruit(meat)of the trees(veins) in the midst of the garden. This could also account for the "knowledge" gained from doing so. Not only the literal sense of the brain growing, but also the understanding of death and suffering, which would have been previously unknown to them ie: knowledge. It would also accont for why suddenly the animals were afraid of them and where the clothes made from skins came from. There is much more to this scenario that I do not have the time to go into know but will when I have more time. I posted this to encourage discussion on the matter, for or against that may shed more light on this theory. It would also explain how we are born into sin(our forefathers being meat-eaters) and our ability to repent, (stop eating meat).

For the record, I am not saying any of this is true, I am simply opening a discussion on something that has been on my mind for a while now.

And for the record, I do eat meat....but that may soon change.

I aslo believe that Adam and Eve could also be generic representation of early man and not nesscessarily two individuals. I encourage all opinions and thoughts on this subject. I am also aware of the sesitivity of this subject and wish to remind everyone to keep it civil

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 08:00 AM
Interesting, but I'm pretty sure Neanderthals ate lots of meat. As far as I know they made specialized tools for butchering meat and treating skins, left tool marks on mastodon bones, etc. That may be a flaw in your theory.

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 08:27 AM
I like your theory, though there is one part of it that may need revisiting. According to Merriam-Webster "midst" does mean "the interior or central part or point : middle."

It may be a stretch of definition to use the word to mean that it is not actually part of the thing that it is in the center of, if that makes sense.

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 09:13 AM
Right on!
These are the things I wanted to hear. Thanks for the contributions
I am just wondering what context the word was meant to be taken. One can also say "I am in the midst of cleaning" it simply implies a reference point as to where one is at in regards to the action being taken, not neccesarily meaning in the middle of doing something as opposed to an actual location. See the other definitions provided.

2 : a position of proximity to the members of a group

3 : the condition of being surrounded or beset

4 : a period of time about the middle of a continuing act or condition

I'm still working on this one so bear with me
I may be totally off as well. All contribuitions appreciated.

[edit on 5-4-2008 by kleverone]

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 09:22 AM

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Interesting, but I'm pretty sure Neanderthals ate lots of meat. As far as I know they made specialized tools for butchering meat and treating skins, left tool marks on mastodon bones, etc. That may be a flaw in your theory.

I am probably incorrect on that fact. I am not sure exactly when it time it started or with what group but there is certainly evidence to suggest that when we started to eat meat, our brains grew along with our skulls. I will have to do more research into the exact period but it is semantics at this point. I will investigate. Thanks for the input

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 09:34 AM
I guess it would be better worded if I were to say.....Is there enough evidence to suggest that the story of Adam and Eve is an account of how Humans evolved from the conscienceness level of animals to that of us today. Are animals aware of Pain and Suffering? Do they weigh decisions before taking action. Is this story simply the account of that happening, and defining the moment where Humans made the seperation from animal conscienceness to a higher level of understanding or knowledge, packaged in a fun little story that would compartmentalize millions of years of evolution into one small period of time.

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 11:12 AM
Why are you looking up the meaning of the word in English????

You should instead be digging out the version in the Hebrew language and analysing the word used in that:

וּמִפְּרִי הָעֵץ, אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹךְ-הַגָּן--אָמַר אֱלֹהִים לֹא
תֹאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ, וְלֹא תִגְּעוּ בּוֹ: פֶּן-תְּמֻתוּן.

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 11:31 AM
I would think that what many people may have done in those times was looked to nature to see what they ate. And since monkeys also occassionally eat meat and are strong, this might be why some of us did also.

To bring up neanderthal also for some reason reminds me of the curse upon Cain. I was lead to believe from somehwere that Cain killed Abel over a burnt offering from supposedly eating it. I think it's highly suspicious that the lord liked these types of cook-outs or barbeques.

Don't forget about the gnostics and their claims of an evil or beastly god also.

The idea that we were originally designed to be vegetarians might be true for some of us back then, but because of the mark of Cain, this may be why they bring up the story of the spirit willing and flesh (makes us) weak (from the desire to eat it?)

It's almost as if the bible uses neanderthals to explain away their existance as being the Mark or curse of Cain. Cain may have been outcast from higher man to live with the beasts of those days such as the neanderthals.

I tried to be a vegetarian and ended up getting sick and very weak over it. I checked out some nutrician resources and that supposedly people who are O+ need to eat meat. So the mark or curse of Cain may be our blood type or genes.

So, it's back to our DNA as the tree of life?

Since some people bring up extraterrestrials and the serpent race, I can't help but wonder if these aliens may have been responsible for this genetic meddling and desire to make us vegetarians like they were. Possibly because some of us may have been crossed with them genetically.

Primitive human nature when tempted or forced out, is also similar to this beast; mark or curse of Cain. Many seem to associate this steroid affect to eating meat and that vegetarians more likely to be passive and lower the labido. The human race may then supposedly have evolved as a different species if we had stuck to a vegetarian diet.

According to some religions, to fast or abstain from eating certain foods at times supposedly is some type of cleansing reminder also. I think this has more to do with parasites and toxins by being more regular and eating a healthier balanced diet. Healthy body; healthy mind; healthy spirit?

Knowing the truth in all of these isssues may be what the god source is all about.

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 12:02 PM
reply to post by kleverone

Are animals aware of Pain and Suffering? Do they weigh decisions before taking action.

Sure, look at how the female lions hunt. They track their prey and use tactics with each other to take down their food. If say a human was to drive up they would fore go the kill to analyze what this new threat could mean. That to me shows somewhat intelligence. Its a basic survival instinct that most if not all species has. (decisions before action)

Dogs and cats seem to be very aware of pain and suffering. I have seen this with my own eyes. My friends Grandmother was dying of cancer and her dog just new. He would always try and comfort her and wouldn't leave her side in her last moments. I think animals have a keen sense of pain and suffering. Although not an exact science, they are using dogs to sniff out illness in some places and 9 times out of 10 they are correct. I've even had a cat that would know when I was down and out and would try to cheer me up and keep me company...I know maybe Im crazy but....

I do like your theory though, very unique. Considering how long ago that the story of Adam and Eve took place, is it not possible that the land masses were a lot closer together if not completely together (pangia) at that time? I know its a bit off topic but I have also wondered where Eden used to be and if it was possible to find the location today.....providing its not under 5000 meters of water. Also in the bible, didn't God say it was ok to eat meat from the animals as long as it wasn't an animal with cloven feet?

[edit on 5-4-2008 by QBSneak000]

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 01:06 PM
I think what is needed here is someone that speaks Hebrew that might explain what the word "midst" might actually mean and more importantly if it has a double meaning. I'm sure the original meaning has changed over the years.

I think I understand your theory but the fact that we all have incisors as teeth tells me we are designed to eat meat.

So my next question would be if Adam and Eve had incisors as well?
Or have we evolved since the days of Eden and are incisors the result of eating meat?

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 03:18 PM
I like your “take” or interpretation of the story. I think this is what the bible is all about, not Dogma or by wrote, but rather to be studied from all aspects and perspectives.

Let him that hath an ear, let him hear.

One of the interesting aspects that I always liked was the interpretation of the GOD of Adam and Eve was not the real GOD at all. Rather that the REAL GOD manifested himself in the form of a serpent slipped into the garden and exposed the fraud of this creature who was misrepresenting himself as GOD.

The Tree of Life was also interpreted as the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The tree may have had some sort of consciousness expanding properties that opened the eyes of Adam and Eve as being victims of some sort of deception and exploitation.

One opinion was the “tree” was some sort of mushroom?

Decption and Exploitation ? What a concept ?

Lunar Lizardz

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 04:18 PM
Cain, the 'bad' guy was the farmer......his offerings of grain was not as acceptable to God as Abel's offerings of the 'fattest lamb' of his God rewarded the meat eaters.....? With more intelligence?

Almost seems in contradiction to the other part of the story.....

The 'tree of knowledge of good and evil' was the 'forbidden' fruit that Eve was given by the serpent......It gave them knowledge ( or intelligence from a better source of protein?)....

Then Eve and Adam were removed from the garden so that they would not also eat of the 'tree of life'.....and live forever.

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 04:26 PM
Here's another potential flaw in your theory. If we weren't supposed to eat meat, why would we have teeth for that purpose? If we were intended to be herbivores, we'd probably have teeth like cows.

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 04:45 PM
I have a few questions on this subject.

Why would they become aware of being naked from eating something.

And were they in another form and when they ate they polarized and became part of duality rather than one with god?

If they ate light then they may find the tree of knowledge and learn how to use the light to live forever.

It's a puzzle alright.

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 04:53 PM
Those people that lived back then are no more or less important than people that are living now. I don't know why we keep going back to this one book when there are millions of books in the world with the possibility to add something profound to the human experience. I don't have faith that the Bible hasn't been tampered with. I do have faith that the truth is the truth.

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 04:59 PM

Originally posted by stikkinikki
I do have faith that the truth is the truth.

And just what might be that truth and where would one find it.

I have always been intrigued by the symbology of the eating of the fruit, yet can never quite pin it down.

Interesting take with the meat idea, Kleverone, I know a few people who believe that carniverous behavior has hurt mankind.

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 05:40 PM
Greetings all,

Having been a student of comparative religion, and having spent a lot of time studying the Hebrew scriptures and writings of the sages, let me address this theory and offer you the classical understanding of vegetarianism within the context of the Torah. According to the sages, man was initially vegetarian, this was true for Adam and his descendants according to the orthodox sources. Apparently mankind, according to the Hebrew Bible, began eating meat after the flood of Noach (Noah). The commentators have gone so far as to say that vegetarianism is not a lofty or righteous thing, and in fact the last time that mankind was completely vegetarian God had to wipe out all of mankind except for Noah and his family due to their wickedness (theft and murder were the two primary examples of their wickedness given in the text). Noah, apparently with the Covenant of the Rainbow was given permission to eat meat, and in the language of some commentators, they state that he was given the commandment to eat meat (to elevate the divine sparks within the animals). Some rabbis of the more mystical traditions have postulated that a physiological change occurred to Human DNA at this point in history. To be fair, the orthodox view is that meat should be eaten sparingly, killed in very specific ways as to not ingest the blood of an animal (and to limit the suffering of the animal), and according to some opinions only to be eaten on the Sabbath (shabbat) or on a Yom Tov (holy day, i.e. holiday). The gluttonous eating of meat is prohibited, and I seem to remember a passage (not sure if it's Talmud or Mishneh) that states one should only eat meat if they have a desire to do so, but I'd have to try and locate that particular passage. So, as interesting a possibility as the OP posits, according to the classical Jewish understanding, the first generation to actually eat meat was the post-flood generation. I'm just adding this because according to the Jewish commentators, it doesn't sound like the Tree of Knowledge was meat or blood in any stretch of the imagination. According to other sources, if Adam had eaten from the Tree of Life (which apparently did not bear fruit in the way the Tree of Knowledge did) first and then eaten from the Tree of Knowledge things would've been fine, and there would've been no expulsion from the Garden of Eden (Gan Eden in Hebrew). There is an interesting video I saw on this subject from Rabbi Pinchas Winston that has some interesting insight into the both the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge: rtsp://

Hopefully this will be of interest to those following this thread, I am not necessarily making any statements about how the Bible should be interpreted, but I think at the very least for scholarly purposes this is an interesting and noteworthy perspective, both in terms of history and exegesis.


posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 11:59 PM
So the Neanderthals became biologists and coroners and before they ate meat and became smart? Lol, sorry, but blood viens and trees are very obviously different. I think your taking something and then putting a whole different spin that makes even less sense on it. Sorry, but my personal opion (if I'm reading what you wrote) is that this is one of the silliest things since macro evolution. Also, try and take other peoples advice instead of having your mind made up about what the bible says, because of my openmindness I finally understand some things about the bible I never knew before and my belief in it is more solid than ever.

posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 12:09 AM
reply to post by QBSneak000

Yes of course, I believe cats are some of the closest creatures to us in terms of emotion. They have a LOT of emotion. Anyone who has lived with one until they grow old and die will see how human they are, and the older they get the more human they seem haha.

I think some people like to think of animals not being as emotional as us, because it's easier to live with it, knowing that animals suffer everyday.

posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 04:31 AM

Originally posted by kleverone
For the record, I am not saying any of this is true, I am simply opening a discussion on something that has been on my mind for a while now.

I have to be open and say that I don't think it is any truer than all the other interpretations of the bible, however...

As a mental exercise I think it is quite brilliant and clearly demonstrates how you can construct any meaning from the bible if you put your mind to it. I really enjoyed the reasoning, it could be used for the vegetarian version of the bible, I would bet that you could develop a cult following if you applied yourself to interpreting the entire bible.

Excellent thread in an unusual way

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in