Who told the truth in the garden?

My take on this story is that they did die, in the sense of being excluded from access to the "Tree of Life".

This involves assuming that they were eating continually from the Tree of Life as long as they were in the garden. Well, why not? Nobody ever forbade them to eat from that Tree, and nothing else would have stopped them. As long as they were doing that, they had "Life".

Then the whole point of expelling them from the garden would have been to deny them further access to the Tree. They lost "Life", and in place of it they were left with "life", which is what we have now.

I suggest that the difference between "Life" and "life" is something like the difference between being plugged into the mains supply and running on batteries. Losing the first is sufficiently close to death that it is reasonable to say that Adam and Eve "died".

The gospel promise, as implied by the Tree of Life at the end of Revelation, is the restoration of Life.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
My take on this story is that they did die, in the sense of being excluded from access to the "Tree of Life".

This involves assuming that they were eating continually from the Tree of Life as long as they were in the garden. Well, why not? Nobody ever forbade them to eat from that Tree, and nothing else would have stopped them. As long as they were doing that, they had "Life".

This means that if they quit eating from it, they would eventually die...even if they hadn't sinned. Which means that death already existed and sin did not cause it. Did the animals eat from that tree too, or did they die?

Originally posted by DISRAELI
Then the whole point of expelling them from the garden would have been to deny them further access to the Tree. They lost "Life", and in place of it they were left with "life", which is what we have now.

I suggest that the difference between "Life" and "life" is something like the difference between being plugged into the mains supply and running on batteries. Losing the first is sufficiently close to death that it is reasonable to say that Adam and Eve "died".

The gospel promise, as implied by the Tree of Life at the end of Revelation, is the restoration of Life.

Again, is that how vague god is? Is his communication that bad, that he can't be clear as to what he means? Adam, Eve, and the Serpent...the only other intelligent beings in the garden besides god, it would seem....all believed it to be a threat of physical death the moment they touched that fruit.

And as a side note, is the Tree of Life more powerful than god? Could he not cause Adam and Eve to die even if they kept eating that fruit?



[edit on 18-4-2010 by Hydroman]

[edit on 18-4-2010 by Hydroman]

the way I've come to interpret the "knowledge of good and evil" part is that the fruit gave them the ability to judge what was good and what was evil. the was evil in the garden for them to know, afterall, wasn't the serpant in the garden chatting with eve (adam probably left the garden's gate open again!)
there was a place for the serpant in the garden, he had a purpose....most of those things that we deem as evil, do in fact serve a purpose.
but well....let's go with the idea that it was the ability for adam and eve to judge those things as being good or bad....
let's look at the curses now....
eve would be deemed the lessor of the two, and be force to serve adam, and childbirth would be more painful for her.

and adam, well, he would be force to toil from dusk till dawn....

okay, the suppression of women is the result of someone looking at the male and the female, deciding that one is stronger, more intelligent, more adept at making decisions, ect. ect....... without the ability to judge such things, well...it would have never happened!

and well, those of you or have brought a child into the world know that when those labor pains come, well, they have alot less bite if your are relaxed and not fighting them! to deem them as "bad" and resist them is much more painful!
and well,....compare our modern day life to what you imagine life in that garden was like.....money, ya, it's good to have some type of token that we can use for exchanging goods and services....work, ya, it's good for people to work, after all idle hands get into mischief....ect. ect.....well, thanks to our ability to judge...people now are expected to do all different kinds of work, eating up earth's resources in the process, producing a bunch of crap that reallly isn't needed.....just for the food and shelter that they need! sometimes 12 or more hours a day!!!

god created the perfect living environment for the human species and provided it to them by placing them in the garden.... one of the two decided that this, and that, and oh, yes this little aspect over there just wasn't right, and well....proceeded to mess with perfection and we've been messing with it ever since!

or then again, maybe we were originally created to be slaves for some alien species and they really didn't want us to start judging just how badly they were treating us.....and got really, really ticked when one of their own clued us in!

Originally posted by Hydroman
This means that if they quit eating from it, they would eventually die...even if they hadn't sinned. Which means that death already existed and sin did not cause it. Did the animals eat from that tree too, or did they die?

Again, is that how vague god is? Is his communication that bad, that he can't be clear as to what he means? Adam, Eve, and the Serpent...the only other intelligent beings in the garden besides god, it would seem....all believed it to be a threat of physical death the moment they touched that fruit.

And as a side note, is the Tree of Life more powerful than god? Could he not cause Adam and Eve to die even if they kept eating that fruit?

In the first place, I don't assume that the story is a literal account, and I'm not arguing on that basis.
I suspect that we agree that the story is metaphorical.
I'm simply trying to demonstate that, as a metaphor, it is self-consistent.

In those terms, I think the answers to your questions would be-

They would not have stopped eating the fruit- it simply represents the access to God which they lost through the alienation described by this story. This really covers your last question as well.
In terms of my original explanation, the animals have got "life", and are not intended to have "Life", so they did not need the Tree.
Finally, this being a metaphorical story, it can be assumed that the participants knew what he meant, and that Adam and Eve would have considered themselves to have "died" in the sense I suggested.

My two cents !?

God does not lie.
God days are mentioned in the bible last a 1000 years and a 1000 years last a day. Cryptic ? Yes but if Adam and Eve indeed died at 900 they still are within a 1000 years ( or a day ) for God.

The serpent does not lie either.
The serpent does not use a lie in any argument what is written.
At the most you could say it did not offer all there is to know.

What is clear from this myth, is that regardless of the urging by Satan, both Adam and Eve chose to know both Good and Evil and in doing so they could not possibly remain in a Paradise where evil was not welcome.

I disagree with this quote because both God and the serpent both know evil as well as the angels. ( God says "like us" ) Don't know looks pretty clear to me.

The question that needs to be asked is why did God create this Tree of Knowledge in the first place? What was the purpose for having this "temptation" in a world that was supposedly perfect at the time? God created Adam and Eve, the Tree of knowledge and the serpent. Is God therefore not negligent in failing to foresee that one of his creations (snake) would lead his other creations down a dire path?

This is one compelling question and it totaly breaks down a part of Christian belief. God is not all knowing. Or God willingly chooses this path for us . This makes it rather cruel to punish us for sin He knew we were
sin in the first place.

Eden was a real place and somewhere in the lush environment that's Iraq right know. ( Used to be a paradise in ancient times )

Ok where are we.

There are many contradictions in the bible. Not only in the old testament but especially between the old and the new there is an entire world of difference.

Judaism has a few fundamental differences with Christianity and it's no secret the bible is a composed book. Their are a number of holy scriptures which are not coming back in the bible. And all other ancient scripture was destroyed part by accident and part on behalf of the churge.

The way power is implemented control gained say pretty clear that the institute of religion ( in this case the churge ) is by far not intended for a constructive counseling or negotiating function.

Jesus apparently said that in the end of days the majority of the people would be living based on a lie.

Does this not suit what has been the institute to spread the teachings of Jesus ? The same institute that act contradicting in regards to the teachings of Jesus.
Non followers of Christ are plentiful. So are the ways they follow. Does this suit living a lie ? I'll repeat a lie as in one.

What keeps us from peace is often religion it divides us and with it control one side of the divided. Isn't dividing not one of the most brilliant and most successful move to conquer and so rule.

There are pretty convincing stories around that talk about alien gods.
Which surprisingly are more true to the truth then what is written in the bible. A better explenation for some of the things God says like "us"and "we" , for miracles and descriptions found in the bible.
Also surprisingly related with civilisation from another place ( continent ) and even a lot of local myth ?

The suggestion here is that the lord God is the evil one that uses us as slaves and the serpent rescues us to be free.

The alien idea is also related to a few stories where a deliberate stop is is caused for us not to be able to achieve the unimaginable.
As well as warnings to prevent us from science or knowledge.


I can't tell you what the truth is. Because I don't know.
I can say that the truth presented to you by the church is full of contradiction, holes, and way to many occasions it could be changed and sabotaged. Along with the actions done in the name of God.

I say, it's pretty unreliable.

As for you're question They are both telling the truth and they are both not telling the whole story.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

In the first place, I don't assume that the story is a literal account, and I'm not arguing on that basis.
I suspect that we agree that the story is metaphorical.
I'm simply trying to demonstate that, as a metaphor, it is self-consistent.

In those terms, I think the answers to your questions would be-

They would not have stopped eating the fruit- it simply represents the access to God which they lost through the alienation described by this story. This really covers your last question as well.
In terms of my original explanation, the animals have got "life", and are not intended to have "Life", so they did not need the Tree.
Finally, this being a metaphorical story, it can be assumed that the participants knew what he meant, and that Adam and Eve would have considered themselves to have "died" in the sense I suggested.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
God days are mentioned in the bible last a 1000 years and a 1000 years last a day. Cryptic ? Yes but if Adam and Eve indeed died at 900 they still are within a 1000 years ( or a day ) for God.

I knew that would come up, that's why I already countered it in the first post.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas

I disagree with this quote because both God and the serpent both know evil as well as the angels. ( God says "like us" ) Don't know looks pretty clear to me.

However God, Satan, and the angels came to know evil, if humans are to know it there is only one way to do so, and that is through experiential knowledge. In order for Adam and Eve to "know" evil they would have to experience it, and such experience would be in short supply in The Garden of Eden. Even Satan, undeniably and angel, had to take the form of a serpent just to gain access to the Garden. This suggests that evil was not welcome in Paradise.

reply to post by Hydroman


I know I read it. I mentioned it again because the most replies after the OP ar not being read.
Some times even the OP isn't even completed.

It's a shame people don't they miss out all the good stuff.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


How is God himself not effected by His unwanted stay ?

To know evil is to feel a moral as a law. Every evil around is subject to personal perception which on turn is decided by the group you live in.

[edit on 18-4-2010 by Sinter Klaas]

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

How is God himself not effected by His unwanted stay ?

To know evil is to feel a moral as a law. Every evil around is subject to personal perception which on turn is decided by the group you live in.

[edit on 18-4-2010 by Sinter Klaas]

Not at all sure what point you are trying to make here, but all I am saying is that Adam and Eve could not possibly come to know evil if they continued to live an idyllic life in The Garden of Eden.

reply to post by Hydroman
Three thing happened when Adam and Eve sinned.

1. They lost the immediate companionship of the Spirit.
2. They lost access to the Tree of Life.
3. They lost soveriegnty over the earth.

So they died 'spiritually' and 'physically' death was inevitable.

In the Messiah the 'seed of men' recovered all three.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I don't imply anything.

I just think your argument isn't based with what is written in the bible. It's an assumption .

I'm not saying I'm right here. Just that I don't agree with what you assume the reason could be. Because it holds no ground.

Correct me if I'm wrong tho. Being wrong happens to me a lot.

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by Hydroman

 

Three thing happened when Adam and Eve sinned.

1. They lost the immediate companionship of the Spirit.
2. They lost access to the Tree of Life.
3. They lost soveriegnty over the earth.

So they died 'spiritually' and 'physically' death was inevitable.

In the Messiah the 'seed of men' recovered all three.

1.
The spirit chose not to give company anymore.

2.
Yeah they should have been told that yes. Sounds like some info was hold back

3.
No they didn't souvereignty was already in the hands of the prince of darkness.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas

I don't imply anything.

I have no idea what this comment means.

I just think your argument isn't based with what is written in the bible. It's an assumption .

That's funny I think the same of your argument.

I'm not saying I'm right here. Just that I don't agree with what you assume the reason could be. Because it holds no ground.

Then refute the argument instead of pretending dismissing the argument will suffice.

Correct me if I'm wrong tho. Being wrong happens to me a lot

I don't really think right or wrong comes into play when interpreting scripture. The whole point of spirituality or even religion is that it is completely a personal experience. While religions are no doubt a collective, attending church will not make a person religious, anymore than attending the theater will make a person an actor.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
What is clear from this myth, is that regardless of the urging by Satan, both Adam and Eve chose to know both Good and Evil and in doing so they could not possibly remain in a Paradise where evil was not welcome.

How was Satan in the garden to begin with if evil was not welcome in Paradise? Did he mentally posses the serpent?

All must understand, the Gnostic Christians believed the serpent was the hero in the story and the entity telling Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree was a demon. As you look through out history and expand your knowledge of symbols you will all realize that the serpent is Good not evil!

]Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

I have no idea what this comment means.

To be honest. Me neither Sorry.

That's funny I think the same of your argument.

No offense taken it is nothing more then a guess.
I did make this guess from what I have read in the bible and other places.

I don't recall reading anything what could be interpreting yours.

Then refute the argument instead of pretending dismissing the argument will suffice.

Where should I refute it with then ?

I don't really think right or wrong comes into play when interpreting scripture. The whole point of spirituality or even religion is that it is completely a personal experience. While religions are no doubt a collective, attending church will not make a person religious, anymore than attending the theater will make a person an actor.

I can't really say I don't agree with you here.

I was under the assumption that wherever someone disagrees with you. Maybe a question and explanation would be a nice thing'. For the sake of a good discussion. This was what I tried to do. Not in any way a yes or now argument. or something similar.
Isn't this where a discussion forum is all about ? Instead of asking proof a discussion explaining why.
Especially on thes kinda questions. I could be wrong or maybe my way of trying is a bad way.

Please ? Your thoughts would be appreciated.

It's all a lie. Serpents don't speak!

To me this makes Genesis an incredible work of fiction. People even back when the story was written could be quite imaginative.

[edit on 18-4-2010 by Blanca Rose]

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


I most whole heartedly agree with you that questions and attempts at answers regarding this issue is a darn good thing. I asked you to refute my own assertions because you seemed to be comfortable with Genesis and I figured you would turn to scripture itself to refute my interpretation. Not that I believe there is anything in Genesis that would do so, but that has never stopped anyone in the past from attempting to do so anyway.

I realize my interpretation is not the norm in regards to the whole "fall from grace" and "expulsion" mythology. Here is what I would suggest to you; The God presented by those who argue that this myth is a cautionary tale warning against disobeying God seem to ignore many flaws with such an argument. A.) All of humanity now has no access to Paradise at the moment because of what Adam and Eve did then, so why should anyone care what God thinks about disobeying orders? B.) The God presented as first a loving and compassionate God and then suddenly a jealous and vengeful God presents a God with a sort neurosis. C.) The focus on punishment rather than the consequences to choices we make has become the interpretation most sold to the public.

I would suggest to you that we should not be angry with Adam and Eve for thrusting upon us "this original sin", but understand that what they did was choose knowledge over comfort, and this is worthy of admiration. I would then suggest that by following my interpretation, God remains the loving and compassionate God who is not at all jealous, vengeful, nor neurotic, and the expulsion from the Garden was not punishment, it was just simply the consequence of choosing to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Finally, I would suggest that if the focus was placed upon the adventure that followed for humanity rather than the perceived punishment from God, we would all be a little less neurotic and less inclined to punish each other. Just some thoughts.