Why did Adam and Eve not eat of the tree of life first?

[Greatest I am]

Why did Adam and Eve not eat of the tree of life first?

 

Was it because life is not worth living without the knowledge of good and evil?

 

Which tree would you eat from first?

 

Regards

DL

[Fuzzwood]

From the "cherry".

[Ringer]

Probably because there wasn't death before the original sin according to many.

[Greatest I am]

Apologies. I could not use the quote function here.

 

 

 

Fuzzwood

 

You do know that this myth has been used to discriminate and denigrate women and gays forever. Right?

 

It is disingenuous FMPOV to make light of it and not discredit literal reading of it.

 

Do you believe that women and gays are second class citizens?

 

Regards

DL

 

--------------------------------------------

 

Ringer

 

Scriptures show God doing the first killing but do you really believe that there was no death before Original Sin or that man doing sin created death?

 

Regards

DL

Edited March 5, 2014 by Greatest I am

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

Ok, nobody suggested that anyone is a second class citizen. So, before a little joke turns into a huge flame war, I want to warn all participants that on this forum, you must always be nice to each other. Always.

 

So, in summary: Be nice to each other, or else!

 

Sent from my evil lair.

[Endy0816]

I look at it as a metaphor for obtaining the intelligence that allowed us to formulate moral values. Freedom from death is then blocked by a "sword" often used to represent War.

 

If you want the literal, they were never forbidden to eat from the Tree of Life. Presumably it just did not have any effect until after they had eaten from the Tree of Knowledge.

[mooeypoo]

Because it's a parable about the dangers of asking questions that lead to doubt? That "sin" is worse than all others in religions that seek to control the beliefs of their followers, much more so than the desire to live longer.

[StringJunky]

Because it's a parable about the dangers of asking questions that lead to doubt? That "sin" is worse than all others in religions that seek to control the beliefs of their followers, much more so than the desire to live longer.

I saw the story as Man's transition from animal to autonomous thinker with self-awareness and self-determination ...God let go of controlling Man's destiny from therein basically because he had acquired freewill. I'm not saying I'm right but this has always been my interpretation in the absence of 'correct' teaching.

Edited March 5, 2014 by StringJunky

[John Cuthber]

I want to know what idiot let the snake into the garden?

I mean, it's not like they couldn't tell what would happen.

 

What were they thinking of?

 

(I'd also like to know how come people believe that it was all paradise until someone decided not to follow the rules; and that someone was a woman.

Seriously?)

[mooeypoo]

I saw the story as Man's transition from animal to autonomous thinker with self-awareness and self-determination ...God let go of controlling Man's destiny from therein basically because he had acquired freewill. I'm not saying I'm right but this has always been my interpretation in the absence of 'correct' teaching.

What's the worst thing people in the religion could do? Doubt.

 

The majority of the old testament is created as a set of dogmatic rulebook and cautionary tales for people in the tribal culture of the Israelites to follow. It emphasizes control over the masses, limits the way of communication with other societies to prevent intermarriage and "degradation" of the culture (and power) and states clear rules about what can and can't be done in the family unit.

 

In this context, the story of creation is cautionary. God gives you everything, even the pretense of free will -- just don't you dare doubt. Don't dare being curious about the world around you with questions your religious leaders can't answer.

 

It's a culture-control book. And it worked.

[StringJunky]

It's a culture-control book. And it worked.

Yes I can see that was likely the intent of the authors and compilers.

[Phi for All]

Isn't this one of the Bible contradictions? Doesn't God tell them they can eat from any tree except Knowledge, but then Life is mentioned later as a forbidden tree?

 

I look at it as a metaphor for obtaining the intelligence that allowed us to formulate moral values.

 

Interesting, especially when you consider this was when the first lie was told. Not by the snake; oddly enough it was God who said Adam and Eve would die if they ever ate of the Tree of Knowledge.

[mooeypoo]

Isn't this one of the Bible contradictions? Doesn't God tell them they can eat from any tree except Knowledge, but then Life is mentioned later as a forbidden tree?

 

 

There are many contradictions in the creation story (the least of which is the fact there are three versions of it...) but I don't remember anything about the Tree of Life being prohibited later. The tree of knowledge, as far as I remember, was the intended dogmatic message, and Adam and Eve lost access to the Tree of Life when they were expelled from the Garden of Eden, which is why we don't live forever.

 

QED, etc. etc.

[Phi for All]

 

 

There are many contradictions in the creation story (the least of which is the fact there are three versions of it...) but I don't remember anything about the Tree of Life being prohibited later. The tree of knowledge, as far as I remember, was the intended dogmatic message, and Adam and Eve lost access to the Tree of Life when they were expelled from the Garden of Eden, which is why we don't live forever.

 

QED, etc. etc.

 

Genesis 3:22 "And the LORD God said, 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever'"

 

This implies there was another tree they weren't allowed to eat from besides Knowledge.

[mooeypoo]

As far as I always understood, the problem wasn't the tree of life, but rather a MIX. So, once man ate from the tree of knowledge, he knew "right and wrong" -- similar to god, could make decisions of morals. So, to make sure that man doesn't become god, he was prevented from eating the tree of knowledge.

 

The text is vague, and you may be right, but that was always my understanding. I'll look up if there are other interpretations.

[Fuzzwood]

 

You do know that this myth has been used to discriminate and denigrate women and gays forever. Right?

 

It is disingenuous FMPOV to make light of it and not discredit literal reading of it.

 

Do you believe that women and gays are second class citizens?

 

Regards

DL

I think you took my comment wrongly. From how I see it and the way most religions look at sex for pleasure, Adam and Eve were banned from the paradise for engaging in sexual arts other than for procreation. I leave 'eating the cherry/plum' to your imaginations. NSFW.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Fuzzwood

[Endy0816]

 

Genesis 3:22 "And the LORD God said, 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever'"

 

This implies there was another tree they weren't allowed to eat from besides Knowledge.

 

They were apparently free to eat from it up to that point. Not recorded if they ever did or did not though, as far as I could tell.

 

 

Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. ¹⁶ And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; ¹⁷ 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 surely die.”

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202&version=NKJV

 

I read this as God saying Man would instead live a finite time if they ate of the Tree of Knowledge. Not that they'll necessarily keel over then and there. Worst case He could just have an odd definition of the word "day" which we do have a good bit of evidence for.

 

Even afterwards He didn't verbally forbid access to the Tree of Life. Possibly He realized the sheer contrariness of His creation by that point... Instead He assigned some pissed cherubim with a sword to keep the humans off His lawn.

 

[Phi for All]

 

I read this as God saying Man would instead live a finite time if they ate of the Tree of Knowledge. Not that they'll necessarily keel over then and there. Worst case He could just have an odd definition of the word "day" which we do have a good bit of evidence for.

 

 

As in, "Back in Adam and Eve's day..." Good point. I've argued with creationists over the definitions of the word "yom", so I guess I have to acknowledge it may be the case here.

[mooeypoo]

I've argued with creationists over the definitions of the word "yom", so I guess I have to acknowledge it may be the case here.

Ah, the arguments about "Yom."

 

It's funner when you actually speak the language "yom" is used in. But I digress.

[Lightmeow]

So according to the story, is knowledge the first sin, or free will?

 

 

I think you took my comment wrongly. From how I see it and the way most religions look at sex for pleasure, Adam and Eve were banned from the paradise for engaging in sexual arts other than for procreation. I leave 'eating the cherry/plum' to your imaginations. NSFW.

 

I don't think of this that way. Adam and Eve realized they were naked, as the story goes. Wouldn't you say them and the cloths was more of an act of them leaving the animal kingdom, because they were aware. I don't think any animal other than the human covers up their body. Of course, you could say we do it for warmth, but that argument is invalid when I have to sit in a hot classroom full of smelly peers during the summer months, and I don't see anyone naked. Come to think about it, isn't their a law about walking around in public is not right and you will get in trouble if you do?

 

 

I saw the story as Man's transition from animal to autonomous thinker with self-awareness and self-determination ...God let go of controlling Man's destiny from therein basically because he had acquired freewill. I'm not saying I'm right but this has always been my interpretation in the absence of 'correct' teaching.

 

So I agree with you on that stringJunky

[mooeypoo]

If we go by the story of creation alone, free will can't be a sin, it was given by god.

 

The question was whether the first sin was disobedience (in which case the tree of knowledge doesn't matter, because the sin was ignoring God's command) or Curiosity (in which case the tree of knowledge was meaningful.)

 

Of course that ignores the contradictions and the fact God pretty much set everybody up, including the poor snake.

[Ringer]

Ringer

 

Scriptures show God doing the first killing but do you really believe that there was no death before Original Sin or that man doing sin created death?

 

Regards

DL

I don't believe original sin, I'm just giving a reason within that belief system.

[Greatest I am]

Endy

 

Presumably is not allowed as it adds to the story and we are not to do so.

 

If you are correct and that it is a story of how to gain a moral sense, then was God wrong in punishing A & E for doing the right thing?

 

Regards

DL

 

---------------------------------

 

mooeypoo

 

Churches are not into social manipulation are they?

 

Just kidding. Good point.

 

Regards

DL

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

Fuzzwood

 

There is nothing in the text that supports your view and I discard it for that reason.

 

You did not speak to the equality of women and gays.

 

Are they equal in all ways to you and I?

 

Regards

DL

 

----------------------------------------

 

mooehpoo

 

The tree of knowledge is te knowledge of almost everything.

 

Care to wonder why God would want us to stay in ignorant bliss and as bright as bricks.

 

Not even knowing one is naked made A & E as dumb as rocks, --- or maybe 2 year olds.

 

Regards

DL

Edited March 6, 2014 by Greatest I am

[Endy0816]

Either:

 

A) it had no effect prior to

 

or

 

B) it would have made Adam and Eve immortal

 

If B is true then God apparently didn't care and Adam and Eve just happened not to have already eaten from it. I don't see this as casting anyone in a good light, so I prefer A.

 

As far as gaining a moral sense goes, I was really thinking in terms of metaphor not as a literal interpretation.

 

If you want literal then God asked for good behavior from people lacking knowledge of good and evil. One can only hope that the whole thing was part of His Plan and that Adam and Eve weren't being punished but merely sent on their way as God intended from the start.

 

 

[mooeypoo]

mooehpoo

 

The tree of knowledge is te knowledge of almost everything.

 

Care to wonder why God would want us to stay in ignorant bliss and as bright as bricks.

 

Not even knowing one is naked made A & E as dumb as rocks, --- or maybe 2 year olds.

 

Regards

DL

Because knowledge is power, and power may only be God's.

 

And in a more practical sense, because the parable warns you, the lowly human, of the dangers of asking too many questions and being overly curious. God gave you a good thing here, dude. He knows best, and when he doesn't, your pastor does.

 

This is all about power.

 

 

 

That said, I disagree that the tree of knowledge is *all* of knowledge. Adam and Eve ate from it and they don't know everything; they got the sense of curiosity and the sense of doubt. It's a tree that has the *essense* of knowldge (which is the danger to god) rather than pure 1+1=2 knowldge.