Two Trees in the Garden of Eden

by God_Delusion 21 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • God_Delusion
    God_Delusion

    Isn't it weird how so few know that there were actually two major trees in the Garden of Eden account.

    There was the Tree of Knowledge (of Good and Bad) and there was also the Tree of Life.

    Genesis chapter 3 makes is quite clear that God banished Adam and Eve from the Garden and placed an angel to guard the Tree of Life, so that they might not eat from it again. Is this implying that the two perfect humans had to eat from the tree in order to have eternal life? If not, why protect it?

    I did some mulling over this point and realised that the main reason all Christian religions/cults gloss over this fact, is that it would make Jesus' ransom sacrifice null and void. Think about it for a minute or so. If perfection meant that you didn't live forever, but needed to eat from a tree to do so, why did Jesus die for our sins? What purpose would that serve?

    If anyone has any ideas, please let me know.

    Cheers,

    Carlos

  • bohm
    bohm

    this, and the fact you need to eat the flesh of jesus and drink his blood to gain eternal life lead to one conclusion:

    Jesus is made out of fruit.

  • freydo
    freydo

    It is very weird and what's even more weird is the way the wtbt$$ addresses it, saying that the tree of life is only symbolic of universal sovereignty. That used to really irritate me along with Matt 18 where it says speak to the congregation that they spin into speak to the elders.

  • Chalam
    Chalam

    Hello God_Delusion

    The answer is here

    There Were Two Trees in the Garden (Divine Destiny)

    Happy reading :)

    Blessings,

    Stephen

  • St George of England
    St George of England

    Many years ago I heard a public talk that dealt with this. The bro said there were two trees in the Garden of Eden and that Jehovah would have allowed time to pass for Adam & Eve to prove their faithfulness by not eating of the forbidden tree and he would then have let them eat of the tree of life which would have given them immortality.

    Do not know where he got that info but that is what he said.

    All a bit pointless of course if you think A & E were just an alllegorical tale!

    George

  • ProdigalSon
    ProdigalSon

    They were the same tree, the snake was the good guy, and Jehovah was really Satan.

    PS

  • TheOldHippie
    TheOldHippie

    St.George - I also have heard that one, in a talk.

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    Your title made me think this was going to be a joke. So I will make it one.

    Two trees in the Garden of Eden notice that a new small tree begins to grow between them.
    Wanting to know which tree is the parent, the first tree asks "Is that a son of a beech or a son of a birch?"
    The second tree says he cannot tell.
    Just then a woodpecker lands on the sapling.
    The first tree says, "Woodpecker, you are a tree expert. Can you tell if that is a son of a beech or a son of a birch?"
    The woodpecker takes a taste of the small tree.
    He replies, "It is neither a son of a beech nor a son of a birch. It is, however, the best piece of ash I have ever put my pecker in."

  • RubaDub
    RubaDub
    Is this implying that the two perfect humans had to eat from the tree in order to have eternal life?

    Delusion ...

    Yes, that is exactly correct.

    I also read that only perfect people could eat from the Tree of Life. The angel guarded it since any imperfect people that ate the fruit would get the squirts.

    Rub a Dub

  • djeggnog
    djeggnog

    @God_Delusion:

    Isn't it weird how so few know that there were actually two major trees in the Garden of Eden account.

    This isn't true of Jehovah's Witnesses, even those who may have faded or left learned that there were two trees in Eden of note.

    Genesis chapter 3 makes is quite clear that God banished Adam and Eve from the Garden and placed an angel to guard the Tree of Life, so that they might not eat from it again.

    But this is not what Genesis chapter 3, or any other chapter in the Bible, says at all! Neither Adam nor Eve ever ate any of the fruit from the tree of life.

    Is this implying that the two perfect humans had to eat from the tree in order to have eternal life?

    There is no such implication in the Genesis account.

    If not, why protect it?

    There is nothing in Genesis 3 that suggests that God posted cherubs at the east of the garden of Eden to protect the tree of life, but since Adam and Eve's sin barred them from realizing the promise of eternal life that eating from the tree of life represented, God evicted them and posted cherubs to guard the way to the tree of life.

    I did some mulling over this point and realised that the main reason all Christian religions/cults gloss over this fact, is that it would make Jesus' ransom sacrifice null and void.

    Your mention of "Jesus' ransom sacrifice" here suggests to me that you reallydon't have any idea what you are saying here. Had Adam and Eve not sinned, what need would there have been for a perfect and righteous man to die to obtain a release for anyone? Does this make any sense to you?

    A ransom to release whom from what? Adam's offspring were born in sin, which is why God made possible the provision of the ransom through Christ in order that those exercising faith in the ransom might obtain a release through Jesus Christ. If man had not fallen into sin, there would have been no need for a ransom

    If perfection meant that you didn't live forever, but needed to eat from a tree to do so, why did Jesus die for our sins? What purpose would that serve?

    Where in the Bible does it say anything about perfect human beings needing to eat from the tree of life in order to live forever? Two things are clear to me: (1) You don't really comprehend the reason that Jesus had to die, and (2) You make the assumption here that Adam and Eve knew that there was a tree of life. You know that there was a tree of life in Eden, but Adam and Eve didn't know about any such tree at all. Perhaps you should consider a Bible study with one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and not with someone that merely calls himself or herself one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and conducts Bible studies with folks motivated by the desire to show off what things he or she believes have been learned over a year or two from their having studied the Bible.

    @djeggnog

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit