by cedars 190 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
palmtree67 - now we're getting somewhere! So if there was nothing death-dealing or poisonous in the fruit itself, what of inherited sin? Would you agree that the narrative in the first 3 chapters doesn't actually describe the idea of inherited sin as we know it, only an expulsion due to a one-off act of obedience that gave humans a knowledge to which they weren't entitled?
Cedars
From the text, I think NO.
Gen 3:22 indicates that AFTER eating from the Tree of Knowledge, they needed to be prevented from eating from the Tree of Life. Thus, the expulsion from the garden.
I don't agree. I think they did. Not eating from the Tree of Life only became an issue after eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Before then, there was no restriction in the text. The only restriction was the Tree of Knowledge.
And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken
After eating of the Tree of Knowledge, they had to be banished from the Garden in order to prevent them from eating from the Tree of Life. Before then it wasn't necessary.
Were they not driven out of the garden PRECISELY so they could not eat from the Tree of Life ?
N.drew -
Your reasoning doesn't work with me Botch because they ate from much more than trees. Why were trees mentioned, but not dark green leafy vegetables?
Do you mean like spinach? Does Popeye have a role to play in all this?!
Cedars
one-off act of obedience that gave humans a knowledge to which they weren't entitled?
I think it does not mean they were not entitled to it. I think it means she acted on her impatience for something that was not hers yet.
Spinach? Popeye?
yes and no.
So, Botch.....are you saying that acheiving immortality would have been a 2-step process:
FIRST - eat from the tree of knowledge,
THEN - eat from the tree of life.
These steps in reverse order, wouldn't have given them immortality?
My point is that, if as it says in the account, the "knowledge of good and bad" makes one LIKE God, then how can it simultaneously be described as sin?! Would this not make God sinful?
Not necessarily. There are things that pertain to God, and things that pertain to humans. To eat from the tree represents trying to be something a human is not, which is God.
Your reasoning doesn't work with me Botch because they ate from much more than trees. Why were trees mentioned, but not dark green leafy vegetables?
And for that matter, yellow kernal vegetables? Dark purple fleshy vegetables? (the word Aubergine would be a hint)
Ancient metaphor.
So, Botch.....are you saying that acheiving immortality would have been a 2-step process:
FIRST - eat from the tree of knowledge,
THEN - eat from the tree of life.
First, this is not a literal story in my view. Second, I don't think eating from the tree of life is a one and done in the story. I think it is something that needed to be done continually.
From Revelation again:
On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. Rev 22:2
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. Rev 22:19
