Tree of Knowledge

[Zzyzx]

.

Genesis 2:17 KJV But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Adam and Eve of bible tales were humans, weren't they?

What fruit of what tree will impart knowledge of any kind (including good and evil) if eaten by humans?

What fruit of what tree will kill humans the day they eat it?

The bible tale is very specific in regards these conditions.

Is the tale NOT true (literally)? If not, why is it presented as truthful?

[jerrygg38]

[Replying to post 3 by ttruscott]

The fruit of the tree is symbolic for any experience a person has that opens their eyes to their guilt and their need to repent and become a better person. This is a great blessing and is integral to HIS fulfillment of HIS promise of election to HIS Church on earth.

Peace, Ted

And as we all know, feelings of personal guilt and self loathing are desirable qualities in a healthy person and are therefore generally qualities that we should all first dig deep to identify in ourselves and then studiously strive to develop. Because they so nicely complement that healthy end of times/Armageddon death wish.

Gee, I think you got it wrong that guilt is healthy UNLESS you start with the fact that the person is in fact guilty and only an acceptance of that guilt will impel repentance and seeking a cure.

The holy angels have never sinned and so they know no guilt and have no need to eat of the tree but they had a full knowledge of good and evil because they fought Satan and threw him and his demons out of heaven before the creation of the world. In other words, eating of the tree is not to become aware of the difference between good and evil but to become aware of the evil you are denying in yourself. Evil people think they are right and doing good, sometimes even loving and constantly denying their sin and rejecting all guilt feelings as unhealthy. They will never know the truth if they never eat of the tree and have their eyes opened to their sin and seek redemption from their GOD.

Peace, Ted

Sorry Ted, but I just don't hate myself. I have never caused another person harm, and that is really the only litmus test that matters. I loved my kids, and they grew into fine adults. I've never stolen, and I've never cheated on my taxes. Never been arrested. I have had the odd sexual urge over the course of my life, but I certainly don't hate myself for that. You can beat yourself up over that sort of thing if you like. But don't expect the rest of us to wallow in that sort of unhealthful self loathing over perfectly healthy urges. I'm in no great hurry for this life to be over either, since it's the only existence I am certain of. I really am at peace with myself.

Wow you sound like a saint. In my understanding of God salvation can occur for individuals who have no belief after they are dead. A worthy person such as what you project yourself to be will not be immediately erased upon death. Your soul has a mind and you will find yourself quite alive. At that time you can reach out to God to continue your existence. It may be that you have a new soul. Often people who have reincarnated many times feel their soul inside of themselves. This causes them to be a believer. In any event you will have a final choice to go on or be erased. there is no pain in erasure. In fact the worst of man feels nothing at all. the only people who could suffer in death are those who will go on. They must be cleansed before reincarnating. For myself I will suffer a little but I deserve it. I am no saint. Good luck.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 11 by jerrygg38]

Wow you sound like a saint. In my understanding of God salvation can occur for individuals who have no belief after they are dead. A worthy person such as what you project yourself to be will not be immediately erased upon death. Your soul has a mind and you will find yourself quite alive. At that time you can reach out to God to continue your existence. It may be that you have a new soul. Often people who have reincarnated many times feel their soul inside of themselves. This causes them to be a believer. In any event you will have a final choice to go on or be erased. there is no pain in erasure. In fact the worst of man feels nothing at all. the only people who could suffer in death are those who will go on. They must be cleansed before reincarnating. For myself I will suffer a little but I deserve it. I am no saint. Good luck.

I'm no Saint either. Read the first part of chapter 5 of Acts. It tells of the extortion murder of Ananias and his wife Sapphira at the hands of Saint Peter and his band of thugs. I am a much better person than those folks, as, I suspect, are you.

[ttruscott]

...

How could so many versions of the bible be so wrong? Don't editors know how to convey a simple idea without misunderstanding?

Not all the versions are wrong - even the one's written correctly can be read wrong. It is all interpretation and all interpretation is from a preconceived bias. The bias universally agreed to be wrong in the anti-Christ bias.

The Hebrew is:
But of the tree h6086 ×¢Öµ×¥ `ets
of the knowledge h1847 דַּעַת da`ath
of good h2896 טוֹב towb
and evil, h7451 רַע ra`
thou shalt not eat h398 �ָכַל 'akal
of it: for in the day h3117 יוֹ� yowm
that thou eatest h398 �ָכַל 'akal
thereof thou shalt surely h4191 מוּת muwth
die. h4191 מוּת muwth

That is why I contend that no bible study will bring you the truth, only the Holy Spirit.

Peace, Ted

[Aegir]

[Replying to post 13 by ttruscott]

Not all the versions are wrong - even the one's written correctly can be read wrong. It is all interpretation and all interpretation is from a preconceived bias. The bias universally agreed to be wrong in the anti-Christ bias.

This might be slightly off topic but I'm wondering since entire thread is about different interpretations of bible.
How do you know which interpretation is wrong and which isn't? (Assuming translation is correct) On what basis can one make claim that certain interpretation is more or less wrong than any other? Especially when it comes to bible. I live in catholic country and no one I know (I'm talking about people I know, I'm not making general claim about catholics) believes that god throws unbelievers in hell. Is that interpretation correct? How can you know? If you can't know how can you base any debate on arbitrary interpretations that all could be wrong?

[Zzyzx]

.

That is why I contend that no bible study will bring you the truth, only the Holy Spirit.

If what the bible clearly says disagrees with your position, claim special understanding you receive from proposed spirits

That may work in church but not in debate

[ttruscott]

.

That is why I contend that no bible study will bring you the truth, only the Holy Spirit.

If what the bible clearly says disagrees with your position, claim special understanding you receive from proposed spirits

That may work in church but not in debate

Of course it cannot work in debate - debate rules is a useless way to discuss spiritual things... but you can debate the logic of the Christian stance, whether it has internal cohesion etc.

Peace, Ted

[Zzyzx]

.

That is why I contend that no bible study will bring you the truth, only the Holy Spirit.

If what the bible clearly says disagrees with your position, claim special understanding you receive from proposed spirits

That may work in church but not in debate

Of course it cannot work in debate - debate rules is a useless way to discuss spiritual things... but you can debate the logic of the Christian stance, whether it has internal cohesion etc.

Nearly ANY position, proposition or ideology can be constructed with "internal cohesion."

So what should such cohesion be taken to indicate?

[1213]

Kindly explain how eating ANY fruit imparts knowledge of good and evil.

Any fruit can give the knowledge, if it is said that “if you eat it, you will know good and evil like God and you will die�. When person does it, he sees the results and can understand what is evil. In A&E case, they rejected God actually, when they ate the fruit, and then they saw what it means to be without God, when they lost their life with God. (Good is to be with God and evil is to be without God).

The conditions supposedly set by God in the bible tale include that if A&E ate the fruit they would die THAT DAY. (Refer to scriptures if in doubt).

That is true, and as you may notice, they lost their life (=die) with God and were expelled to this world that can be called death.

If so, the tale about fruit and serpent etc is immaterial (but perhaps helpful for simple-minded people to catch on). Right?

I don’t think so. I believe it all happened as the Bible tells, but material things give only the settings.

[Zzyzx]

.

Kindly explain how eating ANY fruit imparts knowledge of good and evil.

Any fruit can give the knowledge, if it is said that “if you eat it, you will know good and evil like God and you will die�.

Thus, those who eat a lot of bananas, oranges and apples know a great deal, particularly if they chant that incantation?

When person does it, he sees the results and can understand what is evil.

Some who eat a lot of fruit don't seem to be particularly knowledgeable or wise. Is that because they didn't pray right?

In A&E case, they rejected God actually, when they ate the fruit, and then they saw what it means to be without God, when they lost their life with God. (Good is to be with God and evil is to be without God).

Any competent teacher could improve on "God's" teaching technique.

The conditions supposedly set by God in the bible tale include that if A&E ate the fruit they would die THAT DAY. (Refer to scriptures if in doubt).

That is true, and as you may notice, they lost their life (=die) with God and were expelled to this world that can be called death.

Right. Since they evidently did not die that day as "scripture" dictates, redefine the word "die" to mean something completely different so the obvious error is "explained."

A great deal of the bible seems to require word play, redefinition, re-translation, and creative linguistics to get around obvious errors and contradictions.

If any position I held to be truthful and accurate required word gymnastics, I would VERY critically examine the evidence behind that position and consider changing my views to something that did not require "creative explanation" or excuses when challenged.

If so, the tale about fruit and serpent etc is immaterial (but perhaps helpful for simple-minded people to catch on). Right?

I don’t think so. I believe it all happened as the Bible tells, but material things give only the settings.

Is this to say that biblical "spiritual" things happened as described but real-world things may not have happened as described?


BTW, "Simple minded people" was not intended for anyone personally or any group in particular; however, if someone thinks the shoe may fit they are welcome to try it on for size.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Adam and Eve of bible tales were humans, weren't they?

Well about that.

What fruit of what tree will impart knowledge of any kind (including good and evil) if eaten by humans?

Any that can be bit to tell if they've got worms in 'em, or if ya can eat 'em. It's been proposed the development of color vision in primates is, if partially, a result of the need to know if fruit is ripe. Not that Zzyzx needed that told to him.

What fruit of what tree will kill humans the day they eat it?

Any apples from out back of the kitchen, 'cause them's her pie cookin' apples.

The bible tale is very specific in regards these conditions.

Is the tale NOT true (literally)?

Not literally true. It's as much a tall tale as how it got so hot one summer, the corn went to poppin' and the cows thought it was snow and froze to death.

If not, why is it presented as truthful?

Errant conclusions. If pressed, I'd report an emotional component coupled with anthropocentricism. Subjects present to be real proud of him, but observation of their gods will remain forever within their own eyes.

The ones we call religious, we elect. The ones we call delusional, we institutionalize, or worse.