Need help understanding "Tree of Life" in Genesis 3:23

[HappyGrace]

So were Adam and Eve NOT going to live forever unless they ate of that tree, and God took that possibility away (of living forever) after they sinned?

 

For some reason I was thinking they would have lived forever if they hadn't sinned.

 

And then also the kids pointed out today that maybe they were eating of that tree all along to keep them alive and then God took it away so they wouldn't keep eating of it. (I hadn't though of it that way before, but I guess it's possible since they WERE allowed to eat of every tree in the garden except the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil)

 

I can't find this info in my commentaries-thanks for any help!

[Scarlett]

So were Adam and Eve NOT going to live forever unless they ate of that tree, and God took that possibility away (of living forever) after they sinned?

 

For some reason I was thinking they would have lived forever if they hadn't sinned.

 

And then also the kids pointed out today that maybe they were eating of that tree all along to keep them alive and then God took it away so they wouldn't keep eating of it. (I hadn't though of it that way before, but I guess it's possible since they WERE allowed to eat of every tree in the garden except the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil)

 

I can't find this info in my commentaries-thanks for any help!

 

Gen 2: 15-17 clearly says that they are not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad for 'in the day you eat from it you will positively die.'

 

They would have lived forever in perfection had they not disobeyed that command.

[Scarlett]

So were Adam and Eve NOT going to live forever unless they ate of that tree, and God took that possibility away (of living forever) after they sinned?

 

This sentence confuses me....are you saying the sin was something other than eating from the tree?

[Spy Car]

You can't "sin" if you don't know good from evil.

 

Bill

[HappyGrace]

Yes, Scarlett-I'm sorry-that was confusing the way I worded it. No, I meant would they have lived forever had they NOT sinned by eating from Tree of Good and Evil. And thank you, you answered it in your original post!

 

Bill-they directly disobeyed the command to not eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil-that was the sin; they DID know not to eat of that tree or they would surely die-it was told to them clearly.

[Spy Car]

 

Bill-they directly disobeyed the command to not eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil-that was the sin; they DID know not to eat of that tree or they would surely die-it was told to them clearly.

 

But disobedience, in the absence of understanding good from evil, is not sin. One can only sin if one has moral discernment (that is to say, that one knows good from evil). See what I mean?

 

Bill

[sheryl]

Yes, Scarlett-I'm sorry-that was confusing the way I worded it. No, I meant would they have lived forever had they NOT sinned by eating from Tree of Good and Evil. And thank you, you answered it in your original post!

 

Bill-they directly disobeyed the command to not eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil-that was the sin; they DID know not to eat of that tree or they would surely die-it was told to them clearly.

 

HG, Scarlett is correct. And, you are too. G-D specifically commanded Adam NOT (that's the commandment) eat of that particular tree. They had a choice to submit (obey, follow command) or rebel/defy (disobey, not follow command). They had a choice. Obviously so, because they did, in fact, eat from the tree and at that point man was "fallen".

 

Bill, the Garden was VOID of evil UP TO the eating of the fruit. Genesis tells us G-D spoke at the end of each day's creation that "it was good". The Garden was paradise....all was good b/c G-D is good and perfect. He is the Creator Who created the goodness and perfection found in the Garden.

 

A/E had a choice (free will). Note that G-D made this known up front what NOT to eat.

 

ETA: we're not talking about future generations. OP stated A/E.

Edited February 28, 2012 by sheryl

[Spy Car]

 

Bill, the Garden was VOID of evil UP TO the eating of the fruit. Genesis tells us G-D spoke at the end of each day's creation that "it was good". The Garden was paradise....all was good b/c G-D is good and perfect. He is the Creator Who created the goodness and perfection found in the Garden.

 

A/E had a choice (free will). Note that G-D made this known up front what NOT to eat.

 

ETA: we're not talking about future generations. OP stated A/E.

 

This does not speak to the issue. If Adam and Eve did not know good from evil their act of disobedience could not have been "sinful." To act sinfully (and morally) it requires knowing the difference, and choosing to go either good or evil.

 

Bill

[Cricket]

This does not speak to the issue. If Adam and Eve did not know good from evil their act of disobedience could not have been "sinful." To act sinfully (and morally) it requires knowing the difference, and choosing to go either good or evil.

 

Bill

 

I disagree. Disobedience doesn't require a knowledge of evil and choosing evil. Disobedience to someone who has moral authority over you is sinful.

[Zebra]

The definition of sin is disobeying God. God directly told them not to, they chose to do it anyway, therefore it is sin.

[curlylocks]

I disagree. Disobedience doesn't require a knowledge of evil and choosing evil. Disobedience to someone who has moral authority over you is sinful.

 

The definition of sin is disobeying God. God directly told them not to, they chose to do it anyway, therefore it is sin.

 

:iagree:

[sheryl]

This does not speak to the issue. If Adam and Eve did not know good from evil their act of disobedience could not have been "sinful." To act sinfully (and morally) it requires knowing the difference, and choosing to go either good or evil.

 

Bill

 

But, but, but, Bill, it "does" speak to the issue. The very essence of their "willful" not doing as they were told is disobeying G-D. They could NOT have known what sin was b/c it did not exist UNTIL they ate of the forbidden fruit. At that point, sin entered the world.

 

Respectfully, it seems there is a little confusion here. I agree with you, Bill, that AFTER the fruit was eaten A/E DID know the difference b/t good and evil b/c their eyes were "opened"....an understanding of such matters. UP TO the eating they did not know or experience sin....all was well in the Garden. It was paradise.

 

Today, yes, most people know of the difference b/t good and evil. But, you are crossing time lines to speak of A/E, the only inhabitants in the world, and humanity after "THE FALL".

[CatholicMom]

But disobedience, in the absence of understanding good from evil, is not sin. One can only sin if one has moral discernment (that is to say, that one knows good from evil). See what I mean?

 

Bill

 

I think you're missing the point. I believe the phrase "the knowledge of good and evil" isn't referring to the knowledge of the existence or possibility or meaning of "good" and "evil". To put it another way, the claim that Adam and Eve "didn't have knowledge of good and evil" before they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is not to say they had no idea what good or evil was prior to eating the fruit. If that were the case then we would have to believe that from the moment they were created, all the time they were walking in the very presence of God Almighty, talking with Him, worshiping Him, living in utter sinlessness and beauty, that they didn't recognize these things (or God!) as "good" at all, or know what "good" meant either. That's nonsensical.

 

I believe what's meant by the assertion that Adam and Eve did not have "the knowledge of good and evil" is that they didn't have intimate knowledge of good and evil. They didn't understand all the consequences. They didn't have first-hand experience. They probably didn't have a full understanding of the depth of evil. That doesn't mean they didn't know it was WRONG of them to eat the fruit though God told them not to. They knew full well He said not to and that this was disobedient but they did it anyway because Satan tricked them into distrusting God's word (that if they ate of it they would "surely die," etc). They sinned because they disobeyed willfully.

 

After they sinned, they had intimate first-hand knowledge of good and evil and they would witness and experience the effects of evil the rest of their lives.

 

BTW, the scriptures often use the word "know" for "intimate experience." For instance, Mary said to the angel Gabriel that she "knew not a man" (i.e. she's never had intercourse with a man... not that she didn't know what a man was! She was engaged at the time!). ;) So that language is kind of a theme and this isn't the only case of "know" being used in this way.

 

To answer the OP's question: Yes, Adam and Eve would have lived forever if they had not sinned. God created man to live forever but chose to curse mankind with death (among other things) because man sinned against Him.

 

HTH

Edited February 28, 2012 by TaraJo29

[CatholicMom]

Sorry for double-posting my speech, but I thought it might have gotten missed. Not sure why it posted way up there (maybe b/c I hit reply to Bill up there?). ANYWAY:

 

Bill, I think you're missing the point. The phrase "the knowledge of good and evil" isn't referring to the knowledge of the existence or possibility or meaning of "good" and "evil". To put it another way, the claim that Adam and Eve "didn't have knowledge of good and evil" before they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is not to say they had no idea what good or evil was prior to eating the fruit. If that were the case then we would have to believe that from the moment they were created, all the time they were walking in the very presence of God Almighty, talking with Him, worshiping Him, living in utter sinlessness and beauty, that they didn't recognize these things (or God!) as "good" at all, or know what "good" meant either. That's nonsensical.

 

I believe what's meant by the assertion that Adam and Eve did not have "the knowledge of good and evil" is that they didn't have intimate knowledge of good and evil. They didn't understand all the consequences. They didn't have first-hand experience. They probably didn't have a full understanding of the depth of evil. That doesn't mean they didn't know it was WRONG of them to eat the fruit though God told them not to. They knew full well He said not to and that this was disobedient but they did it anyway because Satan tricked them into distrusting God's word (that if they ate of it they would "surely die," etc). They sinned because they disobeyed willfully.

 

After they sinned, they had intimate first-hand knowledge of good and evil and they would witness and experience the effects of evil the rest of their lives.

 

BTW, the scriptures often use the word "know" for "intimate experience." For instance, Mary said to the angel Gabriel that she "knew not a man" (i.e. she's never had intercourse with a man... not that she didn't know what a man was! She was engaged at the time!). So that language is kind of a theme and this isn't the only case of "know" being used in this way.

 

To answer the OP's question: Yes, Adam and Eve would have lived forever if they had not sinned. God created man to live forever but chose to curse mankind with death (among other things) because man sinned against Him.

[HappyGrace]

What, exactly, was the tree to do with it then? If they were going to live forever without the tree anyway, why did God have to make it inaccessible; in other words, what was the tree's purpose, if not to provide for eternal life (since they already had that anyway before then)?

Edited February 28, 2012 by HappyGrace

[CatholicMom]

I don't have any idea what the tree's purpose was. As far as I remember, the scriptures don't tell us that information. We can speculate, but we just don't know what God's purpose was in putting it there. Maybe it was pretty! Maybe they could use the fruit for other things. Maybe only God could eat the fruit. We have NO idea (as far as I know). Maybe it was also a purposeful test. I think that one is likely. God still tests His people, he still rewards them for holding fast to the truth, and he still punishes them lovingly for doing wrong. Adam and Eve failed the test and God was angry and sad. Rightly so. He is just.

 

I think Adam and Eve were not eating the fruit for any reason prior to eating it when they sinned by doing so. They could eat of any fruit in the garden EXCEPT that one, and they knew it. God made it clear. That one was hands-off.

 

We just don't know the mind of God... Maybe some day we will find out.:)

[BrandieRose]

Although Genesis doesn't specifically tell whether Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life, I assumed they did because of what it symbolizes. We know that the Garden of Eden symbolizes the Church. The entrance is on the easy side of the garden, just like the temple. Four rivers pour out just like the waters of life in Ezekiel that bring life to the earth (the gospel).

 

The tree of life is Christ (or the communion table). As long as Adam and Eve were in communion with God the had eternal life. When they sinned against Him, They were excommunicated from the "table" and kicked out of the garden. A cherubim was stationed at that east entrance just like the cherubim sewn into the curtain on the east side of the "holy of holies'. The only way Adam and Eve could have that communion with God again is if someone died for them and covered their sin, and of course the first animal died to symbolize just that. Jesus came as the real sacrifice to die on a tree (the cross- the real tree of life). Of course, when Christ died on the tree, he became our new tree of life, and our new living water. As soon as He died the cherubim curtain on the east side of the temple ripped in half. We were now allowed back into the garden. We were again invited to the communion table. We're now invited to eat of the Tree of Life and to live forever.

 

The Bible is beautiful. : )

[Joanne]

I disagree. Disobedience doesn't require a knowledge of evil and choosing evil. Disobedience to someone who has moral authority over you is sinful.

 

I'm not sure I can ever say ok to that. SomeONE who has moral authority? Nope. I will never teach that to my kids.

[Heidi]

This does not speak to the issue. If Adam and Eve did not know good from evil their act of disobedience could not have been "sinful." To act sinfully (and morally) it requires knowing the difference, and choosing to go either good or evil.

 

Bill

 

 

I agree with you Bill! :D We believe Adam committed a transgression, not a sin. He could not sin. Click on the link to understand further. It is a beautiful, simple doctrine.

 

http://www.lds.org/liahona/2006/06/the-fulness-of-the-gospel-the-fall-of-adam-and-eve?lang=eng&query=transgression

 

"Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have JOY!" 2 Nephi 22:25 (emphasis mine)

[Joanne]

I don't have any idea what the tree's purpose was. As far as I remember, the scriptures don't tell us that information. We can speculate, but we just don't know what God's purpose was in putting it there. Maybe it was pretty! Maybe they could use the fruit for other things. Maybe only God could eat the fruit. We have NO idea (as far as I know). Maybe it was also a purposeful test. I think that one is likely. God still tests His people, he still rewards them for holding fast to the truth, and he still punishes them lovingly for doing wrong. Adam and Eve failed the test and God was angry and sad. Rightly so. He is just.

 

I think Adam and Eve were not eating the fruit for any reason prior to eating it when they sinned by doing so. They could eat of any fruit in the garden EXCEPT that one, and they knew it. God made it clear. That one was hands-off.

 

We just don't know the mind of God... Maybe some day we will find out.:)

 

Or, maybe it was yet another creation story created by people to understand the (still) unexplainable? ;)

 

Maybe God can exist, but Adam and Eve are prototypes, archetypes, figuratives?

 

The "story before the story" is speculative, at best.

[Heidi]

Although Genesis doesn't specifically tell whether Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life, I assumed they did because of what it symbolizes. We know that the Garden of Eden symbolizes the Church. The entrance is on the easy side of the garden, just like the temple. Four rivers pour out just like the waters of life in Ezekiel that bring life to the earth (the gospel).

 

The tree of life is Christ (or the communion table). As long as Adam and Eve were in communion with God the had eternal life. When they sinned against Him, They were excommunicated from the "table" and kicked out of the garden. A cherubim was stationed at that east entrance just like the cherubim sewn into the curtain on the east side of the "holy of holies'. The only way Adam and Eve could have that communion with God again is if someone died for them and covered their sin, and of course the first animal died to symbolize just that. Jesus came as the real sacrifice to die on a tree (the cross- the real tree of life). Of course, when Christ died on the tree, he became our new tree of life, and our new living water. As soon as He died the cherubim curtain on the east side of the temple ripped in half. We were now allowed back into the garden. We were again invited to the communion table. We're now invited to eat of the Tree of Life and to live forever.

 

The Bible is beautiful. : )

 

I really like this.

[jms]

Genesis 3:22

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.”

 

Revelation 2

 

7 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.

 

Revelation 22

1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

 

19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

[HappyGrace]

Sorry, TaraJo-I meant what was the purpose of the Tree of Life in that last post, if not to actually provide eternal life (they already had eternal life before the fall.)

[katherine4]

:iagree:

Gen 2: 15-17 clearly says that they are not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad for 'in the day you eat from it you will positively die.'

 

They would have lived forever in perfection had they not disobeyed that command.

Curiosity and Greed

[Aelwydd]

The definition of sin is disobeying God. God directly told them not to, they chose to do it anyway, therefore it is sin.

 

Actually, I think that's an exceptionally narrow view of the definition of sin. The Orthodox, I think, have the best understanding of it. In the catechisms I've read, it's described as thus: sin is the inevitable consequence of an inherent deficiency in one's being--an absence of God's grace, void of divine love and light.

 

Bill is correct. Adam and Eve together came into the state of sin--departure from God's grace--the moment they took from the tree, their eyes were opened to the possibilities that higher knowledge grants. They were moral innocents, without the judgment to understand even what was such a thing as obedience or disobedience. The terms are meaningless to one without the ability to judge good from evil.

 

Adam and Eve suddenly acquired a new state of being--an incomplete one, where God is not totally present, the sin nature. Sin is simply an absence of God somewhere, in some part of your being. Adam and Eve died not because of what they did, but because of what they became as a result of that action.

 

As to why the tree was there: I believe it represents humanity's self-awareness and consciousness. Because I do not hold to a literal 7 day creation, the Garden of Eden is a metaphor for human development. I believe that the tree represents a pivotal moment in early human development. It was the falcrum of human consciousness, a point where mankind began to become self-aware, and to begin to think differently from other mammals. But though humans were evolving into something of higher intelligence, they were still very much enmeshed in their animalistic passions. I do believe that God was calling humanity forth to something higher, and when faced with a growing awareness of choices, and consequences, humanity failed the test by allowing the spark of divine consciousness to fall slave to their baser instincts.

 

In a nutshell, the tree represents humanity's imperfect attempts to follow the divine nature. Instead of using our self-awareness to avoid harming ourselves and each other, and we've used it to oppress and use and debase ourselves, by letting the "flesh" rule us instead. Death, then, was a merciful consequence, because it kept humans from being locked immortally in their error, their unbalanced perception. It put a time limit on the body, its instinctual drives, and thus how long it could harness the spirit to its base desires.

[tntgoodwin]

Although Genesis doesn't specifically tell whether Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life, I assumed they did because of what it symbolizes. We know that the Garden of Eden symbolizes the Church. The entrance is on the easy side of the garden, just like the temple. Four rivers pour out just like the waters of life in Ezekiel that bring life to the earth (the gospel).

 

The tree of life is Christ (or the communion table). As long as Adam and Eve were in communion with God the had eternal life. When they sinned against Him, They were excommunicated from the "table" and kicked out of the garden. A cherubim was stationed at that east entrance just like the cherubim sewn into the curtain on the east side of the "holy of holies'. The only way Adam and Eve could have that communion with God again is if someone died for them and covered their sin, and of course the first animal died to symbolize just that. Jesus came as the real sacrifice to die on a tree (the cross- the real tree of life). Of course, when Christ died on the tree, he became our new tree of life, and our new living water. As soon as He died the cherubim curtain on the east side of the temple ripped in half. We were now allowed back into the garden. We were again invited to the communion table. We're now invited to eat of the Tree of Life and to live forever.

 

The Bible is beautiful. : )

 

That's a new perspective for me...

[Aelwydd]

In his book The Orthodox Church, Metropolitan (Bishop) Kallistos Ware addressed a bit of this subject, of what is sin and the fall and all. It doesn't fit in a neat little sound bite, so I copy/pasted the quote below, and even this long quote is an excerpt from a *book* so bear with me on that.

 

One thing I have heard is that it is possible that the forbidding of the Tree of Knowledge was because Adam and Eve were not *ready* for the fruit. Haven't we all said things like this to our own children? "When you are a little older, dear." God provided a path for Adam and Eve to be with Him and like Him, but they had to grab things, had to do it their way (again, I conjure up the image at least of my own child, and myself as a child, or too often, even as an adult)...and so, as they were made in God's image, with free will, He let them...but they weren't ready for it. And to prevent them from eternally bearing the illness of partaking, God barred them from the Tree of Life. That tree is brought forward in mystery in the Cross.

 

We tend to view sin as a disease, from which we need healing...it is a state of being separate from God, and God takes the main action to bridge the gap...we walk the bridge toward healing from our sin.

 

Anyway, here's the quote.

 

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

 

The Fall: Original Sin. God gave Adam free will — the power to choose between good and evil — and it therefore rested With Adam either to accept the vocation set before him or to refuse it. He refused it. Instead of continuing along the path marked out for him by God, he turned aside and disobeyed God. Adam’s fall consisted essentially in his disobedience of the will of God; he set up his own will against the divine will, and so by his own act he separated himself from God. As a result, a new form of existence appeared on earth — that of disease and death. By turning away from God, who is immortality and life, man put himself in a state that was contrary to nature, and this unnatural condition led to an inevitable disintegration of his being and eventually to physical death. The consequences of Adam’s disobedience extended to all his descendants. We are members one of another, as Saint Paul never ceased to insist, and if one member suffers the whole body suffers. In virtue of this mysterious unity of the human race, not only Adam but all mankind became subject to mortality. Nor was the disintegration which followed from the fall merely physical. Cut off from God, Adam and his descendants passed under the domination of sin and of the devil. Each new human being is born into a world where sin prevails everywhere, a world in which it is easy to do evil and hard to do good. Man’s will is weakened and enfeebled by what the Greeks call ‘desire’ and the Latins ‘concupiscence.’ We are all subject to these, the spiritual effects of original sin.

Thus far there is fairly close agreement between Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and classic Protestantism; but beyond this point east and west do not entirely concur. Orthodoxy, holding as it does a less exalted idea of man’s state before he fell, is also less severe than the west in its view of the consequences of the fall. Adam fell, not from a great height of knowledge and perfection, but from a state of undeveloped simplicity; hence he is not to be judged too harshly for his error. Certainly, as a result of the fall man’s mind became so darkened, and his will-power was so impaired, that he could no longer hope to attain to the likeness of God. Orthodox, however, do not hold that the fall deprived man entirely of God’s grace, though they would say that after the fall grace acts on man from the outside, not from within. Orthodox do not say, as Calvin said, that man after the fall was utterly depraved and incapable of good desires. They cannot agree with Augustine, when he writes that man is under ‘a harsh necessity’ of committing sin, and that ‘man’s nature was overcome by the fault into which it fell, and so came to lack freedom’ (On the perfection of man’s righteousness, 4 (9)). The image of God is distorted by sin, but never destroyed; in the words of s hymn sung by Orthodox at the Funeral Service for the laity: ‘I am the image of Thine inexpressible glory, even though I bear the wounds of sin.’ And because he still retains the image of God, man still retains free will, although sin restricts its scope. Even after the fall, God ‘takes not away from man the power to will — to will to obey or not to obey Him’ (Dositheus, Confession, Decree 3. Compare Decree 14). Faithful to the idea of synergy, Orthodoxy repudiates any interpretation of the fall which allows no room for human freedom.

Most orthodox theologians reject the idea of ‘original guilt,’ put forward by Augustine and still accepted (albeit in a mitigated form) by the Roman Catholic Church. Men (Orthodox usually teach) automatically inherit Adam’s corruption and mortality, but not his guilt: they are only guilty in so far as by their own free choice they imitate Adam. Many western Christians believe that whatever a man does in his fallen and unredeemed state, since it is tainted by original guilt, cannot possibly be pleasing to God: ‘Works before Justification,’ says the thirteenth of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, ‘...are not pleasant to God ... but have the nature of sin.’ Orthodox would hesitate to say this. And Orthodox have never held (as Augustine and many others in the west have done) that unbaptized babies, because tainted with original guilt, are consigned by the just God to the everlasting games of Hell (Thomas Aquinas, in his discussion of the fall, on the whole followed Augustine, and in particular retained the idea of original guilt; but as regards unbaptized babies, he maintained that they go not to Hell but to Limbo — a view now generally accepted by Roman theologians. So far as I can discover, Orthodox writers do not make use of the idea of Limbo. It should be noted that an Augustinian view of the fall is found from time to time in Orthodox theological literature; but this is usually the result of western influence. The Orthodox Confession by Peter of Moghila is, as one might expect, strongly Augustinian; on the other hand the Confession of Dositheus is free from Augustinianism). The Orthodox picture of fallen humanity is far less sombre than the Augustinian or Calvinist view.

But although Orthodox maintain that man after the fall still possessed free will and was still capable of good actions, yet they certainly agree with the west in believing that man’s sin had set up between him and God a barrier, which man by his own efforts could never break down. Sin blocked the path to union with God. Since man could not come to God, God came to man.

 

 

I just want to say I love this post, and :iagree: completely. I want to clarify a statement in my own post, that when I defined sin as an absence of God's grace, I did not mean a total, or complete absence. I also reject the Augustinian and Calvanistic doctrine of "total depravity."

 

Rather, I believe that though we were left with a deficit, we still each are born with a measure of God's grace. That is why when we forgive others their own deficit, and receive forgiveness ourselves, we "receive a full measure, pressed down, overflowing."

 

That is the grace Mary had. She, like all of us, was born human and requiring the full measure of grace. That she was given it, and hailed as one "full of grace," is an absolutely remarkable and a stunning revelation. She was the first spiritually complete human since the dawn of humanity, since our Adam and Eve. And she received it through God's grace, with the imbuement of the divine.

[HappyGrace]

Although Genesis doesn't specifically tell whether Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life, I assumed they did because of what it symbolizes. We know that the Garden of Eden symbolizes the Church. The entrance is on the easy side of the garden, just like the temple. Four rivers pour out just like the waters of life in Ezekiel that bring life to the earth (the gospel).

 

The tree of life is Christ (or the communion table). As long as Adam and Eve were in communion with God the had eternal life. When they sinned against Him, They were excommunicated from the "table" and kicked out of the garden. A cherubim was stationed at that east entrance just like the cherubim sewn into the curtain on the east side of the "holy of holies'. The only way Adam and Eve could have that communion with God again is if someone died for them and covered their sin, and of course the first animal died to symbolize just that. Jesus came as the real sacrifice to die on a tree (the cross- the real tree of life). Of course, when Christ died on the tree, he became our new tree of life, and our new living water. As soon as He died the cherubim curtain on the east side of the temple ripped in half. We were now allowed back into the garden. We were again invited to the communion table. We're now invited to eat of the Tree of Life and to live forever.

 

The Bible is beautiful. : )

 

 

 

Love this! :)

[MamaSheep]

Sorry for double-posting my speech, but I thought it might have gotten missed. Not sure why it posted way up there (maybe b/c I hit reply to Bill up there?). ANYWAY:

 

Bill, I think you're missing the point. The phrase "the knowledge of good and evil" isn't referring to the knowledge of the existence or possibility or meaning of "good" and "evil". To put it another way, the claim that Adam and Eve "didn't have knowledge of good and evil" before they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is not to say they had no idea what good or evil was prior to eating the fruit. If that were the case then we would have to believe that from the moment they were created, all the time they were walking in the very presence of God Almighty, talking with Him, worshiping Him, living in utter sinlessness and beauty, that they didn't recognize these things (or God!) as "good" at all, or know what "good" meant either. That's nonsensical.

 

I believe what's meant by the assertion that Adam and Eve did not have "the knowledge of good and evil" is that they didn't have intimate knowledge of good and evil. They didn't understand all the consequences. They didn't have first-hand experience. They probably didn't have a full understanding of the depth of evil. That doesn't mean they didn't know it was WRONG of them to eat the fruit though God told them not to. They knew full well He said not to and that this was disobedient but they did it anyway because Satan tricked them into distrusting God's word (that if they ate of it they would "surely die," etc). They sinned because they disobeyed willfully.

 

After they sinned, they had intimate first-hand knowledge of good and evil and they would witness and experience the effects of evil the rest of their lives.

 

BTW, the scriptures often use the word "know" for "intimate experience." For instance, Mary said to the angel Gabriel that she "knew not a man" (i.e. she's never had intercourse with a man... not that she didn't know what a man was! She was engaged at the time!). So that language is kind of a theme and this isn't the only case of "know" being used in this way.

 

To answer the OP's question: Yes, Adam and Eve would have lived forever if they had not sinned. God created man to live forever but chose to curse mankind with death (among other things) because man sinned against Him.

 

Why do you see that as nonsensical? It makes very good sense to me that Adam and Eve would not recognize "good" as such until they had something with which to contrast it.

 

However, if they "knew" good by walking and talking with God, then they also "knew" evil before eating by walking and talking with Satan, in the guise of the serpent (otherwise he could not have "tricked" them). In which case, they already knew good and evil before partaking of the fruit--which disagrees with the text of the Bible. I think the Bible means what it says--Adam and Eve didn't know good and evil until after partaking of the fruit.

Edited February 28, 2012 by MamaSheep

[MamaSheep]

HG, Scarlett is correct. And, you are too. G-D specifically commanded Adam NOT (that's the commandment) eat of that particular tree. They had a choice to submit (obey, follow command) or rebel/defy (disobey, not follow command). They had a choice. Obviously so, because they did, in fact, eat from the tree and at that point man was "fallen".

 

Bill, the Garden was VOID of evil UP TO the eating of the fruit. Genesis tells us G-D spoke at the end of each day's creation that "it was good". The Garden was paradise....all was good b/c G-D is good and perfect. He is the Creator Who created the goodness and perfection found in the Garden.

 

A/E had a choice (free will). Note that G-D made this known up front what NOT to eat.

 

ETA: we're not talking about future generations. OP stated A/E.

 

Just looking for clarity here...are you suggesting that "the serpent" was not evil until Eve ate the fruit, or that "the serpent" was not present in the Garden until Eve ate the fruit?

[Spy Car]

I think people are missing the point. The people who wrote Genesis (drawing in part on other creation myths of the region) knew that man was mortal (everyone dies), and knew we as a species seem to have a special quality of a conscience that makes humans different than other animals. These verses go towards explaining our existence in mythic terms.

 

We as a species would not be "god like" if we remained like infants or dumb beasts who could not distinguish between right and wrong. We, to become "fully human" metaphorically needed to gan the gift of moral discernment to become "adults" rather than perpetual infants.

 

If it harder being an "adult" rather than a dependent "infant?" It many ways, yes! But it also makes us who we are. We have to labor to make our way in the world, we need to cultivate our reasoning abilities for purposes of moth survival and to sharpen our moral, ethical, and philosophical senses.

 

We are not perfect. But we know when we fail to act according to the good, and this knowledge is what makes us human. We also have the capacity to act out of love, from compassion, and breathtaking kindness. This too makes us human.

 

Who would have us remain perpetual infants? Perpetual amoral being who could not judge right from wrong?

 

The story is not about a "fall" it is about transcendence. We became something special in this story, morally discriminating beings. This was a gift as well as a burden. But with out it we are just another animal.

 

Bill

[MamaSheep]

I think people are missing the point. The people who wrote Genesis (drawing in part on other creation myths of the region) knew that man was mortal (everyone dies), and knew we as a species seem to have a special quality of a conscience that makes humans different than other animals. These verses go towards explaining our existence in mythic terms.

 

We as a species would not be "god like" if we remained like infants or dumb beasts who could not distinguish between right and wrong. We, to become "fully human" metaphorically needed to gan the gift of moral discernment to become "adults" rather than perpetual infants.

 

If it harder being an "adult" rather than a dependent "infant?" It many ways, yes! But it also makes us who we are. We have to labor to make our way in the world, we need to cultivate our reasoning abilities for purposes of moth survival and to sharpen our moral, ethical, and philosophical senses.

 

We are not perfect. But we know when we fail to act according to the good, and this knowledge is what makes us human. We also have the capacity to act out of love, from compassion, and breathtaking kindness. This too makes us human.

 

Who would have us remain perpetual infants? Perpetual amoral being who could not judge right from wrong?

 

The story is not about a "fall" it is about transcendence. We became something special in this story, morally discriminating beings. This was a gift as well as a burden. But with out it we are just another animal.

 

Bill

 

I almost agree with you Bill, but have a slightly different perspective. I do think the story is about a "fall"--a fall from immortality to mortality, from a state of blissful, innocent ignorance to one of work and pain, and moral consciousness. But I also think the fall was not just "downward", but "forward".

 

The tree is called "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", not "the tree of the knowledge of evil". Partaking of the fruit was not just the way to know evil, but also the way to know good, and the way to learn to distinguish and consciously choose between the two.

 

I agree with you that eating of the fruit was not a "sin" because they did not yet have the knowledge of good and evil before they ate of the fruit. (In fact, I have not found any verses in the Bible that refer to it as a sin. Nor have I found anywhere in the Bible where God says eating of the fruit was an "evil" act; He only explained that death would be the consequence of eating--if you eat that, you will surely die.) It was, however, a transgression (literally, to cross over or move across) of the commandment given to them by God, and it had consequences, as God had explained.

 

One of the consequences was a new moral consciousness, which, I agree, brought them out of a state of "infantile" ignorance and into a realm of more "adult" morality. This condition is not a punishment, or a curse, or any sort of "bad" thing. God Himself says that in this way they have become "like the Gods"; any trait of the Gods is inherently "good". This transgression also created a physical change, from a state in which they were immortal and not subject to disease and pain, to one in which they were mortal and capable of experiencing great suffering and death. The moment they ate the fruit, death and decay became a part of their new reality. A further consequence was that they must leave the "nursery" of the Garden and exercise some adult independence. Rather than walking and working under the direct supervision of a "parent", they were to walk and work by faith, with a lower level of contact with authority and a greater level of autonomy (for better or for worse, and they'd be judged on how they used this opportunity). Separation from the tree of life was necessary in order for them to progress to the even greater level of maturity God had in mind for them (Eternal Life--which is available ONLY through the atonement), rather than getting "stuck" permanently in a "fallen" condition, unable to further progress.

 

I think the events in the Garden were part of God's plan from the beginning. An omniscient God would have known what would happen if He arranged circumstances as He did, and an omnipotent God could certainly have made other arrangements if He did not want things to go down like that. I think Adam and Eve did as God intended them to do.

 

 

[ETA: I may have mentioned this already on this forum, but I find this story interesting from a child development angle as well. When ds was being "evaluated" in the process of being diagnosed with autism I was repeatedly asked whether he ever said, "no," in a defiant manner, and refused to do what I told him to do. When I would say yes, he was quite a defiant little beggar the response was always a beaming smile and great relief. When I asked about why this was such a good thing (because it would be nice if just once the boy would just do what I asked of him) I was told that it was an indicator of his having reached a certain level of developmental maturity, and was a very good sign that he would continue to grow and mature, even if he went about it a little differently from most people. I was also told that if a child is never given any rules to defy it is much more difficult for that child to make the necessary mental shift and pass this important developmental milestone. Rules are a catalyst for this kind of growth. Defiance shows that we've given rules, and he's made the shift. Not that it's good to teach them to go on being defiant, obviously. But they need to be ABLE to differentiate their own will from that of their parents before they are capable of making rational decisions about their own lives. Giving consequences for the defiance, as well as for obedience, gives them feedback about how to tell good decisions from bad ones, but they have to be capable of understanding that they are even making a decision between this and that, between obedience and defiance, between good and bad, before consequences have any impact at all. Making a moral choice is different from merely seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.

 

Anyway, I have often thought this interesting in light of the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden. The way I see it, God gave them a rule, which acted as a catalyst to their development, and when they reached the appropriate level of maturity and arrived at that developmental milestone, they made the mental shift and engaged in an act of defiance. God, knew this was an indication that they were ready to move on to the next stage of life--outside the garden--and provided the appropriate consequence so that they could continue to learn, and grow, and mature. Because ultimately God wanted more for them than mere infantile bliss in an earthy paradise; He wanted them to experience a full, mature, conscious level of joy in a heavenly paradise. And the "fall" was the next step toward that end.]

Edited February 28, 2012 by MamaSheep

[tntgoodwin]

^Correct. The Gospel was not a "Plan B" for God, it was part of His plan all along.

[Spy Car]

I almost agree with you Bill, but have a slightly different perspective. I do think the story is about a "fall"--a fall from immortality to mortality, from a state of blissful, innocent ignorance to one of work and pain, and moral consciousness. But I also think the fall was not just "downward", but "forward".

 

The tree is called "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", not "the tree of the knowledge of evil". Partaking of the fruit was not just the way to know evil, but also the way to know good, and the way to learn to distinguish and consciously choose between the two.

 

Exactly!

 

I agree with you that eating of the fruit was not a "sin" because they did not yet have the knowledge of good and evil before they ate of the fruit. (In fact, I have not found any verses in the Bible that refer to it as a sin. Nor have I found anywhere in the Bible where God says eating of the fruit was an "evil" act; He only explained that death would be the consequence of eating--if you eat that, you will surely die.) It was, however, a transgression (literally, to cross over or move across) of the commandment given to them by God, and it had consequences, as God had explained.

 

Correct. A transgression with a consequence. In this moment human being both became "more like God" (God's words in the story) and mortal. When you have moral discernment itis a mixed bag as one bears feelings of guilt for "wrong" actions as well as a deep appreciation for "good." It makes us "humans" rather than perpetual infants.

 

One of the consequences was a new moral consciousness, which, I agree, brought them out of a state of "infantile" ignorance and into a realm of more "adult" morality. This condition is not a punishment, or a curse, or any sort of "bad" thing. God Himself says that in this way they have become "like the Gods"; any trait of the Gods is inherently "good".

 

:iagree:

 

What would we be with out a conscience?

 

This transgression also created a physical change, from a state in which they were immortal and not subject to disease and pain, to one in which they were mortal and capable of experiencing great suffering and death. The moment they ate the fruit, death and decay became a part of their new reality. A further consequence was that they must leave the "nursery" of the Garden and exercise some adult independence. Rather than walking and working under the direct supervision of a "parent", they were to walk and work by faith, with a lower level of contact with authority and a greater level of autonomy (for better or for worse).

 

Right!

 

Separation from the tree of life was necessary in order for them to progress to the even greater level of maturity God had in mind for them (Eternal Life--which is available ONLY through the atonement), rather than getting "stuck" permanently in a "fallen" condition, unable to further progress.

 

I finally have my chance to diverge from LDS Orthodoxy! :D

 

I think the events in the Garden were part of God's plan from the beginning. An omniscient God would have known what would happen if He arranged circumstances as He did, and an omnipotent God could certainly have made other arrangements if He did not want things to go down like that. I think Adam and Eve did as God intended them to do.

 

Of course!

 

You don't place big shiny objects in front of beings that have no capacity to differentiate good from evil, tell them that's the only thing they can't have, and then say you'll be back n the breezy part of the day (leaving them in the hands of a temptor) if the results aren't part of your plan.

 

Otherwise your claims to "omniscience" would be pretty thin. A human parent who left beautiful looking (but poisonous) fruit in front of a toddler with an admonition to eat anything but that would get a visit from Child Protective Services if their child disobeyed/transgressed.

 

Bill

[DianeW88]

This does not speak to the issue. If Adam and Eve did not know good from evil their act of disobedience could not have been "sinful." To act sinfully (and morally) it requires knowing the difference, and choosing to go either good or evil.

 

Bill

 

Which is why we LDS people do not consider what Adam and Eve did to be a sin. We believe it was a transgression.

Edited February 28, 2012 by DianeW88
Clearly I needed to read the other posts first, since I'm late to the party. Thanks LDS moms for jumping in!!

[MamaSheep]

Exactly!

 

 

 

Correct. A transgression with a consequence. In this moment human being both became "more like God" (God's words in the story) and mortal. When you have moral discernment itis a mixed bag as one bears feelings of guilt for "wrong" actions as well as a deep appreciation for "good." It makes us "humans" rather than perpetual infants.

 

 

 

:iagree:

 

What would we be with out a conscience?

 

 

 

Right!

 

 

 

I finally have my chance to diverge from LDS Orthodoxy! :D

 

 

Of course!

 

You don't place big shiny objects in front of beings that have no capacity to differentiate good from evil, tell them that's the only thing they can't have, and then say you'll be back n the breezy part of the day (leaving them in the hands of a temptor) if the results aren't part of your plan.

 

Otherwise your claims to "omniscience" would be pretty thin. A human parent who left beautiful looking (but poisonous) fruit in front of a toddler with an admonition to eat anything but that would get a visit from Child Protective Services if their child disobeyed/transgressed.

 

Bill

 

:lol: So glad we found you a place to diverge. For a minute there I was worried you might accidentally fall into an LDS baptismal font. And then where would we be? :lol:

[DianeW88]

:lol: So glad we found you a place to diverge. For a minute there I was worried you might accidentally fall into an LDS baptismal font. And then where would we be? :lol:

 

:lol::lol::lol: Don't worry....I think we still have some time. But we'll keep the water in the font nice and warm for you, Bill. :D

[Spy Car]

:lol: So glad we found you a place to diverge. For a minute there I was worried you might accidentally fall into an LDS baptismal font. And then where would we be? :lol:

 

We'd be stuck without coffee, that's where we'd be. For me it would be like banishment from paradise all over again :D

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

:lol::lol::lol: Don't worry....I think we still have some time. But we'll keep the water in the font nice and warm for you, Bill. :D

 

I thought there was a prohibition on hot drinks. Or does one not drink font water?

 

Anyway, don't make it too hot...I'm in enough trouble already :tongue_smilie:

 

Bill

[MamaSheep]

We'd be stuck without coffee, that's where we'd be. For me it would be like banishment from paradise all over again :D

 

Bill

 

That's ok, we just agreed that banishment from paradise was ultimately a good thing, even if there are unpleasant aspects. ;)

[Spy Car]

That's ok, we just agreed that banishment from paradise was ultimately a good thing, even if there are unpleasant aspects. ;)

 

You're subtlety trying to get me to quit drinking coffee, aren't you? :lol:

 

Pretty sneaky! :D

 

Bill

[MamaSheep]

You're subtlety trying to get me to quit drinking coffee, aren't you? :lol:

 

Pretty sneaky! :D

 

Bill

 

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to be subtle...lol. ;)

 

In all seriousness, though, that's between you and God. I was just yanking your chain. You had set yourself up so nicely, I couldn't resist. I guess I am Eve's daughter after all...lol.