The tree of knowledge..............

[Willamena]

If they were capable of it, why didn't they do so before they ate the fruit?

We don't know that they didn't.

 

[nutshell]

We don't know that they didn't.

My post was responding to this post:

If Adam and Eve were immortal prior to eating the fruit, then reproducing would not be obstacle. They just didn't do so before they ate the fruit. Not doing so yet and not capable of mating are two different things, and nothing indicate they couldn't do so.

And I believe they did not. Obviously, Willamena, our interpretations differ.

 

[Willamena]

My post was responding to this post:

I got that.

And I believe they did not. Obviously, Willamena, our interpretations differ.

I was just agreeing with gnostic's point that we don't know one way or the other. Regardless of our personal beliefs, it's not written anywhere; it's not a part of the mythology that they had sex before the apple bit happened.

It does change the myth, though, to include that bit, one way or the other, as it adds a dimension of significance to the tree that it did not previously have.

 

[spacemonkey]

Is there something in fruit that I don't know about?

Sorry nutshell, I'm not following how the fruit has anything to do with them reproducing. Please explain...

Except for the fact that fruit is the reproductive organs of a plant. Also it is not uncommon to hear offspring refered to as fruit, i.e. "fruit of my loins".

 

[spacemonkey]

There is nothing to indicate they can't reproduce, except through your interpretation. And I don't think being mortals had anything to do with it. You forget that angels could reproduce with mortal women (Genesis 6) to produce giants or the Nephilim, and these angels were immortal.

Hmmm, sounds alot like Greek mythologies demi-gods if you ask me. It is interesting to note that Bible refers to these cross breeds between angel and man as "the heroes of old, men of renown."

 

[Quiddity]

DISCLAIMER: I'm not sure this post will adhere to LDS doctrine. It is my interpretation and Katz or others are free to comment and/or correct me.

You don't have to worry about that with me. I usually make a point to search for doctrine in every faith. Considering our respective churches run similar and all. It brings no fruitfulness into discussions to argue about things we are both open to argue about.

There was no reproducing for two reasons and it has little to nothing to do with the actual fruit on the tree:

1. They were physically unable to have sex.
Adam and Eve had what I like to think of as transitional bodies. The bodies were not designed to grow old and die, but they also weren't mature bodies capable of sexual reproduction. After they ate the fruit, the physical world changed. Part of that change was Adam and Eve's bodies becoming mortal. They would grow old and die. Another change was that they would now be able to have sex and reproduce.

That's interesting. I really wouldn't have a problem agreeing with this.

2. They were unable to have sex for psychological reasons.
I don't know if "psychological" is the right word to use here, but I'm going to use it so hang with me. Adam and Eve, pre-fruiting, were in a state of innocence. They were like children. They had limited knowledge of right/wrong, good/evil, pleasure/pain, etc. I believe their knowledge of sex was limited as well. This may be connected with their physical state. After all, if, at this point, they are unable to have sexual relations physically, it may well be possible that sexual urges and thoughts aren't even crossing their minds.

Ok, but how is number 2 specifically connected to the tree? I'm more then willing to accept that they were like children in many ways, but I do not think that the tree is what was needed to triger growth. I think they would have grown even without the tree. See what I mean?

 

[Katzpur]

Let's try again. Katz said:
God knew what He was doing and He did it for man's benefit

Are you saying that God put a temptation (the tree) for our benefit?

Yes. Are you saying that Adam's and Eve's decision to partake of the forbidden fruit was just an unseen glitch that God hadn't stopped to consider? He didn't have to put the Tree there in the first place. Why do you think He did it? And why, if He expected them to be able to withstand the temptation, do you think He had designated His Son to be their Redeemer before the event ever took place?

 

[Katzpur]

I think they could already multiply before they ate the fruit, as indicated by Genesis 1:28, on the 6th day of Creation. The temptation of Adam and Eve seemed to happen after the 7th day. Whether another day pass or a year, we can't say.

There is nothing to indicate they can't reproduce, except through your interpretation. And I don't think being mortals had anything to do with it. You forget that angels could reproduce with mortal women (Genesis 6) to produce giants or the Nephilim, and these angels were immortal.

If Adam and Eve were immortal prior to eating the fruit, then reproducing would not be obstacle. They just didn't do so before they ate the fruit. Not doing so yet and not capable of mating are two different things, and nothing indicate they couldn't do so.

I'll throw in my two cents worth of speculation on this later today. Right now, I've got to go back to work.

 

[Quiddity]

Yes. Are you saying that Adam's and Eve's decision to partake of the forbidden fruit was just an unseen glitch that God hadn't stopped to consider? He didn't have to put the Tree there in the first place. Why do you think He did it? And why, if He expected them to be able to withstand the temptation, do you think He had designated His Son to be their Redeemer before the event ever took place?

I asked first...
I think the tree was placed to truly fulfill "free will". I do not believe he placed it for "our benefit". What benefit does it bring exactly?

 

[spacemonkey]

I asked first...
I think the tree was placed to truly fulfill "free will". I do not believe he placed it for "our benefit". What benefit does it bring exactly?

Freedom from the Demiurge's entrapment through enlightenment.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

lol

DISCLAIMER: I'm not sure this post will adhere to LDS doctrine. It is my interpretation and Katz or others are free to comment and/or correct me.

There was no reproducing for two reasons and it has little to nothing to do with the actual fruit on the tree:

1. They were physically unable to have sex.
Adam and Eve had what I like to think of as transitional bodies. The bodies were not designed to grow old and die, but they also weren't mature bodies capable of sexual reproduction. After they ate the fruit, the physical world changed. Part of that change was Adam and Eve's bodies becoming mortal. They would grow old and die. Another change was that they would now be able to have sex and reproduce.

2. They were unable to have sex for psychological reasons.
I don't know if "psychological" is the right word to use here, but I'm going to use it so hang with me. Adam and Eve, pre-fruiting, were in a state of innocence. They were like children. They had limited knowledge of right/wrong, good/evil, pleasure/pain, etc. I believe their knowledge of sex was limited as well. This may be connected with their physical state. After all, if, at this point, they are unable to have sexual relations physically, it may well be possible that sexual urges and thoughts aren't even crossing their minds.

You just made that up didn't you?

That has no foundation in scripture. God made Adam and Eve and then commanded them to be fruitful and multipy. God would not command something that cannot be achieved.

 

[Quiddity]

Freedom from the Demiurge's entrapment through enlightenment.

Come again?

 

[Quiddity]

God would not command something that cannot be achieved.

Never thought of that. That's a good point.

 

[spacemonkey]

You just made that up didn't you?

That has no foundation in scripture. God made Adam and Eve and then commanded them to be fruitful and multipy. God would not command something that cannot be achieved.

Actually Adam and Eve were not told to "be fruitfull and multiply" prior to the "Fall of Man" as described in Genesis. The verse after the creation of Eve reads (at least in the NIV) "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame." (just a bit of a draft) After that, Genesis goes right into the story of the tree and serpent. Not a single mention of reproduction. It is intreasting to note that in that chapter (#3) verse 22 states, "And the Lord God said, 'The man has now become like one of US, knowing good and evil.' " Who else is he refering to?

 

[spacemonkey]

Come again?

You keep assuming that the being who created this world is the Supreme Being, but what if he's not? What if this world was made by an angry, jealous being who sought to create a place he could control and rule over. What if the serpent were the hero, the Logos of the True God, a God of love and forgiveness preached about by Jesus (another manifistation of the Logos). Just because someone lumped all of the writings that make up todays Bible togeather doesn't mean they are refering to the same Deity. The "god" of the OT is mentioned in the NT, when he offers Jesus all of the splendors of the kingdoms of this world, the one he rules.

 

[nutshell]

Except for the fact that fruit is the reproductive organs of a plant. Also it is not uncommon to hear offspring refered to as fruit, i.e. "fruit of my loins".

I hadn't thought of that before. Thanks.

 

[Quiddity]

You keep assuming that the being who created this world is the Supreme Being, but what if he's not? What if this world was made by an angry, jealous being who sought to create a place he could control and rule over. What if the serpent were the hero, the Logos of the True God, a God of love and forgiveness preached about by Jesus (another manifistation of the Logos). Just because someone lumped all of the writings that make up todays Bible togeather doesn't mean they are refering to the same Deity. The "god" of the OT is mentioned in the NT, when he offers Jesus all of the splendors of the kingdoms of this world, the one he rules.

What in monkeys name does this have to do with the OP?

 

[nutshell]

I've got to go, but I'll be back. I'm happy this thread is taking off again

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Actually Adam and Eve were not told to "be fruitfull and multiply" prior to the "Fall of Man" as described in Genesis. The verse after the creation of Eve reads (at least in the NIV) "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame." (just a bit of a draft) After that, Genesis goes right into the story of the tree and serpent. Not a single mention of reproduction. It is intreasting to note that in that chapter (#3) verse 22 states, "And the Lord God said, 'The man has now become like one of US, knowing good and evil.' " Who else is he refering to?

Silly boy.:no: Genesis 1: 27-28 (that's before the fall):

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply....":clap2:

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It is intreasting to note that in that chapter (#3) verse 22 states, "And the Lord God said, 'The man has now become like one of US, knowing good and evil.' " Who else is he refering to?

Hmmm, the Trinity in Genesis. Whooda thunk?