Was it fair to kick Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden?

[wordmagnifiedabovenames]

Hoping quotes work...

If Adam and Eve had the knowledge of good and evil, then God wouldn't need to plant the tree with that knowledge on morality. If Adam and Eve had immortality, then there would be no need for God to plant the Tree of Life in the Garden.

It make no sense to have these trees there if they already have the knowledge and immortality.

The Bible doesn't specify exactly what that "knowledge" was; simple head knowledge; knowing of something, or an experential sort of knowledge; the tree was named such that eating fruit from it after having being told not to would give the consumer an experience of "evil."

It may have been in eating that fruit their minds were suddenly inundated with what we'd call "knowledge" of morality (if indeed good and evil are in fact morality,) or it may have been something different; the Bible doesn't say. I was simply providing an explanation as to why God could have put the tree there if He knew doing so would be link in the chain of event leading to the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden, as, to that particular forum member's mind, putting the tree there didn't make sense. I provided an explaination as to why that tree existed in the place that it did, if God knew what was going to happen. I don't know if my explaination is correct or not (as the Bible doesn't expressly say) but to my mind it makes sense.

As for the tree of life, again, the Bible isn't clear. Eating the fruit before the fall may have had no effect on the lifespan of Adam and the woman. Maybe Adam and the woman didn't eat of it before the fall anyway. The Bible simply doesn't say. However, it's interesting to see where in the Bible the tree of life appeared later on in scripture. Maybe if God knew that He needed that tree later on, He had to create it at the time of creation, because it appears that after He rested He didn't create anything else. He had to put it in the Garden so that after Adam and Eve were expelled it could be protected.

Originally Posted by wordmagnifiedabovenames
When the tree of life is mentioned in that passage you referenced it is after the fall. Adam and Eve were living in sin, and if they then ate from the tree of life, they would live forever...in sin.
I'd have to say "yes" and "no", if there was a question in there (which there isn't).

When God punished them and expelled them from the Garden, the curse was not that of removing immortality from them (because they were never immortals), but that they would suffer.

I think the warning from God that "in that day you will surely die" (paraphrase) is a fairly effective way removing immortality, it's just a question of whether that immortailty existed in the first place. The prouncement of the curse happened at a seperate time to eating the fruit. When they ate the fruit, they immediately knew they were naked. It wasn't until after when God started asking questions that they were kicked out. As the Bible is fairly conclusive that there's no death before the fall, I think they were immortal, maybe we'll just agree to disagree.

I still think you are trying to put Christian concept and interpretation into Hebrew texts. Such thing as Satan being the Devil is a foreign concept to Judaism.

Although the book of Enoch isn't canon (and I haven't read it) the supposed author of it, Enoch, a man who according to the Bible lived and...disappeared before the flood, propehcied of NT things.
If God can give an OT man a prophecy, and he prophecies to OT people about things that won't happen in their natural lifetimes, that according to the Bible won't in fact happen until well after they've been dead for a few thousand years, what's wrong with using NT events to interpret what happened in the OT?
(I realise this won't work for Judaism,) but if God authored the whole Bible (OT+NT,) then to my mind it seems perfectly reasonable, even advisable to use the NT (Christian beliefs) to interpret the OT (Hebrew texts) same author, same God, same Word, same Spirit, same Devil.

I still think it was "fair" for God to kick Adam and Eve out of the Garden. I'll leave this thread now, anything else about trees, immortality, morality, and Lucifer/Satan we can carry on via pms or other threads.

 

[gnostic]

I still think it was "fair" for God to kick Adam and Eve out of the Garden. I'll leave this thread now, anything else about trees, immortality, morality, and Lucifer/Satan we can carry on via pms or other threads.

Ok. I'll start a new thread.

It's called, Were pre-Fall Adam and Eve "immortal"?

 

[gnostic]

Although the book of Enoch isn't canon (and I haven't read it) the supposed author of it, Enoch, a man who according to the Bible lived and...disappeared before the flood, propehcied of NT things.
If God can give an OT man a prophecy, and he prophecies to OT people about things that won't happen in their natural lifetimes, that according to the Bible won't in fact happen until well after they've been dead for a few thousand years, what's wrong with using NT events to interpret what happened in the OT?
(I realise this won't work for Judaism,) but if God authored the whole Bible (OT+NT,) then to my mind it seems perfectly reasonable, even advisable to use the NT (Christian beliefs) to interpret the OT (Hebrew texts) same author, same God, same Word, same Spirit, same Devil.

Sorry, but God didn't author the whole bible. God didn't author even part of the bible. They were all written by men. And no, there were just one scripture, but a whole lot of different scriptures written by different authors, and written at different times. A large part of it was written during and after the Exile in Babylon.

They were written by men about their relation with God. Whether these authors were inspired by God or not, is a totally different question. It's certainly not written by God, inspired or not. In any case, I don't really care.

The only war in heaven is found in Revelation, and I hardly think that the Revelation as being a reliable source, because it deal heavily with metaphors and symbolism. Symbolism is all very well, but they are only representation of what is real, but not reality itself. There are far too many interpretations in Revelation, so I don't want to deal with this piece of work when the topic is in only about early chapters of Genesis. There are no relations between the two books.

 

[Ninez]

It's certainly not written by God, inspired or not. In any case, I don't really care.

So you're saying God can't be the author because he didn't physically write the words? Going by that logic, all the books nowadays are authored by printing presses.

 

[Beta]

If Adam and Eve had no knowledge of the concepts of good and evil, they had no way to know that disobeying God and eating the forbidden fruit was actually wrong. They didn't obtain that knowledge until after their transgression. So, was it actually fair for them to be punished?

What do you mean they had no knowledge of right or wrong before their transgression ? Please read Gen.2v16,17; and Gen.3v2,3 again. Adam was told and Eve also knew not to touch the forbidden tree well before they transgressed . It is you being unfair to God !

 

[gnostic]

What do you mean they had no knowledge of right or wrong before their transgression ? Please read Gen.2v16,17; and Gen.3v2,3 again. Adam was told and Eve also knew not to touch the forbidden tree well before they transgressed . It is you being unfair to God !

If they had no knowledge of good and bad, or right and wrong, then they wouldn't know if God was telling the truth or not about eating the fruit. Similarly, Eve wouldn't know if what the serpent said to her were right or wrong. The knowledge of right and wrong needs to be there; they need to be aware of it, but they can't be aware of it, if the knowledge is contained within the fruit that were forbidden to them.

You can tell a child, just learning to talk that it is wrong and harmful to touch a pot of hot water. Out of curiosity he will touch it and scald his hand in the process. Hopefully the child will learn from this experience. Simply giving warning to them don't always register with the child's processing brains.

Similarly, Adam and Eve never seen or experience death prior to being expel from the Garden, then how could they hope to understand the consequence of God's warning, no matter how many times God say it. Adam and Eve may have seen death afterward, among the animals, but they still haven't personally experienced the loss, until Cain murdered his brother Abel.

 

[gnostic]

So you're saying God can't be the author because he didn't physically write the words? Going by that logic, all the books nowadays are authored by printing presses.

I am not a fool to think such thing. But you do have to realise that a large part of Hebrew scriptures weren't written until the Exile (in Babylon) and post-Exile (often known as the early part of Second Temple Period) periods.

Deuteronomy was certainly not written by Moses. Similarly the books of Samuel and Kings, the Chronicles weren't written until centuries later (referring again to the Exile and post-Exile periods). And many of the books ascribed to the prophets weren't written by those prophets who names graced the individual scriptures.

So, no. I don't think the authorship of each individual book was authored by God. (Do you notice that I use the word "authorship" or "authored" instead of written.)

 

[Beta]

I see what you mean gnostic.
But are you not ascribing a little too much intelligence to Adam and Eve ? Why would they even have had an inkling of what it was all about ? Little children don't generally know all the ramifications in a simple instruction nor are they always disobedient. They may be forgetful and curious and thus transgress the instruction. But this act does not show a wilful and determined disobedience does it , just a lack of fully understanding the consequences of their disobedience.
There is a scripture saying : 'My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.' And in their disobedience A&E proved ignorance that could only be corrected by experience. Hence their eviction from paradise. Had they obeyed they would have been further instructed through the tree of Life.:yes:

 

[gnostic]

But are you not ascribing a little too much intelligence to Adam and Eve ? Why would they even have had an inkling of what it was all about ? Little children don't generally know all the ramifications in a simple instruction nor are they always disobedient.

Their lives have only just begun before they ate the fruit. How much do you think they know about life and death, truth and deception?

So no, like children, they didn't know the full ramification of what they did or about the to do. Without learning and experience you expect them to know the consequence of disobedience, no matter declaration this silly god made.

They may be forgetful and curious and thus transgress the instruction. But this act does not show a wilful and determined disobedience does it , just a lack of fully understanding the consequences of their disobedience.

I am assuming you are still referring to the children in these 2 paragraphs, but they can actually apply to Adam and Eve too. Not only did Adam and Eve didn't have a life experience of what they know, they can't distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, because their eyes were not open yet.

"For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

They only became aware that they did wrong after they shared the forbidden fruit.

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Even then, they still have realise the consequences of their actions until God turn up.

 

[Beta]

Yes friend I get what you are saying. And yes I am comparing A&E to children - as are you. They did not have any knowledge of any subsequent consequences. But they had instruction to do the right thing with Eve even repeating it to the serpent Gen.3v2,3. It was not a whole lot of stuff to remember was it ? Just a sentence or two ! They could have obeyed.
Knowledge was not only contained in the forbidden tree, Oh no ! There was also knowledge in the tree of Life containing 'head-knowledge or learning through study and obedience' - whereas the forbidden tree contained 'personal experience'.
So in fact mankind could have gained knowledge either way , he was not compelled to follow the obvious. Satan tempted them to go that way and still does today. Obedience to God would have taken them the painless way. :yes:

 

[gnostic]

There was also knowledge in the tree of Life containing 'head-knowledge or learning through study and obedience' - whereas the forbidden tree contained 'personal experience'.
So in fact mankind could have gained knowledge either way , he was not compelled to follow the obvious. Satan tempted them to go that way and still does today. Obedience to God would have taken them the painless way.

But there's no evidence that they ate from the Tree of Life. Genesis 3:22 indicated that they didn't:

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."

It also indicate that God didn't like them knowing good and evil. So they were barred from the Tree of Life.

You do realise that you are only speculating that the Tree of Knowledge contained any form of knowledge, don't you?

Satan tempted them to go that way and still does today. Obedience to God would have taken them the painless way.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I believe that you're a Christian.

So consider this: If A&E didn't eat the fruit, then would there ever be a need for Jesus? The would probably be no needs to be "saved", since you would live forever.

In any case, you are still speculating. You are speculating a possible utopia: an utopia that I think it is illogical and impractical, and worse of all, unrealistic.

 

[Beta]

But there's no evidence that they ate from the Tree of Life. Genesis 3:22 indicated that they didn't:
It also indicate that God didn't like them knowing good and evil. So they were barred from the Tree of Life.
You do realise that you are only speculating that the Tree of Knowledge contained any form of knowledge, don't yo
Maybe. Maybe not.
I believe that you're a Christian.
So consider this: If A&E didn't eat the fruit, then would there ever be a need for Jesus? The would probably be no needs to be "saved", since you would live forever.
In any case, you are still speculating. You are speculating a possible utopia: an utopia that I think it is illogical and impractical, and worse of all, unrealistic.

No, they did not eat from the tree of life. I never said they did and they were stopped from doing so after they sinned Gen.3v24. However when people repent it is again offered to them Rev.22v14.Knowledge of eternal life is contained in it. They were barred from it because they had chosen another way. All mankind is living that way still. God gave man 6 days (6000 years) Ex.20v9 to experience their own choice.When time is up God will take over v10. There is no maybe about it friend , it's all in scripture. We are living in an evil world (Gal.1v4) with evil knowledge we have chosen in disobedience.
Yes I am a Christian but not a traditional one thank you very much.
Had A&E been obedient, their and our lives would have taken a different turn . But that's a different story. The way it has turned out is 'the short work God is making on the earth' Rom.9v28.

 

[Watchmen]

Yes, I was wanting to discuss this with the people who take genisis literally.

Although I suppose it does have broader philosophical implications. Personally I am extremely uncomfortable with this aspect due to it's presentation of God as a kind of irresponsible parent. Adam and Eve had less knowledge about morality than a two year old and yet god left them unsupervised, and rather then punishes them for their natural curiousity.

It was a teaching opportunity and it was for their own good. A child may not understand a command, but may still suffer the consequences of his decision. The parent will say, "Don't touch the fire." The ignorant child touches it anyway and they still get burned.

 

[Beta]

I really do not think that Adam's and Eve's morality was ever in question but their disobedience/obedience.
Since God COMMANDED the man not to eat of the forbidden tree Gen.2v16,17 it was more an ORDER than a choice and anyone transgressing orders or commands has to take the consequences - is that not so ?
Obedience/disobedience does not depend on knowledge beyond the instruction.

 

[AllanV]

Understanding what is meant by knowing good and evil is simply to observe what happens in our modern world. Nothing much has changed in the way people behave whether it is toward each other or in general personal choices.

Instead of knowing God and that is God's Request, man knows good and evil. This means that good and evil will need to be manifested in a persons life for there to be balance. A mental balance is held from life experience and social interaction giving rise to opinions and strong arguments against the existence of God. God is unable to be realized in a mind that needs to fulfill and know good and evil. People say that bad has to be experienced to understand good and that is the balance required in man. Risk taking in all endeavors is an example of testing limits regardless of the consequences. People will also test each other and this is mostly destructive because it leads to conflict.

Immortality and God are hidden by own mental abilities.

Where is God for the human? God says "I am a God close at hand and not far off." How close is the question?
God says "because of your rebellious nature I will remove you from sight". To believe, and experience God is in another mind. A scripture says "man struts around in the futility of own mind." “Everyone goes their own way.”

Knowing God is in another mind.

Man's rebellious nature removes all from God's sight. Humans can not "know" or see God and yet that is his request. (Have a knowing of God) The whole situation is like seeing a puzzle from another perspective. What then is the barrier that has been put in place to stop man knowing God and being immortal? This barrier is in the mind and God is a quiet observer just a little beyond own mind.

The prophet Samuel said to King Saul, “rebellion is as witchcraft and stubbornness is as idolatry" What does the term witchcraft really mean? It must refer to an aspect in the entire rebellious human’s interaction.
How does this witch craft as a part of a rebellious nature work?

The term hypnotic suggestion is used in reference to how powerful peer pressure is. Just observing the natural working of human interaction demonstrates something that is occurring at a deeper level with some power attached to it. Everyone is locked into a mental gymnastics, a human bonding, unable to escape. A person needs to be emotionally strong and not be vulnerable. Personal empowerment holds at bay another belief and this is done to maintain own emotional strength and equilibrium. A person learns to ague and fight to win at a personal emotional level. This leads to all the observed situations in human endeavor. Human rebellious nature isn’t just the good it is everything that is seen in all activity. The knowledge of good and evil is saying that man needs to inadvertently or purposely set up the experience of these to be balanced.

People say to me bad has to be experienced to know what good is. This is etched deeply into the make up of man. How much power the mind actually has is often discussed in terms of self belief and getting what one wants. Life experience plays a part and becomes own belief that is either strongly or weakly held on the impure and hardened mind and heart. Words spoken confirm the emotional strength and balance of an individual and this comes off the heart or inner being. All humanity is bound up with differing beliefs all contrary to the Knowledge of God. This is the barrier that dissipates and de-energizes, hiding God and the potential of immortality. This happens immediately and is awkward to understand.

When we talk with someone the usual senses are used and the mind will create the chemicals in the brain to either be comfortable or not. The question is can a powerful person hijack the mind of another or a group to produce the brain chemicals to get the desired result. A comedian can do this. A movie plays like an emotional roller coaster and everyone in the theater would be having a connected experience learning the chemical responses to images. The news reader speaks with believable authority and the images again would stimulate a chemical response. One person can provoke another into a fight by stirring up feelings. The Prophet Samuel is saying there is an added dimension to rebellious man's interaction.

 

[Beta]

Friend AllanV, you are giving a very interesting explanation of human nature which may well appeal to the more intellectual but should we not try and keep it simple for the sake of those who are to come to Christ "as little children" ? Mat.18v3.There is so much knowledge and experience available to the human mind today that can only get in the way of the simplicity that is in Christ 2Cor.11v3.
Discussing the disobedience of Adam and Eve who had a simple inexperienced mind is in mo best kept to their own situation which was that of following or not following instructions/orders.
As soon as an alternative was presented to them by the serpent with added 'physical' temptation Gen.3v6 God's instruction to their MIND seemed to fade away. I think this brought out mankinds greater affinity/connection with the 'material and physical' (seeing man was also made of matter) rather than the mental/spiritual which is from God Eccl.12v7. Had God planned it that way ? 1Cor.15v46 KJV may well support that idea.

 

[Pegg]

Yes, I was wanting to discuss this with the people who take genisis literally.

Although I suppose it does have broader philosophical implications. Personally I am extremely uncomfortable with this aspect due to it's presentation of God as a kind of irresponsible parent. Adam and Eve had less knowledge about morality than a two year old and yet god left them unsupervised, and rather then punishes them for their natural curiousity.

it wasnt curiosity that made them eat. Eve was able to repeat the command and the consequences so they both well and truly knew what would happen if they ate.

Have you read the account from the bible?

 

[Beta]

it wasnt curiosity that made them eat. Eve was able to repeat the command and the consequences so they both well and truly knew what would happen if they ate.

No, it was not curiosity that made them succumb but a conviction supported by physical temptation enhanced (Gen.3v6) by a deceptive spiritual power (satan in disguise as serpent). I believe this was the primary reason for the fall, being bewitched and dazzled by satan's trickery.
Nor would they dwell too much on the consequences of their action since death would have little meaning to them. ? .

 

[AllanV]

Friend AllanV, you are giving a very interesting explanation of human nature which may well appeal to the more intellectual but should we not try and keep it simple for the sake of those who are to come to Christ "as little children" ? Mat.18v3.There is so much knowledge and experience available to the human mind today that can only get in the way of the simplicity that is in Christ 2Cor.11v3.
Discussing the disobedience of Adam and Eve who had a simple inexperienced mind is in mo best kept to their own situation which was that of following or not following instructions/orders.
As soon as an alternative was presented to them by the serpent with added 'physical' temptation Gen.3v6 God's instruction to their MIND seemed to fade away. I think this brought out mankinds greater affinity/connection with the 'material and physical' (seeing man was also made of matter) rather than the mental/spiritual which is from God Eccl.12v7. Had God planned it that way ? 1Cor.15v46 KJV may well support that idea.

God opened my mind to a personal experience of him and the mind of Christ. It is not for the simple who would be easily misled by a more powerful individual. The request in the Bible is to know God but the pathway is hidden. This is to keep all the unrepentant out. The power of Satan is in the projected magnified expression of self as seen in the personality of an individual. The personality that is seen will make decisions and these play into the hands of the supernatural deviance, the destroyer, the life taker.
The whole of society is misled. It is important to get to the meat rather than being only on the milk as a baby.
God is a little beyond ones own sense of self belief. One way to know God is to understand scripture and that is a huge intellectual challenge for a human. Many different churches have installed ministers who teach the people their way. This places a person under the power of the talker. The simpleness of how it all works is bound up by the intellectual.

It is interesting that people living now seem to think people from the past were less intelligent or complex. Although there have been vast improvements in technology it seems these are only for personal gain and wealth for the few. The resources of the planet are being used up at an alarming rate and there will be wars over their lack.

The rebellious nature of man started at the garden of Eden. Understanding how it affects an individual now is not understood. Many think they are saved when they are not. There is a spiritual dimension to this that can transport an individual through a transformation in the mind. From the mind of man to the mind of Christ. And only then is God known. This is a complete personality and energy change because a human can never measure up.

What I am expressing is simple because it is easily seen but it is hard to get passed own individual limitations. Social interaction means that a certain response will take place. Feelings are generated and each person plays their part in shaping another. This starts from birth. Adam and Eve began an hereditary trait that is followed today.
They became more prone to sensory input and as shown in their sons the character
de-generated.

Adam and eve were displaced from the Garden of Eden because they could also eat from the tree of life and live forever, knowing Good and evil. As it stands mankind could destroy all the universe if they lived for ever. The whole of creation would be subject to the deviance's we see now on the earth, this one planet. A future technology reaching out into the universe could fall into the hands of Satan.

 

[Pegg]

No, it was not curiosity that made them succumb but a conviction supported by physical temptation enhanced (Gen.3v6) by a deceptive spiritual power (satan in disguise as serpent). I believe this was the primary reason for the fall, being bewitched and dazzled by satan's trickery.
Nor would they dwell too much on the consequences of their action since death would have little meaning to them. ? .

It wasnt really the fruit that they were tempted by though...all the trees had plenty of fruit on them and this tree was no different in that regard. They were really tempted by an 'idea'

the idea satan presented to Eve was that she would become like God if she ate from the tree. It was the false 'idea' of bettering herself that she became bedazzled by.
Gen3:4 "At this the serpent said to the woman: “YOU positively will not die. 5 For God knows that in the very day of YOUR eating from it YOUR eyes are bound to be opened and YOU are bound to be like God"
Then it says she 'began' to look at the tree 'longingly'... logically before this time she did not look at the tree longingly, but now it appeared different to her.

Adam was not even around when Satan spoke to Eve. His temptation was different because, unlike Eve, he was not deceived by this idea of becoming like God. Paul commented on the deception at 1 Tim. 2:13, 14 "Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression.”

My guess is that Adam was was not tempted by that idea of becoming like God, he was tempted by the idea of loosing his wife because he followed her willfully into sinning against God and he didnt have the serpent there tempting him to do so.

But with regard to the consequences, they both knew them...Eve repeated them to Satan so there is no substance in saying that they didnt understand what death is. Animals were created to die and they would have died in the garden of eden too so they both would have known what it means to die.