Why didn't the snake feed Adam & Eve from both trees?

[amorphous_constellation]

maybe the point was not to empower the individual but empower the whole species.

I don't follow.

I was taught that this is an etiological tale to explain mortality and their way of life in general, tilling the land.

Tilling the land is what they seem to gotten as a punishment, perhaps along with mortality - so it's not just a way of life, it seems to be a purgatory type state.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

There is no mention of the "tree of life" until after they sinned. Perhaps they, even Satan, did not know of the significance of the tree until it was already too late.

So that means that any human or animal in the garden could have chanced to eat from this unknown tree by accident or out of valid curiosity?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The A&E story is about human civilization going out on their own, instead of running around the backyard naked. Read people read. The "players" are not what the Story is about.

Well, to be more precise it is about human civilization getting kicked out of paradise. Where we should be.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The knowledge we gain (and indeed the knowledge Adam and Eve gained) was unlimited in its potential, but there is no reason to assume that its full potential would be reached during mortality.

Yeah, that's a reason to be confused, because Elohim might have realized that letting them be immortal would mature them.

I disagree. I believe that God knew exactly what He was doing and that it was probably His desire that man be able to create his own tree of life in time.

That could be, then again I think it would have saved a lot of time to allow for a shortcut and just grant it.

It's important to note there was no command not to eat of the tree of life. It's very likely they had, and it was meant to sustain their physical bodies as long as they were in the garden.

It was an act of mercy on God's behalf to not allow them to be immortal AND cursed with sin.

Important to note indeed. But I don't see evidence that they had eaten from it. God makes a point of preventing it in verse.

The story to me is an allegory. The story wasn't about feeding but about deception and disobedience.

That's pretty rotten. Not only were they deceived but they got blamed for it.

I would have said it was purely metaphoric defining, early on, differentiating socialized and unsocialized humans which over time leads to a dominance of socialized co-operative group that is eventually stronger than the smaller fragmented "more animalistic - survival orienated" primitive aggressive tribes.

I'd have to read into a lot to get any sense of warfare in the story.

But, seriously -They were already eating from the tree of life because they were obedient to God -even if that meant literally eating from one real tree and not another.

Well, I don't know. That's one way to put it.

 

[Kolibri]

So that means that any human or animal in the garden could have chanced to eat from this unknown tree by accident or out of valid curiosity?

I don't know, it is possible that there were instructions regarding the tree but it is not mentioned in the narrative till it was important; this 2nd part of the creation narrative was arranged topically instead of chronologically. It may be that they overlooked the tree and were blinded to it till it was appropriate for them to eat from it. The account is silent. But there are "trees of life" that are mentioned either figuratively or in vision. Whether there will be literal trees of this variety used after the final destruction of Satan and mankind is restored to human perfection remains to be seen.

 

[ChristineES]

It actually was not rotten since G-d DID tell them not to touch the tree or eat of it.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

It actually was not rotten since G-d DID tell them not to touch the tree or eat of it.

Eh, not everyone sees it the same. Intelligence I see as our salvation, and properly directed, the last thing we should be guilty about.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

But there are "trees of life" that are mentioned either figuratively or in vision. Whether there will be literal trees of this variety used after the final destruction of Satan and mankind is restored to human perfection remains to be seen.

I wonder why things like knowledge and immortality had to be distilled into a tree?

 

[Kolibri]

I wonder why things like knowledge and immortality had to be distilled into a tree?

they were just symbols. The "tree of knowledge of good and bad" was merely a symbol that some decisions Jehovah would make for his family. He would always be their Lawgiver. Eating it symbolized independence, that is knowing what it means to choose for oneself what is good/bad and dealing with the consequences.

the "tree of life" symbolized a right to live. It is highly unlikely that that it contained some special nutrient that can't be found anywhere else.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What good is immortality if your don't know how to have fun with it?

 

[rosends]

Well, Elohim knows good and evil and supposedly is immortal, but their power to choose evil doesn't seem to lead to downfall. The lesson in that seems to be that immortality would convey a being over that hump of immaturity where they might choose evil. So what I don't understand is, why God didn't then allow Adam & Eve to subsequently eat from the tree of life, knowing that eternity would teach them to choose the good.

God knows good and evil but is God. The fear expressed was that if they knew good and evil and ate from the tree, they would be "like" God -- but not identical. The similarity, the combination of understanding and immortality works in God but would not in fallible mankind.

So they suffer a downfall (mortality) because immortality would not confer any chance for their learning to aspire to bettering themselves because of a lack of threat of death, or loss of afterlife from sin while alive.

 

[Moni_Gail]

Tilling the land is what they seem to gotten as a punishment, perhaps along with mortality - so it's not just a way of life, it seems to be a purgatory type state.

Genesis 2:5 states: "Now no tree of the field was yet on the earth, neither did any herb of the field yet grow, because the Lord God had not brought rain upon the earth, and there was no man to work the soil." The stage has been set, and then creation begins. This implies that, according to the story, man's purpose is to till the land. Therefore, this is not punishment, but man finally fulfilling his purpose in creation. Note that the first thing they notice when they gain knowledge is their own nudity. They now have a sexual awareness. They are then taken from a childlike, edenic existence into the real world of adult responsibilities. It seems more a rite of passage, if you will - from childhood, to adolescence (knowledge and budding sexuality), into adulthood (labor and childbirth).

Side note, I specifically chose Genesis 2 because according to the documentary hypothesis this is the older creation myth. Genesis 2 is assumed to have been from around 950 BCE and Genesis 1 is estimated to be from around 400 BCE.

 

[Kolibri]

Genesis 2:5 states: "Now no tree of the field was yet on the earth, neither did any herb of the field yet grow, because the Lord God had not brought rain upon the earth, and there was no man to work the soil." The stage has been set, and then creation begins. This implies that, according to the story, man's purpose is to till the land. Therefore, this is not punishment, but man finally fulfilling his purpose in creation. Note that the first thing they notice when they gain knowledge is their own nudity. They now have a sexual awareness. They are then taken from a childlike, edenic existence into the real world of adult responsibilities. It seems more a rite of passage, if you will - from childhood, to adolescence (knowledge and budding sexuality), into adulthood (labor and childbirth).

Side note, I specifically chose Genesis 2 because according to the documentary hypothesis this is the older creation myth. Genesis 2 is assumed to have been from around 950 BCE and Genesis 1 is estimated to be from around 400 BCE.

Ge 2:5 is in harmony with Ge 1:28.

"Further, God blessed them, and God said to them: 'Be fruitful and become many, filling the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.'"

Awareness of nakedness was not a sexual awareness budding but a beginning of shame. Even in today's world there is a shame differentiation between words nakedness and nudity. Though in our imperfect world there is very good reason to be modest in our use of clothing.

Had Adam and Eve not sinned, they still would have eventually produced children. Then they would have expanded the boundaries of the garden of Eden, as they had the people to do so, until the whole earth had been subdued.

The Bible is silent on whether or not God would have given them clothing when the married couple started to have children. The human race did not stay dependent on their heavenly Father long enough to find out.

 

[Moni_Gail]

Had Adam and Eve not sinned, they still would have eventually produced children. Then they would have expanded the boundaries of the garden of Eden, as they had the people to do so, until the whole earth had been subdued.

The Bible is silent on whether or not God would have given them clothing when the married couple started to have children. The human race did not stay dependent on their heavenly Father long enough to find out.

Yet, the honor of the first sin belongs to Cain. The text states that God cursed the serpent and the ground, yet the same word is not used with the man and woman. Rather, what is said to them is merely the realities of agriculture (more laborious due to the cursed ground), childbirth, and mortality. Yet, directly, they are not cursed. They are sent out of the garden so that they do not obtain immortality: " 3:22-24 Now the Lord God said, "Behold man has become like one of us (not much of a curse nor a negative result of "sin"), having the ability of knowing good and evil, and now, lest he stretch forth his hand and take also from the Tree of Life and eat and live forever. And the Lord God sent him out of the Garden of Eden, to till the soil (which according to 2:5 was his purpose all along), whence he had been taken. And He drove the man out, and He stationed from the east of the Garden of Eden the cherubim and the blade of the revolving sword, to guard the way to the Tree of Life." Banishment occurred only so that we not gain immortality, to keep us from the Tree of Life.

As to being clothed, this seems to serve the function of drawing a distinction between us and animals. Similarly, this tale wrestles with the status of humans and states that we belong to the domain of creation; our existence is not independent and we are mortal like the rest of creation. And still, we are also like the creator and replicate the creative activity within creation. By eating from the tree we move from the exclusive realm of nature to culture, but are not allowed the eat of the tree of life lest we become immortals like the gods.

 

[Kolibri]

Yet, the honor of the first sin belongs to Cain.

Huh?

"That is why, just through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned." - Romans 5:12

our inability to avoid all sin was inherited not from Cain, but from Adam.

"The man has become like" Jehovah and evidently his firstborn son "in knowing good and bad." This means they took it upon themselves to determine what was good and bad. Evidently, Jehovah gave his firstborn some freedom to choose. But man was never given the right to determine it for themselves. (Jer 10:23) That choosing was received by theft.

The tree of life did not symbolize immorality, but merely the right to live forever. That right was lost, so access to that tree was now denied. One does not loose deathlessness, so Adam was never immortal. Not even the angels are immortal. Otherwise Satan could never be prophesied to eventually be destroyed. (Re 20:10,14) The only immortals in the Bible are the Father and other spirits that are resurrected from human life. (Christ and his 144,000 brothers.)

 

[Moni_Gail]

Huh?

"That is why, just through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned." - Romans 5:12

our inability to avoid all sin was inherited not from Cain, but from Adam.

The tree of life did not symbolize immorality, but merely the right to live forever. That right was lost, so access to that tree was now denied. One does not loose deathlessness, so Adam was never immortal. Not even the angels are immortal. Otherwise Satan could never be prophesied to eventually be destroyed. (Re 20:10,14) The only immortals in the Bible is the Father and other spirits that are resurrected from human life. (Christ and his 144,000 brothers.)

I admit that I tend to take it book and chapter at a time. Romans was not written until approximately AD 56-58. For myself, it does not hold any bearing on the cultural and linguistic context within which Genesis was written. I can't imagine that the authors of Romans had any better understanding of Genesis 1,000 years after it was written than we do.

I also cannot see Satan as you do. Satan(s) were accusers or tempters working at God's behest.

As to the Tree of Life, I think it goes beyond the right to live forever, as it states that all man need do was eat of the fruit and immortality was granted, just as knowledge was from the other. "lest he stretch forth his hand and take also from the Tree of Life and eat and live forever"

 

[Kolibri]

I admit that I tend to take it book and chapter at a time. Romans was not written until approximately AD 56-58. For myself, it does not hold any bearing on the cultural and linguistic context within which Genesis was written. I can't imagine that the authors of Romans had any better understanding of Genesis 1,000 years after it was written than we do.

I also cannot see Satan as you do. Satan(s) were accusers or tempters working at God's behest.

As to the Tree of Life, I think it goes beyond the right to live forever, as it states that all man need do was eat of the fruit and immortality was granted, just as knowledge was from the other. "lest he stretch forth his hand and take also from the Tree of Life and eat and live forever"

In both Hebrew and Greek the verb forms of the word sin mean "miss," in the sense of missing or not reaching a goal, way, mark, or right point. Hence, sin is anything not in harmony, and thus contrary to, God's personality, standards, ways and will; anything marring one's relationship with God. Various scriptures tied sin to words (Job 2:10; Ps 39:1), deeds (Le 20:20; 2Co 12:21), failure to do what should be done (Nu 9:13; Jas 4:17), and either a mental or heart attitude (Pr 21:4). This fits what Adam and Eve had done.

Satan working at God's behest? do you have any scriptures to support this idea for us to look at?

 

[Moni_Gail]

In both Hebrew and Greek the verb forms of the word sin mean "miss," in the sense of missing or not reaching a goal, way, mark, or right point. Hence, sin is anything not in harmony, and thus contrary to, God's personality, standards, ways and will; anything marring one's relationship with God. Various scriptures tied sin to words (Job 2:10; Ps 39:1), deeds (Le 20:20; 2Co 12:21), failure to do what should be done (Nu 9:13; Jas 4:17), and either a mental or heart attitude (Pr 21:4). This fits what Adam and Eve had done.

Satan working at God's behest? do you have any scriptures to support this idea for us to look at?

I can see your point concerning sin. I suppose I continue to be torn because the repercussions amount to them fulfilling their original purpose.

Job is the first thing that comes to mind. It is the clearest instance of satan working as an accuser and a tempter. I should also clarify that I'm not conflating satan with Lucifer.

 

[Kolibri]

I can see your point concerning sin. I suppose I continue to be torn because the repercussions amount to them fulfilling their original purpose.

Job is the first thing that comes to mind. It is the clearest instance of satan working as an accuser and a tempter. I should also clarify that I'm not conflating satan with Lucifer.

You may need to flesh out your statement about Adam and Even fulfilling their original purpose. Are you saying that their purpose was to leave the garden? I personally do not see that as possible. Their stated purpose was Ge 1:28. Leaving the Garden created a detour, it was not the purpose. Ge 3:15 was the solution to the detour. And the sacred secret about this prophesy was progressively revealed throughout history.

Satan gets very little attention in the Hebrew portion of the Bible. Most of which was in the first 2 chapters of Job. There is one instance at 1 Chronicles 21:1 and he is also mentioned in Zechariah 3:1,2. It is in these places where there is use of the definite article ha before sa-tan' to show it is a title-name. All 3 of these areas put Satan in an unfavorable light. And while the account in Job might be construed to be Satan working for God. Zechariah points to a completely different conclusion.

"And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Jehovah, and Satan was standing at his right hand to resist him. Then the angel of Jehovah said to Satan: 'May Jehovah rebuke you, O Satan, yes, may Jehovah, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this one a burning log snatched out of the fire?'" - Zechariah 3:1,2

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

As to the Tree of Life, I think it goes beyond the right to live forever, as it states that all man need do was eat of the fruit and immortality was granted, just as knowledge was from the other. "lest he stretch forth his hand and take also from the Tree of Life and eat and live forever"

Try this -

Theologia Germanica - Christian Classics Ethereal Library