Why Did God Even Bother?

[Nakosis]

Genesis 1:8-9, 15-16
8 Then the Lord God planted a garden in the East,in a place named Eden. He put the man he made in that garden. 9 Then the Lord God caused all the beautiful trees that were good for food to grow in the garden. In the middle of the garden, he put the tree of life and the tree that gives knowledge about good and evil.

15 The Lord God put the man in the Garden of Eden to work the soil and take care of the garden. 16 The Lord God gave him this command: “You may eat from any tree in the garden. 17 But you must not eat from the tree that gives knowledge about good and evil. If you eat fruit from that tree, on that day you will certainly die!”​

My question is, what purpose did it serve to put the tree of knowledge in the garden?

Why did god bother to tempt A&E anyway? Did he not know they would eat its fruit and bring all kinds of calamity upon themselves and everyone who followed?


And even if you believe the story is only an allegory, what is its message?



.

Probably to explain why we don't see God.

Disobedience was the tree of knowledge. IOW do whatever you like but don't disobey God. Otherwise you'll gain knowledge that God can be disobeyed.

God's in the garden of Eden. Adam and Eve got shut out because they learned to disobey God. So God is not here among us. Had to explain that somehow.

 

[bobhikes]

Gotta ask, why this particular choice? Certainly A&E were choosing other things in the garden; choosing where to roam, choosing what to eat, choosing when to sleep, etc. etc..

.

A choice to be free of God. An ability to not do God's will.

 

[Skwim]

Probably to explain why we don't see God.

Placing the tree in Eden to tempt A&E explains why we don't see god? I don't follow.

Disobedience was the tree of knowledge. IOW do whatever you like but don't disobey God. Otherwise you'll gain knowledge that God can be disobeyed.

And you believe that only by tempting A&E with a tree whose consequences were so incredibly dire was the only way god could convince people not to disobey him? Considering how often his commandments are disobeyed it's obvious this ploy has failed big time.

God's in the garden of Eden. Adam and Eve got shut out because they learned to disobey God. So God is not here among us. Had to explain that somehow.

So, do you think the explanation is true or simply an explanatory device?

.

 

[Skwim]

A choice to be free of God. An ability to not do God's will.

You think then that A&E felt they would be free of god if they choose to eat of the tree. Any indication that this is what they wanted, or even knew that their act would free them from god? And why, in their minds, was it important not to do god's will? And how do you know this?

.

 

[Tumah]

They had a Sabbath back then?

The Sabbath was created the day after the sixth day, was it not?

Really? And how do you know that they were meant to eat from the tree after it?

Because its brought in Jewish sources.

And, why would this change something?

Your question was: what purpose did it serve to put the tree there. My response is that the following day, Adam was meant to eat from it.

Where is this written?

I see it being quoted in the name of the Midrash Rabbah.

Well, they certainly were. They were two individuals whose answer to their "test" had ENORMOUS consequences..

I don't think the consequences were that great.

 

[Quagmire]

I guess it depends on what you think the tree is.

Hey Skwim , just an aside: what version of the Bible are you using there?

 

[bobhikes]

You think then that A&E felt they would be free of god if they choose to eat of the tree. Any indication that this is what they wanted, or even knew that their act would free them from god? And why, in their minds, was it important not to do god's will? And how do you know this?

.

From the Bible
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

The woman was certainly understood she was not doing god's will and maybe the enticement to be like god but the bible never explains her reasoning because the point is that she had a choice.

"The woman was convinced. She saw that the tree was beautiful and its fruit looked delicious, and she wanted the wisdom it would give her. So she took some of the fruit and ate it. Then she gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it, too."

We have to assume Adam heard the snake but we know he was told by God not to. Adam either did it to please the woman or to be like God again we are not told but it doesn't matter what matters is that he made the choice.

Choice is the only thing that carries through the new testament. Even Christ wants humans to make the decision themselves never does Christ say I am the messiah do my bidding and Christ even tells his disciples to teach the truth but leave the people who won't listen to themselves.

Also it makes sense, If I were the only thing in the universe and I wanted something else. It would have to be separate from me independent.

 

[Skwim]

The Sabbath was created the day after the sixth day, was it not?

Looking into it, it evidently was.

The Seventh Day—Rest
2 So the earth, the sky, and everything in them were finished. 2 God finished the work he was doing, so on the seventh day he rested from his work. 3 God blessed the seventh day and made it a holy day. He made it special because on that day he rested from all the work he did while creating the world.​

Because its brought in Jewish sources.

Not understanding.

Your question was: what purpose did it serve to put the tree there. My response is that the following day, Adam was meant to eat from it.

So, from the very outset god meant for A&E to bring sin into the world and all its consequent suffering. Nice guy. Gotta wonder what all the Eden melodrama was for.

I see it being quoted in the name of the Midrash Rabbah.

how about a link?

I don't think the consequences were that great.

Okay.

.

 

[Nakosis]

Placing the tree in Eden to tempt A&E explains why we don't see god? I don't follow.

Adam supposedly walk with God, at least spoke with God. Certainly I suspect folks be asking why can't they speak with God too.

This provides an explanation of why man is cut off from direct access because of the sin of Adam.

And you believe that only by tempting A&E with a tree whose consequences were so incredibly dire was the only way god could convince people not to disobey him? Considering how often his commandments are disobeyed it's obvious this ploy has failed big time.

Just part of the explanation of where we or they found themselves. 'Why isn't life perfect? Why can't we contact God?"

Man discovered disobedience. Therefore we've been separated from God's presence. Like some folks never think to question their moral beliefs. Perhaps disobedience would have never crossed their mind. Like at some age you think to question your father's authority.

Plenty of folks around at the time questioning the Hebrew's God's authority.

So, do you think the explanation is true or simply an explanatory device?
.

I think folks would expect of a religion some explanation of how we got here. The Hebrew were trying to do that as well as reinforce the authority of their God. I also suspect the Hebrew adopted the story from an earlier culture. They may not have understood it's original meaning any more than folks guessing today. However like Christians, they felt the story held some authority so understood it in a way which made sense to their religion.

 

[Skwim]

I guess it depends on what you think the tree is.

Hey Skwim , just an aside: what version of the Bible are you using there?

Yeah, I see your quandary. It should have been Genesis 2:8-9, 15-16. Mea culpa.

.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Genesis 2:8-9, 15-16
8 Then the Lord God planted a garden in the East,in a place named Eden. He put the man he made in that garden. 9 Then the Lord God caused all the beautiful trees that were good for food to grow in the garden. In the middle of the garden, he put the tree of life and the tree that gives knowledge about good and evil.

15 The Lord God put the man in the Garden of Eden to work the soil and take care of the garden. 16 The Lord God gave him this command: “You may eat from any tree in the garden. 17 But you must not eat from the tree that gives knowledge about good and evil. If you eat fruit from that tree, on that day you will certainly die!”​

My question is, what purpose did it serve to put the tree of knowledge in the garden?

Why did god bother to tempt A&E anyway? Did he not know they would eat its fruit and bring all kinds of calamity upon themselves and everyone who followed?


And if you believe the story is only an allegory, what is its message?



.

Contrast the story with the Egyptian edenic story: Egyptian Stories (Myth-Folklore Online)

"Ra spake at the beginning of Creation, and bade the earth and the heavens to rise out of the waste of water. In the brightness of his majesty they appeared, and Shu, the uplifter, raised Nut upon high. She formed the vault, which is arched over Seb, the god of earth, who lies prostrate beneath her from where, at the eastern horizon, she is poised upon her toes to where, at the western horizon, bending down with outstretched arms, she rests upon her finger tips. In the darkness are beheld the stars which sparkle upon her body and over her great unwearied limbs."
​

What you find is that the story of Eden in the Bible reverses some Egyptian themes. Every symbol is redone but in such a way that you can recognize that the stories are supposed to resemble each other. The Egyptian story is more ancient. In other words these two stories are in opposition, and the Hebrew story is replacing the original. Instead of morality coming from gods as in Egypt, morality becomes something every person has. Instead of seeking immortality by giving to the gods, we choose morality in exchange for becoming mortals. The story of Adam and Eve eating the fruit is the story of them empowered. In the Egyptian story all people are nothing but subjects.

In Egyptian stories, power comes from names and knowing secret names, so only gods, goddesses and Pharaohs know true names. In the Hebrew story Adam gives names to every creature. You can go through the two stories and point for point read many objections to the Egyptian story.

 

[Skwim]

Man discovered disobedience.

To what advantage?

Therefore we've been separated from God's presence. Like some folks never think to question their moral beliefs. Perhaps disobedience would have never crossed their mind. Like at some age you think to question your father's authority.

But couldn't all of mankind have gone on as intended, without disobedience?

Plenty of folks around at the time questioning the Hebrew's God's authority.

Not at A&E's time.

I think folks would expect of a religion some explanation of how we got here. The Hebrew were trying to do that as well as reinforce the authority of their God.
I also suspect the Hebrew adopted the story from an earlier culture. They may not have understood it's original meaning any more than folks guessing today. However like Christians, they felt the story held some authority so understood it in a way which made sense to their religion.

So I take it you regard the Eden story to be a fiction, created so as to satisfy the curiosity of those of the Hebrew faith. Okay.

.

 

[Skwim]

Contrast the story with the Egyptian edenic story: Egyptian Stories (Myth-Folklore Online)

"Ra spake at the beginning of Creation, and bade the earth and the heavens to rise out of the waste of water. In the brightness of his majesty they appeared, and Shu, the uplifter, raised Nut upon high. She formed the vault, which is arched over Seb, the god of earth, who lies prostrate beneath her from where, at the eastern horizon, she is poised upon her toes to where, at the western horizon, bending down with outstretched arms, she rests upon her finger tips. In the darkness are beheld the stars which sparkle upon her body and over her great unwearied limbs."
​

What you find is that the story of Eden in the Bible reverses some Egyptian themes. Every symbol is redone but in such a way that you can recognize that the stories are supposed to resemble each other. The Egyptian story is more ancient. In other words these two stories are in opposition, and the Hebrew story is replacing the original. Instead of morality coming from gods as in Egypt, morality becomes something every person has. Instead of seeking immortality by giving to the gods, we choose morality in exchange for becoming mortals. The story of Adam and Eve eating the fruit is the story of them empowered. In the Egyptian story all people are nothing but subjects.

In Egyptian stories, power comes from names and knowing secret names, so only gods, goddesses and Pharaohs know true names. In the Hebrew story Adam gives names to every creature. You can go through the two stories and point for point read many objections to the Egyptian story.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well since you placed it in "general religious debates" I might as well answer from a Baha'i perspective:

Because the whole story is a allegory, as the Writings dictate. The story isn't literal, that would be silly.

The tree's fruit is the concept of a good/bad value judgement. Eden is the same as this world, just viewed from a state of contentment. "Eating the fruit" is embracing the false knowledge of a good/bad divide and applying that to one's view of the world. Being banished from paradise is due to them being unable to see the world in a state of contentment as before, and instead viewing it in terms of positives and faults.

And God is an allegory for man as he continually approaches an asymptotic state of perfection, and the resurrection of Christ refers to the rebirth of reason beginning with the Renaissance, which literally means rebirth.

Once one opens the door to unrestricted, freestyle interpretation of the meaning of scripture and allows oneself to assign it meaning other than what it says, one takes a ride down the slippery slope that allows the elimination of every supernatural aspect of it.

 

[Nakosis]

To what advantage?

No advantage. Why would I want to imply being disobedient to God holds some advantage? Even in Christian theology it seems kind of stupid. We had to sin so we could be saved later? What?

I think Christians have a problem with the idea an all powerful God and that nothing happen that is not according to God's will. Probably not something that was the main focus of the Hebrew Religion at the time.

But couldn't all of mankind have gone on as intended, without disobedience?

Sure, but it didn't and that wasn't a good thing. Maybe at best, you obey God and enter the garden to be with God.

Not at A&E's time.

Well, that's not when the Bible was written.

So I take it you regard the Eden story to be a fiction, created so as to satisfy the curiosity of those of the Hebrew faith. Okay.
.

I just take it, if I was creating a religion, some of the things I'd need to explain to get folks to accept it.

 

[Quagmire]

Yeah, I see your quandary. It should have been Genesis 2:8-9, 15-16. Mea culpa.

.

I didn't mean that (I had no idea what the numbers should be) it was just that the prose itself seems strange to me. This in particular: "But you must not eat from the tree that gives knowledge about good and evil. "

I've never seen a version of that passage that came right out and called it, "the tree that gives knowledge about good and evil" rather than just "the tree of the Knowledge of good and evil". Sounds like the authors of this version were taking a few liberties.

 

[Skwim]

I didn't mean that (I had no idea what the numbers should be) it was just that the prose itself seems strange to me. This in particular: "But you must not eat from the tree that gives knowledge about good and evil. "

I've never seen a version of that passage that came right out and called it, "the tree that gives knowledge about good and evil" rather than just "the tree of the Knowledge of good and evil". Sounds like the authors of this version were taking a few liberties.

All scholars take liberties when translating the Bible; hence our 55+ English translations--I've counted nine different variations of Isaiah 45:7. The version I used in the OP, because it states things very clearly, was the Easy Read version.

.

 

[Ingledsva]

They were meant to eat from it after the Sabbath.
The purpose of any Divinely given test is to justify the reward one would eventually receive. Everyone gets tested, they're not different.
Calamity?

Personally - I believe it is just a teaching story about intent and consequence.

But - like a lot of people I have to ask, - if It is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and they thus don't have that knowledge of good and evil, yet, - how then can they have sinned, - regardless of the idea they didn't listen to YHVH? They don't have the Knowledge that it is evil to disobey YHVH.

*

 

[osgart]

God's only desire was that Adam and eve choose the tree of life. and the sin was for them to choose knowledge of good and evil above everything else. God demands a just heart to enter into life. Adam and eve revealed their untrustworthy hearts to God.

Trustworthiness is everything, in life. they failed a heart test, listening to a serpent, when they were actually in the presence of Innocence itself; God.

it was all before them,every fate and Destiny at the leisure of their own personal choice. God's character should have been obvious, and it was.

they chose something, God commanded them not to do. their choice represented rebellion against God. God than knowing their choice, immediately began His plan of redemption for mankind.

God's desire is for life only. life is fellowship and equality of heart innocence.

this story is one of the most important lessons ever taught. it's a wise fable. it's not meant to be a scientific book.

 

[Quagmire]

All scholars take liberties when translating the Bible;

Some more than others. I prefer translations that would rather leave something vague or unexplained than present an assumption as if it were a given. But. . .

hence our 55+ English translations--I've counted nine different variations of Isaiah 45:7. The version I used in the OP, because it states things very clearly, was the Easy Read version.

.

. . . I suspected that this might have been a version intended for younger readers, so I think it's to be expected.


Like I said, just an aside.