ABRAHAMICS ONLY: The Tree called the knowledge of good and evil, (Genesis: a closer look) continued.

[37818]

No, revelations that shines a light on what was written so that the people can see it as it was meant to be seen.

Ok, that is your view. And may as it be some others. But not mine. I am of the view Revelation 1:1 . . . is the close of revelations until Christ returns.

 

[Yahcubs777]

Ok, that is your view. And may as it be some others. But not mine. I am of the view Revelation 1:1 . . . is the close of revelations until Christ returns.

Then who is Revelation 10:7 speaking of? What about Revelation 18:4

 

[37818]

Then who is Revelation 10:7 speaking of? What about Revelation 18:4

Revelation 10:7, ". . . But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets. . . ." Revelation 21:27, Isaiah 65:17, 2 Peter 3:13. Isaiah and Peter.

Revelation 18:4, ". . . And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. . . ." Matthew 24:29-34. Believers in that day.

 

[Yahcubs777]

Revelation 10:7, ". . . But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets. . . ." Revelation 21:27, Isaiah 65:17, 2 Peter 3:13. Isaiah and Peter.

Revelation 18:4, ". . . And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. . . ." Matthew 24:29-34. Believers in that day.

You should really read the bible. Rev 10:7 is saying the same thing as John 16:12-15 Malachi 4:4-6 Acts 3:19-23 Matthew 17:11

There is even more, but these are the ones that i will say.

 

[37818]

You should really read the bible. Rev 10:7 is saying the same thing as John 16:12-15 Malachi 4:4-6 Acts 3:19-23 Matthew 17:11

There is even more, but these are the ones that i will say.

I have no disagreement with God's written word. Though it seems we disagee on what the written word does not say.

 

[Yahcubs777]

I have no disagreement with God's written word. Though it seems we disagee on what the written word does not say.

You don't seem to understand GOD's Word, if you can't see what it means: Prophesied by the Prophets concerning Revelation 10:7 and that it agrees perfectly with he that will lead us into all truth. For here is an evidence. Who are the fathers referred to in Malachi 4:5-6 ?

 

[37818]

You don't seem to understand GOD's Word, if you can't see what it means: Prophesied by the Prophets concerning Revelation 10:7 and that it agrees perfectly with he that will lead us into all truth. For here is an evidence. Who are the fathers referred to in Malachi 4:5-6 ?

". . . Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. . . ."
In the time of Revelation 11:2-3, ". . . and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. . . ."

 

[Yahcubs777]

". . . Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. . . ."
In the time of Revelation 11:2-3, ". . . and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. . . ."

Yes, Revelation 11 is speaking about the Law and the Prophet personified by Moses and Elijah, who also met with Jesus His Pre-Eminence on the mountain of Olives. The fourty and two months is spiritually coded. It does not mean 3.5 years or 3.5 days. It is the same as "Times, time and half a time.

 

[37818]

Yes, Revelation 11 is speaking about the Law and the Prophet personified by Moses and Elijah, who also met with Jesus His Pre-Eminence on the mountain of Olives. The fourty and two months is spiritually coded. It does not mean 3.5 years or 3.5 days. It is the same as "Times, time and half a time.

Ok. That is your understanding on its interpertation.

 

[TreeOfLife]

In Genesis 2:16-17 it is written:


16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

If we look at this verse, you will see there is no causal link in eating the fruit and dying; simply because it was called the knowledge of good and evil; not the tree of death.

This reveals it is a parable, and the truth is found in another Parable spoken by Jesus HIs Pre-Eminence.

Matthew 7:16-20

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Notice, that HE makes it clear that there cannot be a tree that brings forth both good and evil? A corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit, a good tree brings forth good fruit. Ye shall know them by their fruits.

So the question remains: What kind of a tree was that tree in that Genesis story? Was it a good tree, or an evil tree?

GOD is the one that planted the tree. Can GOD plant an evil tree? Isaiah 45:7states that GOD creates evil:

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

But John the Beloved contradicts that. 1 John

5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

So which is it?

Let us think about this deeper: If GOD creates evil, that means that HE would need to first conceptualise evil, then brood on evil, and then bring it into reality. How does that agree with John: GOD is light, in HIM is no darkness at all.

GOD cannot create evil. There is what Isaiah was revealing here which is something I will leave for now as its not easily understood unless you understand things like Matrixes of the earth, similitudes and adumbrations and then maybe you will understand adverse affects in GOD's Logos. So let me leave that aside.​

The point is, GOD created the tree, coooked the soup of the fruit, programmed the seed, planted the seed, and then told Father Adam the day he eats of it, he shall surely die.

And the name HE called the tree does not agree with HIM and HIS Most Holy Character, nor does it agree with what HE said would happen. Therefore, there is much more to this.

When you also take into account that Jesus His Pre-Eminence, who is the GOD in HIS incarnate Manifestation said that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, and vice versa, it shouldn't be ignored.

So either the tree was a good tree or evil tree. And it brought forth evil fruit or good fruit; it can't bring forth both.

If a person is honest in their studies of the Word, and is a seeker of the kingdom, they will be able to see this is not in agreement. How can there be a tree like that, and Jesus His Pre-Eminence said its impossible for a tree to be like that?

So what do you think the tree is? Ye shall know them by their fruits.

Disclaimer: no need to talk about context here, as i know HE was warning people against false prophets, and the fruits are their messages. But for a parable to work, it needs to be consistent, and Jesus HIs Pre-Eminence cannot lie. Therefore, saying it can't happen, means it can't happen.

Therefore, let us be honest, and rather than try to explain based on the doctrine you have accepted, look at it as it was written; as a real event. This is a serious topic.

I just want to say thank you to the people that have been in each of my threads as we look into genesis. We may not agree on some things, but I appreciate your contributions and hope you will continue to contribute.

THANK YOU.

First off you can cut it any way you want. Do we belive the words off the Bible. Isaiah 45.7

So since we

In Genesis 2:16-17 it is written:


16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

If we look at this verse, you will see there is no causal link in eating the fruit and dying; simply because it was called the knowledge of good and evil; not the tree of death.

This reveals it is a parable, and the truth is found in another Parable spoken by Jesus HIs Pre-Eminence.

Matthew 7:16-20

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Notice, that HE makes it clear that there cannot be a tree that brings forth both good and evil? A corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit, a good tree brings forth good fruit. Ye shall know them by their fruits.

So the question remains: What kind of a tree was that tree in that Genesis story? Was it a good tree, or an evil tree?

GOD is the one that planted the tree. Can GOD plant an evil tree? Isaiah 45:7states that GOD creates evil:

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

But John the Beloved contradicts that. 1 John

5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

So which is it?

Let us think about this deeper: If GOD creates evil, that means that HE would need to first conceptualise evil, then brood on evil, and then bring it into reality. How does that agree with John: GOD is light, in HIM is no darkness at all.

GOD cannot create evil. There is what Isaiah was revealing here which is something I will leave for now as its not easily understood unless you understand things like Matrixes of the earth, similitudes and adumbrations and then maybe you will understand adverse affects in GOD's Logos. So let me leave that aside.​

The point is, GOD created the tree, coooked the soup of the fruit, programmed the seed, planted the seed, and then told Father Adam the day he eats of it, he shall surely die.

And the name HE called the tree does not agree with HIM and HIS Most Holy Character, nor does it agree with what HE said would happen. Therefore, there is much more to this.

When you also take into account that Jesus His Pre-Eminence, who is the GOD in HIS incarnate Manifestation said that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, and vice versa, it shouldn't be ignored.

So either the tree was a good tree or evil tree. And it brought forth evil fruit or good fruit; it can't bring forth both.

If a person is honest in their studies of the Word, and is a seeker of the kingdom, they will be able to see this is not in agreement. How can there be a tree like that, and Jesus His Pre-Eminence said its impossible for a tree to be like that?

So what do you think the tree is? Ye shall know them by their fruits.

Disclaimer: no need to talk about context here, as i know HE was warning people against false prophets, and the fruits are their messages. But for a parable to work, it needs to be consistent, and Jesus HIs Pre-Eminence cannot lie. Therefore, saying it can't happen, means it can't happen.

Therefore, let us be honest, and rather than try to explain based on the doctrine you have accepted, look at it as it was written; as a real event. This is a serious topic.

I just want to say thank you to the people that have been in each of my threads as we look into genesis. We may not agree on some things, but I appreciate your contributions and hope you will continue to contribute.

THANK YOU.

First off you can cut it any way you want but as the tree of life was evil it needs to be said here that it was created by God.
Just as God in Isaiah 45.7 states He created evil. Other ref in Jeremiah. Also Gen 6:5-6 (I do not believe God contemplated all evil when it appeared on earth. He knew it was going to happen but I do not think he imagined every little bizarre thing that happened.

The tree of life (not me) I believe tainted all of mans knowledge and decisions until the return of Christ. This taint means that all knowledge and decisions are not completely true. Example is science. We have what man calls facts. All of us (I hope) can agree that discoveries are only true up to the knowledge we possess. There is more to most stories that we can discover. So we call science FACT. Facts are both truth and error (the tree of life). So we have ever been plagued with fact until the atonement. Even though today most do not seek truth in the way we should.

Reference to the fruit. This is truth! Although we can say we believe in Christ: At times not all our actions show it.

So Christian: We have inherited from both the tree of life and the tree of of knowledge of good and evil.
And remember the tree of life inheritance is only one generation where as the other is many many generations of error.
So I choose the hold onto the tree of life and take all the truth I can from it.

 

[halbhh]

but as the tree of life was evil

It's very much better for you need to read again to notice things you didn't already:

Genesis 2 NIV

After you read chapters 2 and 3 I think you'll want to edit that sentence I just highlighted.

As you will see, only the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was forbidden to them at first, and only after the fall did they get expelled so that they could not eat of the Tree of Life. The Tree of Life is what it sounds like, as you can learn more about in the last chapter of Revelation also: a very very very Good Tree for those who belong to God -- and it's reserved for those that trust God (and Adam and Eve had just there in chapter 3 distrusted God, trusting both themselves and the serpent above God!...).

 

[TreeOfLife]

It's very much better for you need to read again to notice things you didn't already:

Genesis 2 NIV

After you read chapters 2 and 3 I think you'll want to edit that sentence I just highlighted.

As you will see, only the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was forbidden to them at first, and only after the fall did they get expelled so that they could not eat of the Tree of Life. The Tree of Life is what it sounds like, as you can learn more about in the last chapter of Revelation also: a very very very Good Tree for those who belong to God -- and it's reserved for those that trust God (and Adam and Eve had just there in chapter 3 distrusted God, trusting both themselves and the serpent above God!...).

Please read gen 2.16-17 in both niv and kjv

All trees ok to eat except the tree of knowledge of good and evil

 

[halbhh]

Please read gen 2.16-17 in both niv and kjv

All trees ok to eat except the tree of knowledge of good and evil

I will indeed, and I don't mind even though I've read these chapters more than a dozen times. You should not mind reading them again either.

Here are those verses

Genesis 2:16-17
New International Version

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Genesis 2:16-17
King James Version

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 2:16-17
English Standard Version

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Read full chapter
Genesis 2:16-17 NIV;KJV;ESV - And the LORD God commanded the man, - Bible Gateway

So, as you can see, there is just 1 tree forbidden.

Later, though, they will be ejected from the Garden in order to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life. That's in chapter 3.

 

[Balthazzar]

I don't think the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was either good or evil. It was simply a tree that God forbid Adam to eat from. And therein lies the importance of the tree. That it was forbidden to eat.
With the law comes the knowledge of sin.
Adam sinned by eating of the tree. And he ate of the tree because the law is made weak by the flesh. IOW, Adam's desire of his flesh for the tree was greater than his desire to obey God.

My grandfather liked using cookies in a cookie jar as an analogy to illustrate the point. "Cookies are off limit kids!" How long before one of the little ones climbs up the counter to grab one? My experience with this point came with flintstones vitamins. "No more than one." I was able to open the child safety lid at that point and was granted more trust by my mother then. I would think: "What's one or two more gonna hurt?" Meh, so I'd grab a couple extra on occasion. In any case, I'd suggest you're correct. That's when broken rule and consequence seemed to appear and became relevant in the lives of Adam and Eve.

 

[Balthazzar]

It's very much better for you need to read again to notice things you didn't already:

Genesis 2 NIV

After you read chapters 2 and 3 I think you'll want to edit that sentence I just highlighted.

As you will see, only the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was forbidden to them at first, and only after the fall did they get expelled so that they could not eat of the Tree of Life. The Tree of Life is what it sounds like, as you can learn more about in the last chapter of Revelation also: a very very very Good Tree for those who belong to God -- and it's reserved for those that trust God (and Adam and Eve had just there in chapter 3 distrusted God, trusting both themselves and the serpent above God!...).

It's funny looking back at how picking up the bible became more like an exercise in treasure hunting, or an exercise in gathering intel. I can see how searching for answers made me feel like a detective of sorts, one clue leading to another, etc. Some didn't find much interest in this exercise, whereas others were no less enthused than I was. Grumble grumble - "what's the point?" by some, while others come to the table so excited at new discoveries, they could hardly contain themselves.

Anyway, I remember this being my first exercise in discovery of intent and meaning. The tree of knowledge - of good AND evil. Whew - I came up with all sorts of creative ponderings and possibilities. At the moment, I'm seeing parental guidance, a broken rule and consequence scenario. Beyond this, conception, childbirth, leaving home, and taking care of a family. The tree of life -

 

[Balthazzar]

Are you saying Adam didn't sin?

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.

1 Tim 2:14 is not saying that Adam did not transgress, but that the woman transgresses by being beguiled.

If Adam was told not to eat by God, and Eve was told not to eat by Adam, which seems to be the case, then wouldn't it follow that Eve was deceived by Adam or maybe she simply made the "1st" move? Not soon after, both are ashamed and hiding in the bushes to cover their nakedness. Then came the teaching of increased pain in childbirth or the child's birth, having to leave home, and taking care of their family to be by the sweat of the brow, and likewise the teaching of the flaming sword turning every which way keeping the way of the "tree of life".

Wouldn't this connote life under the sun and the natural effects of working outdoors in the fields?

Eve got pregnant it would seem and they were made to leave home to care for themselves and their family. That's the way life operates in most areas of the world.

It's in the sequence of events that I came to understand it this way - It just makes more sense than other things I've imagined in times past.

 

[halbhh]

It's funny looking back at how picking up the bible became more like an exercise in treasure hunting, or an exercise in gathering intel. I can see how searching for answers made me feel like a detective of sorts, one clue leading to another, etc. Some didn't find much interest in this exercise, whereas others were no less enthused than I was. Grumble grumble - "what's the point?" by some, while others come to the table so excited at new discoveries, they could hardly contain themselves.

Anyway, I remember this being my first exercise in discovery of intent and meaning. The tree of knowledge - of good AND evil. Whew - I came up with all sorts of creative ponderings and possibilities. At the moment, I'm seeing parental guidance, a broken rule and consequence scenario. Beyond this, conception, childbirth, leaving home, and taking care of a family. The tree of life -

It's so instructive to notice again (with a fresh look) just what the temptation was precisely that the serpent offered was, first that God was maybe unreasonable, and then more, worse...

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

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.”

We see an entire variety of ideas there. First, the possibly (a new concept to Adam and Eve) God might be unreasonable and not treating them right: “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” Meant to be easy for Eve to correct superficially about which tree, while she swallowed the premise...

Next, more ideas -- e.g., God is untrustworthy (lied about them dying), and selfish in a petty way that Adam and Eve are above (better than God; they are now to see themselves as better than God)....and so on.

So, of course they should assume for themselves the full authority to judge what is good (best) and evil, instead of God, since He is petty, liar, selfish, etc. They should basically become judgemental.

But, judgmentalness will undo the Bliss of Oneness/Unity/perfect Innocence. Rejecting God, they reject paradise/innocence/bliss.

Then they have to learn the hard way to trust Him -- the key lesson, to have faith -- learning that the hard way by experience, for the rest of their lives.

 

[Balthazzar]

It's so instructive to notice again (with a fresh look) just what the temptation was precisely that the serpent offered was, first that God was maybe unreasonable, and then more, worse...

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

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.”

We see an entire variety of ideas there. First, the possibly (a new concept to Adam and Eve) God might be unreasonable and not treating them right: “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” Meant to be easy for Eve to correct superficially about which tree, while she swallowed the premise...

Next, more ideas -- e.g., God is untrustworthy (lied about them dying), and selfish in a petty way that Adam and Eve are above (better than God; they are now to see themselves as better than God)....and so on.

So, of course they should assume for themselves the full authority to judge what is good (best) and evil, instead of God, since He is petty, liar, selfish, etc. They should basically become judgemental.

But, judgmentalness will undo the Bliss of Oneness/Unity/perfect Innocence. Rejecting God, they reject paradise/innocence/bliss.

Then they have to learn the hard way to trust Him -- the key lesson, to have faith -- learning that the hard way by experience, for the rest of their lives.

Someone should write a book titled: Of Phallic Symbols and Serpents - If only to convey an understanding of the coming-of-age story of Adam and Eve, the teachings that followed about the pains of childbirth, the difficulty of working the fields to support a family, and the blessing that followed - "Be fruitful and multiply". It's a great story of parental guidance and warning of consequence, given to two young adults coming of age.

 

[halbhh]

Someone should write a book titled: Of Phallic Symbols and Serpents - If only to convey an understanding of the coming-of-age story of Adam and Eve, the teachings that followed about the pains of childbirth, the difficulty of working the fields to support a family, and the blessing that followed - "Be fruitful and multiply". It's a great story of parental guidance and warning of consequence, given to two young adults coming of age.

I agree, but leave out 'phallic' because that's not in this text in any direct way (as it is in some other religions).

 

[Balthazzar]

I agree, but leave out 'phallic' because that's not in this text in any direct way (as it is in some other religions).

I was thinking it was suggestive of the tempted to Eve - the serpent. The text went so far as to suggest the crawling on the belly, then on to seeds and the brusing of the head between.

This was alluded to nearly 20 years ago to me, to which I replied "hogwash". My grandfather's impish grin convinced me he was privy, but only years later, after the legitimacy of the suggestion dawned on me.