Garden of Eden finally found

Thanks for your comments.

In short:

1. There is the command in Gen 1:29 to eat fruit with seed. So what then if they ate fruit without seed? This verse implies that fruit without seed is forbidden. That there is indeed a forbidden fruit is then stated in Gen 2:16
2. God gave Adam permission to eat from any(“every”) tree with fruit with seed. If the forbidden fruit had seed then which command would Adam heed?

This is hard for people to understand this at first because the food aspect of the Garden of Eden story has been ignored. But on the whole this is a story about food and it is recapitulated at the Last Supper where bread (seed and not meat) is Jesus’ body and wine (fruit) is his blood.

no1nose wrote:

At first I thought that you were attempting to place these two chapters in succession of one occuring after the other, but after intense reading, it appears what you are saying could have some merit.

I attempted to make a connection with the fruit. And saw some more things you might want to consider. When God banishes man from the Garden, and forces him to work for his bread or fruit, rather than it being simply provided to him. I noticed you mentioned bread and fruit considering the Last Supper.

I personally believe fruit to be representative of knowledge. Since we took the knowledge, inevitably allowing us to be conscious and become aware of ourselves; and as representative in the text, our naked bodies, and now that we are aware of ourselves we must struggle and work to be fed with knowledge. God cant give it to us freely any more, for we now have our own free will to do as we wish. We want the knowledge, or fruit, because we desire it to continue living. I mean we need food to live right? But continuing from your point of view, if the forbidden fruit was seedless, then possibly this represents the fact that once man eats from it, this is why he must die. Its like eating death. There is no nourishment in the knowledge of good and evil, only the knowledge itself. The fruit or knowledge cant be replenished in itself, it must be cultivated over and over by the hard work of man to obtain. The seeds represent the nourishment or replenishment, and later on this nourishment comes in the form of wine, the blood of Jesus that was shed in order for us to have everlasting or replenishing life. The fruit being the bread, or the body, that still perishable entity, but when put together, or taken together, you get what we got three days later, a Ressurection, a realization of everlasting life. Jesus can be considered as our entryway into the tree of life, so that through Him we can eat from it. His death is fruit, or knowledge, but within it he has fed those who learn from it ever lasting life. So His knowledge is of the replenishing kind, so it contains seeds.

The fruit or knowledge of good and evil is all the things we desire. So when we are selfish and have strong desires for something, we will get it any way we can, but we wont work hard for it. This is the worst evil. When we acquire through reaping what we have sewn the knowledge that manifest from this evil, we become less selfish, and began to work for what we desire. This is a lesser evil. Finally we shall come to the point to where we become selfless, and no longer desire for ourselves, but for others, this is good, and when this occurs we ourselves have grown tired of eating the fruit, or knowledge. We have learned through hard work and struggling that the fruit doesnt last long, and dies just as the tree that produces it, considering it has no seed. So instead of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, we began to desire the tree of life, or some type of seeded fruit with replenishment. We began desiring ever lasting fruit, which is knowledge beyond good and evil. We must master the knowledge of good and evil first, before we can reach past the burning sword for the knowledge or fruit of the tree of life, or we can take the other route provided for us by God, His Son. Once we get a taste, we have acquired everlasting life, and no longer will that man have to die.

Gen 2.9 Tells Adam which tree had fruit without seed - otherwise how would anyone know?

I agree that fruit is knowldge (from light) why did God design that living things would have to eat in the first place.

Besides the Lord’s Supper consider:

1. The Babe in the manger - Did the animals see this “sign” of a baby in their food trough and understand it anymore than we can?
2. The first tempetation - why turn stones into bread?

no1nose, is illativemindindeed claim in sync with your claim. Frankly, I am seeing two divergent claims, yours regards natural resources, illativmindedeed discusses knowledge and resurrection through faith.

I may be misunderstanding both your claims.

Also, wasn’t the forbidden fruit the apple from the tree of knowledge? Is the claim that this is a particular type of now extince seedless apple, as it was seedless?

aspacia wrote:

I dont believe the Bible specifically told what kind of fruit. It simply says fruit from the tree.

You havent misunderstood my claim, but you may not be seeing the connection between the two.

no1nose wrote:

I believe he is saying that at the level of conscious awareness, ie. the ability to know it is I who is eating or receiving light, there is an obvious shift from food being provided for without any difficulty, to food being something we must fight or more subtly struggle for. Since man is conscious, he ate from the tree, this struggle and fight has also become apart of the animals life as well, because survival is the main focus for both parties, this is different from the beginning when all the animals and man ate from plants that were provided for them, survival was ensured. So now we must endure, and fight for survival, but who survives the best? The more knowledgeable. The food is our knowledge, and we have to fight for it and struggle for it in order to survive. Kind of like, before God was solely in charge of our evolution, and now since we are conscious of ourselves, we become more involved in this process.

no1nose wrote:

Im not sure what you are getting at in your first consideration, could you expound?

In regards of the stones into bread, Jesus’ reply I believe implies the comparison between actual food and knowledge. “And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”

So we dont live off of food alone, but also knowledge, or “every word of God.”

The baby in the manger was a “sign” to the shepherds. This sign was a picture that foretold Jesus’ mission - his reason for coming.

Firstly, a baby in a food trough is a sign that Jesus had come to be “food”. This message Jesus stated many times, ending at the Last Supper where he gave his disciples bread and wine as his body and blood. The second part of the sign is the manger itself. A manger is a food trough for animals not people. That is, Jesus had come to be “food” not just for people but for all of creation.

Finally, just as the barnyard animals would not understand why a baby was in their food trough, neither would we understand Jesus being “food” for us. Perhaps we are like the animals in the stable that find a baby in their food trough. We cannot quite take in what we are seeing. Like the sheep and the oxen we cannot comprehend what is before our eyes.

no1nose wrote:

Ahh okay, this makes sense now. I wasnt sure what a manger was. I had accepting as a child it was just where the baby was supposed to go, but after paying closer attention to the text, I can see this isnt so.

Exactly. In our limited minds, we cant really comprehend things as they really are. So even in our interpretation of knowledge of good and evil, we come up short. Jesus serves as an aid or tool used to facilitate our understanding of this knowledge. When we take Him in, or accept Him as our savior, truly accepting Him, and being transformed through Him; we will began to think more like Him, being able to see things more clearly as they are in reality rather than from our limited perspectives, and have a better understanding or interpretation of the knowledge we receive. Once we understand enough, and see the truth to the knowledge to a certain point, God will allow us to go beyond the interpretations of that knowledge, and it will be known; then we can move on to bigger and better things, and grow some more. Great observations.

Hum, back to the garden.

If Adam and Eve were innocent, had no knowledge of right and wrong, how is eating the fruit wrong, if they did not know the difference?

This rather refutes the initial claim, or else they were not innocent; had knowledge of right and wrong to begin with and choose to do wrong. If true, humanity was probably never in the garden.

Gosh, I hope this makes sense.

the literal in Adam and Eve comes down to this:

Do you believe in Evolution?

If you do, than literal original sin is impossible. This of course leads to other dogmatic problems. If original sin doesn’t exist, then what did Jesus get sacrificied for?

My personal belief is that we look at things in the “holy book” too literally. The people who wrote these books and lived during these times had a VERY different view of the world. A view you no longer share, and to wrap your mind around a literal interpretation of the bible is no different than believing there’s an alternate world through the looking glass.

aspacia wrote:

It makes perfect sense, and is a wonderful question. Great thinking! Id have to answer in saying that its a story used to illustrate conscious awareness. I personally to do not believe it to be an actual occurence. But from this view, God is telling Adam and Eve, eating from the tree is wrong in order to express to those who read the story that conscious awareness in itself, is wrong; ie. false or incongruent with true reality. Thats the only way I can see it as being wrong, for it is a much needed step. It appears as though before Adam ate the fruit, he was consciously aware of himself when considering the text, I mean God was speaking to him, and he named the animals. But this doesnt necessarily denote conscious awareness, but simple awareness. Animals can perceive, just as Adam did, but before he ate from the tree, or more specifically Eve, they were not conscious of themselves. When they realized they were naked, they became aware of themselves, while before, they were simply aware. lol I think now I feel like you, I hope Im making sense!

Eating the fruit was told to them that it was wrong, but they couldnt have understood this as being such; all they knew was that they werent supposed to eat that fruit because God said not to. Before eating the fruit, they simply ate the fruit as it concerns perception. But after they ate the fruit from that tree, they realized they were eating the fruit, rather than simply just eating the fruit. I mean look at it like this. God didnt tell them it was wrong, He just said dont eat it. In deviating, they realized that they can do what they want to, or they realized, it was them, or the “I” who was making the decision. They became aware of will, and that they were an entity in themselves who had the ability to do as they wish. Before, they identified themselves completely with God, because there was nothing they could do that would indicate separate will. When they discovered they had their own will, they discovered they were themselves. I think I made it make sense.

I feel the need to add that though while Adam was naming the names, it seems as if he would realize he is a separate individual, but this naming of the animals was still congruent with what could be perceived as God’s will. So though he might have realized himself separate, he had not realized his will separate, which could make for all the difference in this entire issue. The separate will is probably what could be perceived as wrong, whether than the awareness itself.

We live in that world outside of Eden – the world of floods and earthquakes. The Garden of Eden was a place of order within a world of chance and catastrophe. The Garden cannot be fully understood from our vantage point anymore than someone living in only two dimensions could understand life in three.

The universe itself must be extremely finely tuned for any world to be possible. Change the charge of an electron, the mass of the sun, the tilt of the earth or any of a thousand other factors and life could not exist. Many constants must be exactly as they are for life to exist. There is great precision in the way the universe was made – it was made so that life could exist. But now consider how badly life itself is made to fit into our universe. Consider the massive waste of life that happens everyday all around us. Countless seeds may fall from one tree and none of them grow to be another tree.

The universe is exceedingly large. Just as large is the amount of life that ‘could be’. It would appear that life from earth alone could fill the entire universe if allowed to. But the space for life is exceedingly small. As far as we know its just a small part of one planet in a sea of countless others.

On one hand the universe was painstakingly and spaciously made so that there could be life. But on the other hand life on earth finds itself without room to grow and manifest itself in full. If the universe is designed for life then life should also be as precisely designed to fit into the space that is available. That is, unless there really is something wrong.

In the enclave we call the Garden of Eden, death did not exist; no living thing was eaten, people did not grow old nor did they suffer injury from accidents. Today one only needs to read a newspaper - old people dying and disasters are a fact of life. But reading through the thousands of years of history in the Bible, one finds few references to accidents- perhaps less than six, certainly less than a dozen. The word “accident” itself does not occur in the Bible.

In ancient times people lived longer. The Bible notes that after leaving the Garden, people at first lived to ages near to a thousand years but over several generations this declined. It would appear that in the Garden, life was protected from decay and injury. Since leaving, that protection has weakened, leaving us more and more exposed to the destructive forces around us.

After eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil Adam and Eve saw that they were naked and covered themselves. That is, they felt the loss of what protected them and they felt exposed to the world around them. In making clothes they were attempting to do more than cover their nakedness. There is more to wearing clothing than just feeling sexual shame. In wearing clothing we unconsciously attempt to recapture the protection humanity once had. Perhaps the formal crown and the cloth of royalty is a good example of this urge when given full reign.

Disobedience to God is a sin and the reality of sin is death. Sin is something that causes disorder just as eating the forbidden fruit brought disorder into human society. Disorder destroys life and ends with death. Having disobeyed God, Adam and Eve found themselves exposed to destructive forces. God sheltered Adam and Eve by clothing them with animal skins – the clothing they made of leaves would not protect them. Sin must end in the loss of life and in this case the life of an animal was given in place of theirs. But the blood shed by an innocent animal was only a partial measure.

The death of an animal to clothe Adam and Eve was the first sacrificial death. The disorder of sin will always result in the loss of life. Adam and Eve atoned for this disorder through the death of an animal. The loss of life caused by sin is almost always random and unpredictable. Sacrifice for the atonement of sin was a means of directing the loss of life onto an innocent animal, thereby restoring the balance between life and chaos.

The word sacrifice today has the connotation of wasting something for the sake of something else. For example, a mother sacrifices her life to save a child. But in the ancient world sacrifice never had the meaning of wasting something. Sacrifice simply meant to give something to God, as one might give a present to someone at Christmas.

In the ancient world people often sacrificed animals as a gift to God. They did this willingly and without hesitation. While many today may view this as a bloodthirsty waste, people then felt certain that God had actually accepted the life of the animal. Today it would be like giving an animal to a friend and at the same time having it as food. Perhaps sacrifice gave people a holiday from what they saw as simply killing something for food.

Sacrifice was a temporary channel to God. While used and abused in many ways, sacrifice was made for one main purpose – a way for God to receive the life of his own Son. With the advent of Christianity this channel was closed and people no longer felt certain that their offerings were being accepted. It was then that the word for sacrifice took on its modern meaning of wasting. Throughout the world the practice of animal sacrifice began to die.

The fall of Adam and Eve was something that would affect everyone. Original sin is like a genetic disorder that is passed on to all of one’s offspring. From Adam and Eve onwards, all people began to age and die. People became exposed to the natural evils of the world. And everyone needed to kill to live.

The taking of life to live is a necessary evil outside the Garden. Despite this, evil is evil and the taking of life is a sin. Other living things have a right to life and extinguishing a life will always be a trespass. What this means is no matter how pious our lives are there will always be this one area that is not perfect. We cannot live in this world without being injured and causing injury because the light that once clothed us and protected us is gone (Rom 13:12). This is the sin that we are born into and can never escape. It is why we will always be tainted and can never be reconciled to God through our own works.
We are in a dilemma; we must take life to live but in using death to live we are pushing ourselves further and further from God. Surely, there is no future in this. For me, the core issue is the question: what is the value of an individual? Do we really matter at all? Life may be cheap but isn’t it the case that to be individual to be something special?
We are surrounded with the illusion of individual things. But can any thing really be truly individual? A small stone may look individual but it was once part of a larger rock that was part of an even larger formation. So it is with everything if you take the time to think it through. Things look individual, but in reality one cannot find where to draw the line. One cannot even draw a circle around an atom and say, “here is an individual”. Quantum uncertainty is nature’s law against elemental things being individual. The universe is really just one thing with many parts of which none are truly individual.
Now, are not living things different? Living things are truly individual. The qualities that make life individual cannot be melted back into the primordial fireball. Nor can they be squeezed by gravity into a dimensionless speck. Because life is individual every living thing is on a par with the universe itself. In the architecture of creation life counts.

no1nose wrote:

Here I have to disagree. All we have consciously at this level of growth is our own works, and it is by our will and effort that we save ourselves. You have to desire to be saved before you can be saved.

This is where desire comes into play. If you really think about, everything we do, every movement we make is the result of some desire. When we realize this, we can begin to desire for the ultimate desire, not to desire. When we can attain to this, and this is our only desire, our will is minimized back to where it should be, and God’s will is better apt to take over. We learn to accept all that happens to us, which will occur as a result of our past sin, or our own will in the past, ie. reaping the rest of what we have sewn; but we refrain from incurring much new karma, for we no longer desire to do anything in order to provide for it. The less we desire, the more we accept, the more we accept, the more we are reconciled and become less of who we were, and more of what we really are… you wrote:

Just as we perceive the rock to be individual, it is an illusion, as well as how we percieve ourselves. Its no different when it gets to conscious life, except for the fact that now that we have this idea of individuality, we must keep it. You also wrote:

This is why the Bible says to have faith in God. Faith here implies with everything. No longer is there a need to use death for survival, for you are leaning on God for survival, and He will surely give it to you. We die, and are in this horrible dilemma when we depend on ourselves to live. When we fully and completely get away from this, and fully and completely depend on God, we’re no longer stuck in this dilemma. The less we depend on ourself, the less individual we become, and the more we fall back into our true selves, ie. God. We are all small intricate parts of Him, so the more selfless we become, and the more less dependent on self, the more less worried about self we become, the more we become of God; or in realization that we are all God. Your right in saying the “fall of man”, but the whole point is for us to regain back what we lost in the first place, identification with God; except this time we will have gained consciousness in the process, so we will have conscious identification with God, which makes for truly blissful experience, ie. Heaven. Does this make sense?

If you are saing you have to lose yourself to find yourself - yes lots

no1nose,

A bit judgemental?? According to your logic, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, etc., all sinned.

I reserve the right to kill, not murder a person or critter who threatens me, and my society. I reserve the right to continue to eat meat, as meat is an important part of the human diet, but not in excess. Studies show that vegans simply do not heal as quickly as an omnivore.

A violent person who attacks another person, and the victim kills the perpetrator is innocent of a crime, at least IMO, and in U.S. society’s laws.

My point is one of semantics, but the words we use are important for understanding. That is, there is a difference between killing and murder.

.

The evil is that if it is your right to take the life of others then others have the right to take your life. It would be good for no one to have this right.

Reality check!!!
You are “living” within an “eco-system” that contains preditorys, omnivors and paracites, because life on “earth” is like that and fossils proove that it has always been like that.

If you swat a fly in the house do you deserve to die now to?
Poor fly was weaker then you, and less smart, and couldnt defend itself, and deserves more then you, because it has less?
No.

Plan B:
Lets put our life-system-ideals in the trash and focus on the long-term status of our self and our loved ones instead!
[size=59]no shit[/size]

Again, judgemental, no? Society has deemed it legal for individuals to protect themselves, and if this entails killing a person who is assaulting another, so be it.

IMO; EVIL stems from those who mean me and my society harm. At the moment Europe is researching reinstating the death penalty for those who are violent.

I am one of those who supports locking up perpetrators without the benefits of televisions, newspapers, movies, etc. I support the Pelican Bay mode of incarceration the is modeled after the Japanese system. You know, sit and think about your crimes day in and day out. Japan has 3% repeat offenders.

If the perpetrator is violent and has murdered another, they lose the right to life, as they deprived another of their life. Before this is done, our justice system does need to be repairs. However, when a violent person enters my home, or is on a drive by rampage, I reserve the right to protect myself.

If you choose pacivity, fine, but you may be setting yourself up for violence, as the elderly, the young who are targeted by the the violent in our society.

You have missed the point I was making but that’s OK. What you are saying sounds logical etc but in reality things can be different.

For example in business (all things being equal) you will find that the types of businesses that last the longest are the ones that are the least self centered. That is if you go into business only thinking about yourself then you will likely be out of business soon. But the more your type of business is focused on the needs of others the longer you will last. That is very few doctors go out of business.

Secondly you will find in the real world that the more defense mechanisms a living thing has the more things there are that will attack them. For example plants in general have very little in the way of immune systems. What then is there to stop some bacteria or virus from attacking them? We worry about the “bird flu” but consider how vulnerable plants are!

The points here are . . . you tell me.