Garden of Eden finally found

The Problem of Food in the Garden of Eden

There are three essential needs for life – air, water and food. Without air we die in minutes. At most we can live only a few days without water and without food a few weeks. Take the need to breathe. Both plants and animals need air. But instead of competing with each other for air to breathe, plants and animals complement and benefit one another. Plants breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. Animals breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. In using air, each one produces what the other needs. The relationship between plants and animals is symbiotic – each party complements the other in a relationship that benefits both.

Now consider the need for water. Unlike air, water has only one ingredient and both plants and animals need water itself. Yet the demand for this vital resource is still a model of cooperation. Plants and animals do not compete against each other for water. Plants take water from under the ground where it is not usually available for use by animals. Animals take water from the surface of lakes and streams that are not generally sources for plants. Also, the use of water by plants benefits animals by influencing the climate to produce rain. And the use of water by animals benefits plants by adding nutrients to the soil.

The third need for life is food. Here it would seem natural for the cooperation seen in air and water to continue. Nothing has to die for us to breathe and nothing must die for us to drink water. But here the cooperation in the natural world breaks down. Food is different. Here something must die for us to eat. This most people accept as normal, after all we live in a dog eat dog world.

But why is food different from air and water? A piece of bread is food. How is bread different in this regard to air and water? Bread is made from seeds produced by plants. Plants need food too but their food comes from light produced by the sun. The “food’ that plants use is without cost. Light is a good example of food being like water and air but things soon change.

Meat is food too. One animal may eat another. But at some point, the animal that is eaten is one that eats plants. Without plants as food the animal kingdom would soon starve. The plant kingdom feeds the animal kingdom and light from the sun feed the plant kingdom.

Light is the source of all food. So awesome is this process that it seems we cannot have direct knowledge of it. Light flows to the green plants, which use light to make the food that flows to the animals. It would be an advantage for an animal to be able to make food from light the way that plants do. But there are no animals that can make food from light the way plants do.

Plants that receive their food from this ultimate source are unconscious and unseeing. There are no plants with eyes that can see or minds that can know. Life, it seems, is shielded from ever coming face to face and knowing where its life comes from. Life is divided in two. The living things that receive their “food” as light are unconscious and unseeing. And the animals that can see and think receive the “light as food” only indirectly from the food that the plants produce for them.

We have seen that the plants feed the animal kingdom but not all animals eat plants. Some animals eat plants while some animals eat other animals. While it is possible for all animals to eat food from plants they don’t. The beneficial relationship that exists between plants and animals in regard to air and water breaks down at the level of food. It would appear that life was designed to be co-operative and mutually beneficial. But for some reason this has changed at the food level and become competitive and life destroying.

The book of Genesis in the Bible tells the story that deals with this very issue: the story of the Garden of Eden. For some this story is only a myth. Clearly this garden is an impossible situation in the world we know. But for a story to remain in circulation for thousands of years there must be something to it.

The Garden of Eden is a story about food, though tradition has taught us to ignore this aspect. If one rereads carefully the Garden of Eden story an outline can be found of how life was meant to be. A world without death in which all life lives in perfect harmony.

In Genesis we are told that in the Garden all animals ate fruit and leaves, that is, the plant kingdom provided food for the animal kingdom.

And God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground - everything that has the breath of life in it - I give every green plant for food.” And it was so. Genesis 1:29

This then would put the provision of food in harmony with the overall symbiotic design for life. According to Genesis, the plant kingdom provided food for the animal kingdom and in return Adam “tended the garden”. Here then is a beneficial and complementary relationship whereby the plant kingdom provides for the needs of the animal kingdom and humanity provides for the needs of the plants.

If we look again at Genesis 1:29-30 we must conclude that the exact diet that was given here consisted only of fruit and leaves. In Genesis 3:18 we find this fact reinforced, as when leaving the Garden God tells Adam and Eve that they will now eat the plants themselves:

“and you shall eat the plants of the field” Genesis 3:18

This verse implies that before this, whole plants were not eaten. The point here to remember is that in the Garden death did not exist. If animals had eaten the plants themselves, then death would have been present.
The dietary restriction to only fruit and leaves meant that death was not present in the Garden. For example if one eats a leaf from a plant the plant need not die. Nor is the leaf itself a living entity but can be taken without the loss of life of the plant. The same is true if one eats fruit from a tree. Later in Genesis, when Adam and Eve had left the Garden of Eden, we find that plants themselves were not eaten; rather mankind was given meat as food.

“The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon the fish of the sea, they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.” Genesis 9:2-3

In the Garden of Eden no living thing died for anything else to breathe. Nothing had to die for anything to drink water. And nothing had to die for anything to eat – a perfect world without death. But we have only just touched upon what this story has to say to us. There are other issues and we have questions we have to ask. For example how did this perfect world change and become the one we live in?

How did all of this change and food become the entry point of death into our world? Let us look again at Genesis 1-29-30: “I give you every seed-bearing plant” and “every tree that has fruit with seed in it.”

Adam and Eve were given fruit with seed in it but at the same time there was one fruit that they were forbidden to eat: “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in that day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Genesis 2:16-17

Here we have two cases. In the first case God gives Adam and Eve every fruit with seed. In the second case God gives Adam and Eve every fruit except the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. For both of these cases to be true then the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil could not have had a seed - perhaps like such fruits as oranges and grapes that can be seedless. And as we will see a seedless fruit does in fact represent the “knowledge of good and evil.”

Today we are governed by countless rules that cover almost every aspect of our daily lives. In the time of Moses when God gave the Ten Commandments, life may have been simpler. Rules are meant to keep order and in a simpler world perhaps fewer are needed. But what many people don’t really grasp about the Garden of Eden is that there was only one rule. There were no other rules, just the one. In the Garden, just one rule was needed to keep order.

In the Garden, plants and fruit with seeds were given as food and fruit without seeds was forbidden. That was the only rule. A fruit without seeds is both good and evil. It is good because it is nourishing and good to eat. It is evil because it becomes scarce when it is consumed. When something is scarce it becomes a source of conflict between competing parties. Eating the forbidden fruit would lead to disorder and the need for more and more rules.

On the other hand consuming a fruit with seeds will lead to an abundance of what is being consumed because the seeds can be planted to produce more of what is being consumed. The more abundant something is, the less need there is for rules to govern its use. Once there were no rules for the use of air because it is in such great abundance. That was then, and now, of course, things are different.

With the economy of just a few words we have an amazing insight into how life could actually be perfect. It stuns one to realize that this story is thousands of years old. After all, these are issues that mankind only now has recognized as being paramount. How could people living in a primitive world write with such keen insight unless they were writing about something that had been real?

Hey, are you JW?
Was that a quote from the new-world-translation?

It would be great if nothing had to die but the eco-system obviously contains preditors and paracites. People were and are omnivors.
Ever heard of a T-Rex before? Probably, some dinosaurs were preditors, and they were around WAY before homosapions.

If you dont take the bible literaly then you take it in some other symbolic way, which everyone does, and they make up infinint shit about the bible and just make it more and more insain.
So many churches and groups have so many versions of the bible now that it looses all meaning.

Implications of no-death mean for an EXTREAM overpopulation of microbial life if this were applied to all life.

If you do think that God created everything,
then why the hell would he program all life to die and add preditors and paracites to the eco system and make it so adam and eve died of old age all just because of them eating 1 little fruit off of a tree huh?..

After the flood was when God said people could eat meat,
and that was many years after the initial adam-and-eve crap.

Buddy, i want life not to end either, i want nature to have harmony, but our eco-system isnt like that! Justice and peace are human ideals that do not exist in nature… And then God created nature? Hmf. Lets try to stay focused on facts here.

Yes, there is a problem with popluation. But have you considered that the universe we live in is very precisely made allowing for life to exist.

Now consider how badly life itself is engineered to fit into our universe.

For example, consider the topic of reproduction. The space in the universe for life to exist is exceedingly small compared to the amount of life that “wants” to occupy it. It would appear that life could fill the entire universe if allowed to.

A second problem with life involves the issue of symbiosis. It is possible for a world to exist in which all life is symbolic. Simply put - the plant kingdom provides food for the animal kingdom without the loss of life.

Prehap the answer is the idea of multi-unverses where ours is just the lucky one to have any life. But the logic of multi-universes requires that all possible worlds do exist. Therefore somewhere there is a universe filled with life living in a symbolic state. Unfortunately we are not in that universe. The one that we occupy, as you may have already noticed, is not as nice.

think of it this way, when animals defecate they fertilize the plants, and when we die, the worms, maggots eat us turning us again into plant food.

:confused:


Well anyways, back to no1nose.
If we want to get into “what if” land, thats fine by me to.
If organic life was designed difforently it could have had an anairobic system, fallowed by a form of internal atomic energy extraction in which 1 meal of matter would last it for thousands of years before it had to eat again. This would render the life form far more resiliant because it would have less needs and therefor less weaknesses.

If the energy source of the species was difforent, the desires and actions would be difforent and if it had it’s own energy source instead of needing to absorb energy or eat others, it would not need to kill any other organism and therefor peaceful-harmony would naturaly exist.

If technolagy ever had got to the point were it could remove old-age,
and then somehow master free-energy technologies,
humanity could do to their own species what you had dreampt of here.

Perhaps it stuns you, but not many others on this board.

Enjoy your faith if it gives you comfort and peace.

Me, I prefer knowledge, with all the concerns and anciety. That is, this is here and now, deal with the hand we have been dealt to the best of our ability. If there is a God, this is probably more along the lines of what God wants.

Smiles,

aspacia
A Deist
Look it up if you do not know.
Several of the U.S. founders were Deists too (i.e. Jefferson and Franklin).

Perhaps it stuns you, but not many others on this board.

Enjoy your faith if it gives you comfort and peace.

Me, I prefer knowledge, with all the concerns and anxiety. That is, this is here and now, deal with the hand we have been dealt to the best of our ability. If there is a God, this is probably more along the lines of what God wants.

Smiles,

aspacia
A Deist
Look it up if you do not know.
Several of the U.S. founders were Deists too (i.e. Jefferson and Franklin).

Yes, if it is done in a way that allows for the natural breakdown of the corpse. However, the embaliming fluids and metal caskets, along with cremation disallow this. I plan on cremation, my other half does as well, my brother was cremated, ditto my father,

There is a natural burial offered in some areas, but they are few and far between. Also, isn’t cremation the norm in India?

Plants need light to breathe and take up water

Yes they do . . . .so?

What a culture chooses to eat is much more complex than this!

No claims just a telling of the Garden of Eden story

Why do you say this???

Well yes, but what?

You assume too much and are simply cynical.

Other than to knock things you don’t really have any points

Yes, I am a cynic, and a realist. Specifically, I am knocking your claims, or retelling of Genesis, not just “things” a very vague term to be sure. If you believe this fine, but you might consider dealing the reality and life as it is rather than how you hope it will be.

What would you do if someone told you to submit to a pagan God, or another faith, or else have you and you kit and kin massacred. What would you do?? Pray for peace and enlightenment for those threatening you? Fact, this has often occured throughout the history of humanity. The Catholics and Protestants slugging it out, the Shia and Sunnis slugging it out. How about the taxation and expulsion of the Jews when they did not convert to Catholicism or Islam. Just a few facts regarding the history of humanity, friend. Reality, and be aware of the possibilities that may again occur.

Humans compete with each other for land and resources, ditto for the animals. Also, research shows that plants emit what appears to be screams of anquish when plucked. That is, the normal, smooth radio waves emitted from plants become very abnomally fragmented when plucked. Hence, this is appears to be a major part of your claim that scientists have refuted.

If nothing else, I hope you will actually realize what has occured, and what may occur. I hope you will begin to develop some critical thought regarding your position.

Bob is the moderator on this board, and he is very insightful regarding issues of faith. Me, well, I am as you claim a cynic and have no faith in religion. Perhaps, he will provide insight regarding your Genesis story.

I have retold a 6000 year old story from a perspective that the earth is not a limitless resource. This perspective is a recent one and changes what parts of the Garden of Eden story we see as being important. I believe that I have been true to the text - but if I have not then I deserve your criticism. But if I am simply bringing out a message that has always been there then you are guilty of shooting the messenger.

Eating from the fruit implies being self conscious. I think you might be looking into it a bit too far. But, for sake of your entire argument…

no1nose wrote:

How do you derive this? God said they could eat all the fruit except the fruit from that tree. This in no way implies it was seedless. It could very well be fruit with seeds, just the forbidden fruit with seeds. This is where your argument loses its flare. I dont mean to downplay what you have written, for you make many good points, but I cant follow the logic after this assumption.

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.