No sacred trees in Eden - what would have happened?

by Awakened07 14 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Awakened07
    Awakened07

    -This is a hypothetical "for the sake of argument"-topic, where we take for granted that the biblical story of Adam and Eve (as it is presented in the Bible we have available today) is literally true. I think it can be an interesting exercise.

    Now - let's for this discussion say God did not plant any 'special' tree in the garden of Eden. No tree of Knowledge, and no tree of Life. What would have transpired?

    Well - we have to include Satan here, since he is part of the story. -Actually, even that can be debated, but since I think most of Christendom that understands the story to be literal says Satan used the snake, let's say that's a fact.

    Now - we are now in a garden of Eden with no apparent sources of temptation. What wrong could Adam and Eve do? Well - they could kill each other and/or a few animals I guess, or destroy the garden, but what would be their motive for doing so at this point?

    In comes Satan. He now doesn't have any specific source of temptation, and he doesn't have a statement by God that he can point to in order to call God a lier. So what could he do? Tempt them to have sex? Well, no - they'd been told to multiply, so that wouldn't be wrong. Tell them to kill themselves because then they'd become Gods? Well - that's more likely, but they were already in a paradise, and they had direct contact with God who could tell/show them what's what.

    But let's say he did, and let's say they did.

    If one killed the other and survived, that person would have to be punished. If they both died, and/or if they had no children at this point, God would have to start over. If they had kids at this point, should those kids be punished because their parents killed themselves?

    And Satan. Shouldn't he be prosecuted for his sin and for misleading the humans? This actually goes for this thread's alternative story and for the original. JWs believe there was a question of universal sovereignty, where Satan (and mankind) challenged God's rule. But seriously. God had created the entire universe and life on earth, and - as far as I know the story goes - the angels supposedly watched it all being created (and Adam most likely watched as God formed beasts from the ground in order for him to name them). How could anyone rightly challenge this Creator's right to rule his own creation?

    Now - if Adam and Eve didn't do anything particularly wrong, had children, and lived on, one would think that eventually someone would at some point do something wrong, down the line. But would that then mean the (perhaps by then) worldwide paradise would have had to be destroyed, and all of mankind (or at least this person's descendants) cast out into a desert-like existence? Wouldn't it be more logical to prosecute for each and every single offending human (or angel)?

    So.

    Wouldn't the garden of Eden story and (if you believe it) the story of mankind have been better off if God hadn't planted the trees, but let it all unfold on its own in its own pace? What was really the point of those trees?

    -Maybe I'm 'spiritually stupid', but then you can put me straight.

  • ballistic
    ballistic

    I don't know if I heard this somewhere or just conjured it up, but have you considered the Gardebn of Eden could be a metaphor for early homo sapiens being found by a superior alien race who we rejected as our gods?

  • Witness 007
    Witness 007

    Interesting point......funny story a tree your not supposed to touch.......Eve can eat from any other tree but want s this one, a talking snake convinces her she will be like God so she takes it and dumb Adam does the same.........not realistic at all..........

  • nvrgnbk
    nvrgnbk
    Now - we are now in a garden of Eden with no apparent sources of temptation.

    Where's the fun in that?

    You've taken away God's motive to kill his children.

    That simply will not do.

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek

    A deity as malicious as YHWH would have just thought up another way to screw them over.

  • RubaDub
    RubaDub

    Awakened ...

    The Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden was just the method that God used to test their obedience. Eating from the Tree could have been replaced by many other "tests."

    For example, God could have prohibited them from having sex on Tuesdays, from going to the bathroom within 50 feet of a oak tree, from not letting his sideburns grow below his ears, etc, etc, etc. The Tree was just convenient and became the test that was chosen.

    Likewise with the Snake. It could have been a frog, a turtle, a horse (as in the old TV show Mr. Ed) or any other animal. A snake was just chosen because there were a lot of them handy and God didn't have to go around looking for the others.

    So I wouldn't get too concerned with the props used. The ones most readily available were simply chosen.

    Rub a Dub

  • Satans Son
    Satans Son

    The snake (God's own creation) brought doubt where there was none.

    Imagine being led and instructed by someone you have NO reason to doubt that everything they say, and tell you is the absolute truth and in your best interest..

    Would you disobey them for no reason?

  • Pickled
    Pickled

    I guess you could go back to the argument that if God was the creator of all things, and nothing exists apart from what He created, then where did evil come from that satan embraced? You can't say that satan created it himself since the ability to create only exists in God. I understand the idea that satan stirs up that tendency in some to whatever degree, but it had to first exist in order to stir it up. If God can simply think things into being, then when did he have that evil thought, and why?

    The Bible never indicates that Adam and Eve knew that they were eating from the tree of life. The verses indicate that God put it there, and it is implied that He intended for them to eat from it, but never does it say that He told those humans either of those facts. When they were banished from the garden the angels with the flaming swords were placed there, according to how it reads, so that the humans would not reach out their hand and eat from the Tree of Life. However, it again does not indicate that the humans knew that they had the ability to do that at all. Having said that, what remains in the garden that the humans knew about were all the trees that they were allowed to eat from except the one solitary Tree of Knowledge from which they were told to abstain.

    In the process of God banishing these humans he told the woman that He would increase the pain that she would experience in childbirth. Our ability to experience pain is based on the extraordinary amount of pain receptors that make up the way we are built. We have within us a multitude of nerve endings that alert us to anything painful, dangerous, harmful, etc. Those nerves let us know when things feel good too. The overall way that we are built, however, seems to indicate that we are walking pain receptors. This is interesting given the fact that we were supposedly designed in a perfect way to live in a pain free and perfect environment. If we believe the tree story and the creation story and the story of a perfect paradise, then why aren't we designed in a way that reflects an original intention of pain free? It is just the opposite actually.

    Ok, what does this have to do with the Tree of Knowledge? The Bible indicates that the Tree of Knowledge was placed there as an unacceptable option. It was also placed there as a choice, an option to exercise free will. Exercised in favor of obeying, or exercised in favor of disobeying. I suppose that satan could have come up with several different scenarios in order to tempt them to disobey, but would those scenarios have come from God? No, they would have been manufactured by satan. It seems, in this story, that God was the one who wanted to provide a way for His creation to exercise their free will, either in a positive way, or in a disobedient way. Had satan been the one to provide that then it would not have been for them to exercise their free will, it would have been simply a way to create distance between the created and the creator. I think the underlying message, in my opinion, is that God preferred a willful sort of obedience, one that is decided upon and among other options.

    But that then leads me to the overall design of the creature. Did he design the creature with millions of pain receptors just in case? We could be walking around right now as lumps of flesh that scarcely notice when we have a gash in our leg or bump our elbow on a door jamb, and without tear ducts, taste buds, or sinus passages that register all things foul simply because we were designed to live in a state of perfection. But we are not made that way. So without spouting what I do or do not believe about the validity of the Bible account, it seems that this tree, to me and according to the story, was planted there by their creator as a free will option, and in personally giving this option himself, he also made a way to survive both physically in form, and spiritually through a mediator, just in case they exercised the option to disobey.

    Based also on the Bible's descriptions of the devil it seems, in my opinion, that satan would have been able to come up with any number of ways to cause them to arrive at the same act of disobedience. But would he also have provided a way for them to survive their decision? Would he have included a form of restitution? Admittedly, I am not a big fan of the Bible for right now in my life, but if I look at just the story itself and set aside any thoughts I might have about inspiration or nonsense, and just focus on what seems to be the theme and intent, this is how I personally would answer your question...

    The difference between satan offering a tool to disobey and God offering a tool to disobey looks like apples and oranges. One is to exercise free will in either direction with a built in design and plan if the wrong decision is made. The other looks to be just for the sake of disobedience without any chance of redemption, like some twisted version of free will that, when chosen, still only leaves you with the one option.

  • Sad emo
    Sad emo

    A more thought provoking scenario for me would be if He'd planted the trees but not told Adam & Eve what they were and not to eat from them.

    If they had eaten, either of their own will or by the serpents instruction, would they have still 'sinned' by doing so?

    I think not - without law, there is no sin - and yet they would still have come to know 'good from evil', so would they have later become sinful? What or who defines 'good' and 'evil'?

    I personally think the story is an explanation of man's first awareness of God and subsequent development of conscience/moral law - to be followed later by the written Mosaic laws (within the Hebrew context - other cultures developed their own legal codes).

  • monophonic
    monophonic

    and why only humans?

    what was the big temptation for the angels? give the whole universe a reason to muck up.

    no sex on tuesdays?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit