if “tree of good and bad” were literal, it would mean adam and eve would know what is “good and bad” only after eating of that tree.
however, even before eating of it, they would think “it is good for us to eat of this tree” which means they are already endowed knowledge of “good and bad.” that means “tree of good and bad” is symbolic of something.. since religious organizations interpret this differently, each reader has to adopt his own conclusion.
for me it looks like this: one thinks of good and bad in relation to himself—if something is beneficial for him he would say it is good for him, and bad for him if it is not beneficial.
David_Jay,
That means through this allegorical story, Moses was preparing a mind-set in Jews that ‘disobedience to God’s first law brought calamity, hence ensure obedience to the Law that is going to be given now which would only benefit you.’
Thank you very much for this really great insight you gave. This understanding through the minds of Jews help to understand other parts of the Bible too.
jesus defines “evil” in mathew 7:21-23: .
“not everyone who says to me, ‘lord, lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my father who is in heaven.
many will say to me on that day, ‘lord, lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ then i will tell them plainly, ‘i never knew you.
Jesus defines “evil” in Mathew 7:21-23:
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will
enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in
heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord,
Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in
your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me,
you evildoers!’ [“you who practice evil, International Standard Version]”
Thus Evil means:
Calling Jesus “Lord,” prophesying/preaching in his name, driving out demons and performing many miracles in ignorance of Father’s will [treating every human being as child of God, not as pagan—Mathew 7:12].
This definition is understood by ordinary people only (Mathew 11:25)
if “tree of good and bad” were literal, it would mean adam and eve would know what is “good and bad” only after eating of that tree.
however, even before eating of it, they would think “it is good for us to eat of this tree” which means they are already endowed knowledge of “good and bad.” that means “tree of good and bad” is symbolic of something.. since religious organizations interpret this differently, each reader has to adopt his own conclusion.
for me it looks like this: one thinks of good and bad in relation to himself—if something is beneficial for him he would say it is good for him, and bad for him if it is not beneficial.
I agree with you—story is the best humans could think of as the reason behind their fall. God is no where in the picture.
if “tree of good and bad” were literal, it would mean adam and eve would know what is “good and bad” only after eating of that tree.
however, even before eating of it, they would think “it is good for us to eat of this tree” which means they are already endowed knowledge of “good and bad.” that means “tree of good and bad” is symbolic of something.. since religious organizations interpret this differently, each reader has to adopt his own conclusion.
for me it looks like this: one thinks of good and bad in relation to himself—if something is beneficial for him he would say it is good for him, and bad for him if it is not beneficial.
Deegee,
Nice point: “God did not alert Adam and Eve to the presence of the snake or instruct them to avoid it.”
If account is really from God, He would have included that valid point too. That shows account of tree of good and bad is the imagination humans who best thought of the reason behind humans’ fall—and that is the best they could think of.
If man is really created His image, God doesn’t have to instruct him about any matter—humans will do exactly what God would do if He were on earth.
If tree were not literal, then snake also could not have been literal. Snake may be symbol of sin which has access to man wherever he is.
if “tree of good and bad” were literal, it would mean adam and eve would know what is “good and bad” only after eating of that tree.
however, even before eating of it, they would think “it is good for us to eat of this tree” which means they are already endowed knowledge of “good and bad.” that means “tree of good and bad” is symbolic of something.. since religious organizations interpret this differently, each reader has to adopt his own conclusion.
for me it looks like this: one thinks of good and bad in relation to himself—if something is beneficial for him he would say it is good for him, and bad for him if it is not beneficial.
Halfbana,
Myths are like traffic lights--Red, Green, Amber. which are not simply physical objects. They carry specific messages. A story doesn't have to be historical, but the point is that it should carry some message.
Tree of good and bad carry the message how humanity had a fall. They fell when they listened to their ego and gone into exile of unhappiness and suffering.
That means:
Ego creates suffering (as shown by First Adam)
Suffering destroys ego (as shown by Second Adam--Jesus)
if “tree of good and bad” were literal, it would mean adam and eve would know what is “good and bad” only after eating of that tree.
however, even before eating of it, they would think “it is good for us to eat of this tree” which means they are already endowed knowledge of “good and bad.” that means “tree of good and bad” is symbolic of something.. since religious organizations interpret this differently, each reader has to adopt his own conclusion.
for me it looks like this: one thinks of good and bad in relation to himself—if something is beneficial for him he would say it is good for him, and bad for him if it is not beneficial.
Irishdub wrote: "I think the whole point of the story (real or myth) is who do we trust ?"
If one's life is compared to a garden, his ego stands "in the middle of the garden," around which all his intentions revolve.
In the OP, I have suggested EGO is the tree of good and bad.
Hence question is: Whom should we listen to--God or ego?
if “tree of good and bad” were literal, it would mean adam and eve would know what is “good and bad” only after eating of that tree.
however, even before eating of it, they would think “it is good for us to eat of this tree” which means they are already endowed knowledge of “good and bad.” that means “tree of good and bad” is symbolic of something.. since religious organizations interpret this differently, each reader has to adopt his own conclusion.
for me it looks like this: one thinks of good and bad in relation to himself—if something is beneficial for him he would say it is good for him, and bad for him if it is not beneficial.
notalone,
You brought an excellent point: "The term 'of good and bad' could also mean 'everything'.
That would mean they were forbidden from doing anything. This is an indication that story was poorly copied from other cultures.
there are aspects to the resurrection story that seem unnecessary but make perfect sense if you consider them as patches to shore up the lie of jesus' resurrection.. (1) why did there have to be angels present at jesus' resurrection?
there is no other resurrection account in the bible that mentions the involvement of angels.. possible explanation: jesus' disciples really did steal jesus' body from the tomb.
two or three of them ambushed and knocked/drugged unconscious the guards on the scene before stealing the body.
If his resurrection was historical, all the four gospels would have given exactly the same details about it. Mark 16:8 shows the first ones who were told of his resurrection were "Trembling and bewildered" rather than being overjoyed and empowered. Yet John 20:18 gives a totally different picture about the same.
Mathew 28:15 shows that resurrection account was written many years later.
if “tree of good and bad” were literal, it would mean adam and eve would know what is “good and bad” only after eating of that tree.
however, even before eating of it, they would think “it is good for us to eat of this tree” which means they are already endowed knowledge of “good and bad.” that means “tree of good and bad” is symbolic of something.. since religious organizations interpret this differently, each reader has to adopt his own conclusion.
for me it looks like this: one thinks of good and bad in relation to himself—if something is beneficial for him he would say it is good for him, and bad for him if it is not beneficial.
If “Tree of good and bad” were literal, it would mean Adam and Eve would know what is “good and bad” only after eating of that tree. However, even before eating of it, they would think “it is good for us to eat of this tree” which means they are already endowed knowledge of “good and bad.” That means “tree of good and bad” is symbolic of something.
Since religious organizations interpret this differently, each reader has to adopt his own conclusion. For me it looks like this: One thinks of good and bad in relation to himself—if something is beneficial for him he would say it is good for him, and bad for him if it is not beneficial. This is the characteristic of ego. That means “tree of good and bad” represents ego. Our experience is that the day we start interpreting things and happenings as good and bad our happiness ‘positively dies.’ Hence it would seem God’s command was not to interpret things and happenings as “good and bad.” Such a command is reasonable because good and bad are relative. One may say wheat is good but weed is bad whereas a herbalist may find this so-called weed as precious medicine. Rainy season may be good for certain business people whereas summer season may be good for another business.
When I stopped interpreting things and happenings as good and bad but started as seeing them as flow of events which are totally neutral, it keeps my happiness in tact.
"the sons of the true god began to notice that the daughters of men were beautiful.
so they began taking as wives all whom they chose.".
it may be feasible to some to accept the bible's assertion that the first humans were tempted to pursue independence from god, especially since they were created in his image and he is independent from any authority.
Story unwittingly betrays human tendency to blame others (fallen angels in this case) for own mistakes
