Sure Dr. James Tour has a testimony up on the same channel too. Jewish scientist (James Tour) makes the greatest Jewish discovery!! - YouTube
I lurk in the background of his bible study on Sundays, I know he gets some criticism on PS for his views, but he is anointed, I find no fault in his talks regarding the bible and Jesus…Messianic Jew is how he identifies…he is super nice too, have had a couple email exchanges with him. He is how I came across @swamidass and PS, from one of their talks.
There would be no reason for Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of Life.
The only tree barred from their diet was the Tree of Good/Evil.
So have I.
The story does not say why they did not eat from it, but God clearly believed they had not.
What verse do you use to conclude that God believed they had not?
My position is that they could have been eating it daily … but once they stopped eating it … their mortality would begin!
Maybe the New International Version is easier to understand:
22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
I’ve already quoted this at least twice:
22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
This verse works just as well with premise for STOPPING the consumption from the tree.
No, If that were the case it would say “…lest he continue to put forth his hand…” or …lest he again put forth his hand…"
The interpretation anyone who read this story for the first time and had never heard of the Christian interpretationwould be that they had not yet eaten from the tree of life.
68 posts were merged into an existing topic: How to Argue from Scripture
I have no idea if @gbrooks9’s interpretation is supported.
However, the methodological critique is valid and speaks precisely to the argument:
Don’t think so. Is there a translation that doesn’t say the same thing the quoted ones do? I don’t think anyone, especially @Faizal_Ali, is picking between translations here.
Find a translation that can be interpreted that way. Or do all translations require Hebrew scholars to gloss them from the Hebrew text? They seem quite consistent, which would suggest to me that all translations are bad.
And, to be clear, I did not mean to suggest otherwise.
That said, I continue to await a scholarly translation that would contradict or weaken the interpretation that arises from a close, unbiased reading of the standard and common English translations.
Do we know who it was meant to be read by?
No. I am trying to figure out the reading that would be best based on the text itself. An example would be how we understand the bare plot details of the The Iliad or the The Odyssey. This would not depend no how we “privilege” such texts.
OK, I suppose the proscription against eating the fruit could be read as a threat rather than a warning. “Eat that fruit and I’ll kill you” rather than “Eat that fruit and it will kill you.”
However, Eve’s conversation with the serpent makes more sense if she understood the latter meaning.
In any event, whether he lied or or changed his mind, he did not speak the truth. And at the very least he lied by omission when he did not tell A&E that they would gain knowledge of good and evil if they ate the fruit. It was the serpent who told them, and he spoke the truth.
Yes! This is what I had discovered earlier: Actually they weren’t “frozen” in their sinful state. God had already given them forgiveness and grace. But the reality of that had to be fulfilled in Jesus’ death and resurrection. Otherwise they would have been living forever in a state of forgiveness, but in a world that had the effects of sin. God loves the world also and wanted to redeem it as a whole. Plus God wanted to reveal Himself further through the Holy Spirit.
All of this meant that the tree of life has to wait until God redeems the world and makes a new heavens and earth.
What do you think the naming of the tree was FOR? Of course, He did tell them - it was the name of the tree. But that doesn’t not mean that knowing evil is good. If we could rid the world of evil, I’m sure we’d all do so. Then we wouldn’t KNOW it anymore.
You seem to be equivocating on the word “know”. Does knowing evil make you evil? But God knows evil (he said so in the verses we’re arguing about), and he isn’t evil. One could argue that in order to know good one must also know evil, or there’s nothing to compare good to.
Please quote where Genesis 2-3 says any of this. TIA.
Again, please quote where this is stated or implied. If they didn’t know what good and evil was until they ate from the tree, what good would it do telling them “That’s the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil”? It’d be like saying “That’s the Tree of Orkleborkle and Geegaw.”
I could live with that.
This gets into Euthyphro’s Dilemma again.
Because God is good from eternity, as long as there is nothing else outside of Him, only God exists. Only good exists. God would know that for Him to create beings that could have a loving relationship with Him, they could also choose evil.
He could choose not to create those relational beings. Or He could choose to create them and tell them they have a choice to know only Him who is good, or to know both good and evil. Because God who is good already exists, they do not have to know evil to know good.
Once the relational beings God created chose to know evil, God could have separated them from Himself to remain just and good. Or He could have decided to have the relationship He created them for because He was unwilling not to love - it was His nature. To do that, only an eternally good, as well as a being like He created, could repair the separation that otherwise would be necessary. Hence Jesus.
None of that bears the slightest relevance to what I said. Do you agree that God knows good and evil, and that by eating from the tree of knowledge Adam and Eve became like God in that respect?
Yes it was relevant.
But as to your question. Yes, they became gods unto themselves, in their own way “knowing” what is good and what is evil.
That also made them evil as only God is good and can be the only standard of good, not themselves.
You’re making up a story that isn’t there.