The Forbidden Tree

[njineermike]

That's nice. I've also seen valid references that say the exact opposite.

[johnthomas]

The Jewish version of creation, the flood and the second coming was copied from what was taught way before their religion. Animals live for the moment, humans live to believe they will exist in one form or another for eternity. I suspect, just like any other living creature or plant, we live, we multiply to keep the species going and then we die. One thing is certain, we all will die, if there is an afterlife, we will find out, if not, the lights goes out and nature takes care of the rest.

[Burble74]

I agree with Njineermike. And, I've done decades of biblical study. Sorry, but your biblical interpretation isn't Christian, i.e. isn't correct.

A agree with Billvau. People understand that One must study Shakespeare, or poetry, or art , or even film theory in order to properly understand the context of information expressed in literature and art, and glean what is being stated using the the conventions of those particular disciplines.

The Bible is especially difficult to truly understand unless one has studied the history, learning about the authors, the audiences, the times in which they were written and for whom in particular and the reasons behind them. Not to mention the number of languages they were originally written in (spoken in Aramaic, and typically ancient Greek) as they were passed down through writing, with actually little significant change due to the fact that whole community made sure that the Tradition of teaching Scripture isn’t lost or changed because it would destroy the meaning. Subtleties will change here and there, as they gain further understanding of scripture, and for the most part is relatively the same....since there are historical facts or cultural indications of the time that corroborate certain details within scripture.

It is the interpretation that can be subject to change if one reads scripture blindly with one eye closed to its context, which is why one must do proper study of it as Billvau has mentioned. It’s quite dangerous to simply guess the meaning or to read INTO the writings, considering the specificity of the authors. Like one needs two eyes to have depth perception, one needs to see scripture from two places in history, now because it remains significant, and then because truth as an axiom remains true for all time.

The Bible is not all written with the same conventions. There are letters, there is what’s called Hebrew poetry, there are parables, lessons and stories, eye witness accounts, prophecy, etc etc....including symbolic numbers, symbolism, and specific literal meaning both found in scripture, and having access to parallel historical writings, and facts help to discern meanings as well.
There’s even Greek words that are specific to the point that they are only used to refer to one thing or person like “kecharitomene” in reference to the the Virgin Mary, basically meaning full of God’s Grace, as the Angel Gabriel said, when he greeted her.

The Bible is not meant to be taken literally in its entirety unless for example, it is in terms of Jesus’ life in the Gospels, or in terms of moral teaching...in fact to take the entire Bible literally is a relatively new convention that came about 1500 years after the death of Christ. Most bible scholars agree that there is both literal and figurative meaning in the Bible, but just because something defies nature or science doesn’t necessarily mean it is figurative or symbolic. There are many miracles in the Bible, and as we know historically, many witnesses, due to the number of people who first hid from the Romans when faced with their association with Jesus after His torture and execution, and then the number of people who openly identified themselves as His followers AFTER aHis resurrection, willingly dying as martyrs at the hands of the Roman Empire.

The testimonies of Jesus’ miracles and teachings and life in general are from several points of view including the youngest of the apostles but the miraculous events are intended to be the actual account of His life, death and resurrection. Plus there are historical Roman accounts of Jesus, and records of His existence from numerous other sources, especially from one of the oldest institutions (older than the Incan and Aztec societies, the Church)


The Bible is an account of our Relationship to God. It is not a history, science, or rule book. But it is meant for us to learn about God and our purpose since we are His Children according to scripture made in His image and likeness and therefore are given the free will to accept Him or Reject Him.

People call the Bible the word of God. As scripture we believe that it is the inspired word of God, but the capital W
Word of God is reserved for Jesus, Who is the Word made Flesh.
The Human embodiment of God as His Son.


When Jesus came, He said that he was not here to abolish the Law but to Fulfill it.
That alone shows that there are prophecies, not yet facts and not just parables, which He fulfilled which is found in scripture. The messiah in scripture referred to Christ who was to be put to death on a cross, and when that prophecy was made, crucifixion was not yet even invented. (In fact I believe Jesus’ life alone fulfilled 800 or so prophecies, not to mention that it paralleled stories found in mythology itself, but here He is as a historical person whose life reflects elements mythology from even Egypt or Greece.

In that way there are readings in the New Testament that can easily be paired with readings from the Old Testament wherein Jesus qualifies or reiterates scripture. And that’s one of the bases for the Liturgical celebration of the Mass in the first half, with the rememberance of Christ’s ultimate Laying down of His life for us in Love, the Eucharist in the second half, as Jesus said that there’s no greater love than to lay down ones life for another, which is what God Himself did for us.


...historically, or scientifically obviously no one knows for sure if Adam and Eve were specific people, (“Adam”means man after all) because we do not have empirical answers, (even though the geography supports many biblical stories, including garden of eden, which was likely in between the Tigris and Euphrates, the area even science believes the first men came from....but the teaching itself is basic, that because of original sin, we have the ability to reject Gods Love, and reject His Grace, a gift, or to accept it.
(), but I guess this is where we just must have Faith that whatever the origin, if parable, or actual, that the message still ring true in practical ways ....
Even then, The term “days” in genesis could mean periods longer than a 24hour day.
As we know through our scientific studies, the earth is millions of years old, and Truth doesn’t contradict truth.

I guess what I am saying, is that whether or not ithe Story of the Garden of Eden, was actual, the lesson rings as true as ever, and teaches us that to willingy reject God is to willingly reject all that is of God, Love, not the emotion, but the action of Love. As a Jesus said , He did not come to abolish the law but to Fulfil it, and He said the greatest of Commandments was to Love as He love us...

Sorry so long, I Was leisurely writing half contemplating some discussions I’ve had recently on this topic, so the tangents are included, but it all boiled down to the idea of the stories being hypothetical, morality tale, or accounts, the Bible, of course contains all of them, since the goal of Supernatural messages are to teach us the way God wants us to be, not necessarily to tell us the secrets of the universe or give us cheat sheets for power and money.

The irony of course is that for us to be the best versions of ourselves, (which is usually the interior need for most characters in movies and stories) means to abandon ourselves and selfishness completely to God.
It’s like we are a glove that can try to act on our own will and direction, but if we are humble enough to let God enter our lives and let Him work through us with our full will, we Do become the best versions of ourselves with our specific talents and personality, doing what He created us for, which is what we all seek in the deepest parts of our souls, which only God knows as our creator— and most intimate friend.

(*the opposite of abandoning ourselves to God with all of our free will, of course, is to abandon ourselves to the Devil, in which case the phenomenon of perfect possession can be the result. But in cases of perfect possession, one knowingly gives up god-given free will and allow an alien presence to take over-
Scripturally it is a sin to give up our free (to intoxication...or possession) will because it can lead us to wrong-doing, problems or more sin. Thus we are also asked to stay away ffrom I’m occult (secret) things because we do not have the full awareness to deal with those things can can be spiritually detrimental and can lead to things like possession, ....so stay away from Ouija and tarot because the influences push our Faith out of the way....you can’t Be loyal to God if you are loyal to the ways of the secular world only.

As scripture makes clear, God’s ways are not our ways, therefore we need scripture to buide us even if it is in our nature to want to be good, we still need our Faith and acceptance of Grace, and our willingness to reject sin, and repent by following Christ, practicing what we preach as Christians.

[CVShooter]

Burble74 - thanks for sharing your thoughts. It takes a lot of time to write something like that. At least, it would if I wrote it.

I'm with you... Then I'm not... I agree for a time... Then the logic goes circular. Then I feel like I'm reading a response to a different question entirely. So I'm unclear if you are just sharing your thoughts on the Bible and Christianity in general or if I completely missed your point. The latter is entirely possible.

Are you addressing my initial question about an alternative interpretation of the forbidden tree in Genesis? Are you addressing the short history lesson I gave? Or are you simply establishing yourself as having some level of knowledge and, therefore, showing some support for those who disagree with me? Seriously -- I can be pretty dense so you'll have to spell it out.

[Burble74]

Bottom line is we don’t know for sure if we are to prove it in a court of law.

The purpose of scripture is to teach God’s people about our relationship to Him and how we are to interact with each other in light of our relationship to God.

I do touch upon other things knowing that some dont consider Catholics to be Christian, which is ironic considering that the Bible was first printed under the Catholic Church ...and other Protestant denominations were rooted in the Universal Church Christianity until the reformation...but that’s the reason Sola scriptural came about in the first place...when Martin Luther left the Church, he didn’t take anything else with him...he couldn’t take anything else with him, because he can’t take the history or Tradition of the Church...just the book...thus nothing additional to support his biblical views which would obviously result in more dissension thus the 40k denominations.

Like I said I had a bit of time and i just type as I think, I didn’t plan a perfectly edited document ...

Also as a Catholic, I already know there are lots of folk who would question the fact that I am Christian in the first place,....so I’m simply adding context to my response

[CVShooter]

Gotcha! Thanks for clarifying. Nothing to disagree with on that note.

I grew up in a Baptist church that believed that they were the original church & that the Roman Catholics & Orthodox Christians split off of them. Heck, I believed it, too, because that's what we were told. After learning a bit more (it doesn't take much), I started to question that. Once I had enough Catholic friends who were as sincere and ardent in their faith as I was at the time, I changed my mind completely.

Later, while studying in Israel, people would laugh at you if you told them that Catholics weren't Christians. You'd be dismissed as if you just said that the earth isn't round. The Mormons got plenty of eye rolls from the locals but they considered them as just weird American Christians. There, if Jesus is your God, you're Christian. If Mohammed is God's prophet, you're Muslim. If your family is Jewish (regardless of your beliefs), you're Jewish. Anything else is just in-fighting and sectarian splits. Simple enough for me.

[Burble74]

Gotcha! Thanks for clarifying. Nothing to disagree with on that note.

I grew up in a Baptist church that believed that they were the original church & that the Roman Catholics & Orthodox Christians split off of them. Heck, I believed it, too, because that's what we were told. After learning a bit more (it doesn't take much), I started to question that. Once I had enough Catholic friends who were as sincere and ardent in their faith as I was at the time, I changed my mind completely.

Later, while studying in Israel, people would laugh at you if you told them that Catholics weren't Christians. You'd be dismissed as if you just said that the earth isn't round. The Mormons got plenty of eye rolls from the locals but they considered them as just weird American Christians. There, if Jesus is your God, you're Christian. If Mohammed is God's prophet, you're Muslim. If your family is Jewish (regardless of your beliefs), you're Jewish. Anything else is just in-fighting and sectarian splits. Simple enough for me.

I agree. And I appreciate that you took the time to make sure that the Catholics with whom you spoke to knew more about their faith than most.

I’m just gonna speak from the POV of a Catholic for anyone else who is not familiar or more familiar with the typical straw men arguments that we worship statues etc...
so that it’s not misrepresented For anyone who questions this I highly suggest watching Lizzie Answers since she was sincerely out to basically explain and thus disprove the Catholic world view, only to learn about the early Church and realize the objective history of it all. Needless to say against her perceived life goals, she wound up converting.
She is incredibly well read about the early church and scripture.

Catholics are pretty easygoing in terms of accepting other Christians because we know that as long as you believe God is a Trinitarian God, and that Jesus was truly man and truly God, and that He died and rose from the Dead in payment of our sins, you are Christian.

Also one reason Catholics s don’t typically memorize the Bible is that IN ADDITION to the Bible, we have the Tradition that led to its compilation,
we have the Mass which is entirely scriptural,
we have the Saints who were examples of conversion or repentance, we look up to as imperfect heroes of Christianity and ask for intercession like are part of the mystical Body of Christ...
we have Mary who Christ gave to us,
we have the Rosary which is a meditation of Christ’s life with scriptural prayers, the Celebration of the Mass*

*(which is NOT RESACRIFICING JESUS...WE BELIEVE GOD LIVES OUTSIDE OF PERCIEVED TIME AND THUS WHEN WE REMEMBER THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS, WE ARE PRESENT WITH HIM AT EVERY MASS IN REMEMBERANCE.)

And we kneel and bow in respect like the Orthodox Church which is our eastern counterpart of The Church,
ALSO we believe that the consecrated Eucharist is truly a COMMUNION with Christ as He asked us to chew (in the biblical Greek) his flesh and drink His Blood and that his flesh is Real food and Blood Real drink...40% of the early Jews, /Christians thought this was too much to handle and abandoned Jesus and Jesus did not correct them that it is symbolic, because it is not symbolic...we take the sacrament of the Eucharist very seriously


This is where some might think it’s too x-Filesey, but I know for a fact that these things exist.
For those who know that there is a REAL powerful satanic institution in the modern world that is intrinsically tied to the globalist powers and the trafficking and abuse and murder of humans for satanic human sacrifice:
In fact when Satanist infiltrate a Mass, they typically get a consecrated Host and defile it by urinating, defacating, or otherwise destroying it because they know it is the Body of Christ. In fact a true witch or satanist who is under perfect (willing) possession, can pick out a consecrated Host out of a thousand ...reason being, a possessed person typically gets sick around blessed objects or Holy things whether or not they are aware they are around them...

To explain using human objects or paintings, or pictures for rememberance, Physical things for assisting worship, Tradition remember Christ used mud to heal a blind man, not because he needed it, but used material things like Tradition for OUR BENEFIT as rememberance or practice of our belief in Him...a sign of our Faith, like using water for baptism.

World satanists actually target the baptists and Catholics the most.
They also infiltrate both churches with regularity to destroy from the inside out, by creating havoc. Has done so for generations. That also push atheism and new age spirituality because it removes GOD FROM THE EQUATION OF RELIGION.

when you do that, you no longer have objective truth but moral relativism which is what those who try to take away our gun rights use to justify their agenda.....back to guns BOOM

A little slow at work
Matthew mconaghey and snoop dog LITRALLY just walked into the room promoting their beach bum movie in an episode of Carpool Karaoke.

[jarhead714]

I always remind my wife that it was the weaker Eve who was first tempted...

[Burble74]

I always remind my wife that it was the weaker Eve who was first tempted...

Hahahahahahaha so do I. And then she tempts me to prove me wrong ;p

[billvau]

I always remind my wife that it was the weaker Eve who was first tempted...

Yes, but who sinned first? Adam

[WASR10]

irrigation

[CVShooter]

WASR10 - Thank you for your thoughts. Seems pretty universal among folks here to view the primary sin as disobedience to authority, not a hunger for knowledge that belongs to God alone.

Personally, I would view Cain & Abel as practicing two very different forms of agriculture. Cain was a farmer (planter of crops) and Abel was a herder. These differences are huge to me. One is settled and manipulates the environment while the other reacts to the environment by moving (nomadic or semi nomadic). I also wouldn't put them as actual individual people so much as groups or tribes in the area. There is certainly nothing in the text to suggest that. But stories work best when they're simple and metaphorical rather than literal. It's an oral form of data compression, if you catch the analogy.

I would also put the stories of Adam/Eve, Cain/Abel, Jacob/Esau as part of the same narrative -- not intended to be separate at all.

All the same, these are only my thoughts. I appreciate reading yours & your willingness to share.

[WASR10]

WASR10 - Thank you for your thoughts. Seems pretty universal among folks here to view the primary sin as disobedience to authority, not a hunger for knowledge that belongs to God alone.

Personally, I would view Cain & Abel as practicing two very different forms of agriculture. Cain was a farmer (planter of crops) and Abel was a herder. These differences are huge to me. One is settled and manipulates the environment while the other reacts to the environment by moving (nomadic or semi nomadic). I also wouldn't put them as actual individual people so much as groups or tribes in the area. There is certainly nothing in the text to suggest that. But stories work best when they're simple and metaphorical rather than literal. It's an oral form of data compression, if you catch the analogy.

I would also put the stories of Adam/Eve, Cain/Abel, Jacob/Esau as part of the same narrative -- not intended to be separate at all.

All the same, these are only my thoughts. I appreciate reading yours & your willingness to share.

Thanks. I would disagree with some of these points, but I am happy to exchange thoughts on the matter. Its an interesting subject to explore, to be sure. Thanks again for challenging us with it.

[njineermike]

WASR10 - Thank you for your thoughts. Seems pretty universal among folks here to view the primary sin as disobedience to authority, not a hunger for knowledge that belongs to God alone.

Personally, I would view Cain & Abel as practicing two very different forms of agriculture. Cain was a farmer (planter of crops) and Abel was a herder. These differences are huge to me. One is settled and manipulates the environment while the other reacts to the environment by moving (nomadic or semi nomadic). I also wouldn't put them as actual individual people so much as groups or tribes in the area. There is certainly nothing in the text to suggest that. But stories work best when they're simple and metaphorical rather than literal. It's an oral form of data compression, if you catch the analogy.

I would also put the stories of Adam/Eve, Cain/Abel, Jacob/Esau as part of the same narrative -- not intended to be separate at all.

All the same, these are only my thoughts. I appreciate reading yours & your willingness to share.

This is another point that gets twisted. Neither Cain nor Abel was looked on as disapproved for what they did to obtain livelihood or specifically what items they offered. In fact, the command given was to make the earth a garden, not herd animals, therefore one could rightly argue, based on the context, that Cain was more correctly following the command. But that's not how it worked out. One offered what he grew, one offered his animals. It was about intent. The story of Cain and Abel is about giving out of gratitude vs giving out of obligation. Abel had a more thorough understanding of the context and gave because he wanted to. Cain is warned before killing Abel about his thought process and internal motivations being wrong and leading him down a dark path. Abel evidently also had a better understanding of the import of the sacrifice itself, but that's a different discussion.

This story is, at its core, about mans' main driving factors and motivations. Does one do good things because they're the right things to do, or does one do good things because of fear of punishment or hope of reward and recognition? As we can see around us every day, those who do good things, treat others well, follow moral codes that benefit their neighbor simply because it IS right, much more often do this longer and better than those who do good because doing bad is punished or somehow more detrimental to THEM than doing good. Does the good come from caring more about the benefit to another, or is it about the benefit to ourselves? We see the eventual outcome of these motivating factors in the results. Cain killed his brother because his entire motivation was wrong from its core. Jealousy over the perceived lack of approval, based on incorrect thinking patterns, led Cain to kill Abel. Whether one sees this as a true story, allegory, tribes, or any other literary allusion, the core concept is the same.

It's the core concept of the entire bible. Does one do things for selfless reasons or selfish reasons? It was the question raised in Eden. If one wants to actually understand the entire bible, read Job. It explains everything. The lie to told Eve was about selfishness. Satan's argument has always been that man is a flawed creation that will only serve the greater good when it benefits man. That has never changed.

[CVShooter]

njineermike - I get it. We see things differently. No harm in that.

I have an obvious flaw in my point of view in that I lack direct evidence. But I've learned enough about the ancient world, mythology, story & such to know that themes and meanings are often presented indirectly. And that the intended meaning isn't always known by those who transmit the story. Often, the intended meanings are lost even if the stories endure. To me, this is fascinating. One culture starts the story and a different one picks it up, changes it and passes it on. A good example is the Ba'al/Yam battle I've mentioned before. The Canaanites started it. The author of Daniel changed it to their cultural beliefs & deities. Then John adapted it yet again in Revelation. Each had a message that had nothing to do with the details of the story. Each was trying to soothe the pains and ills of their people during difficult times.

Similar things happened with Job -- it's a tale much older than the historical man of Job could have been and was widespread among ancient Semitic cultures. I realize that this flies in the face of many folks' beliefs about the infallible word of God and the supremacy of Christianity. But I don't share that belief anyway.

Clearly, if I wanted to PROVE my thesis scientifically or something, I'd be up the creek without a paddle. You've got me there. But I'll also challenge the notion that an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Our scientific method and our rules of courtroom proof have little street cred in the interpretation of ancient mythology. It's a world of its own with its own rules and codes of conduct. I wouldn't rely on the Bible to PROVE that an event happened historically (some of the details are just flat wrong after all). But it's worth a look as a good starting point.

So if you're hoping to convince me that I'm wrong, it's going to take a different point of view than what you have since I don't hold the Bible to be the infallible word of God. I see it as a lot of valuable ancient wisdom with a ton of mystery and even some problems of its own. Near Eastern history, anthropology, archaeology, language, mythology, etc. are far more convincing to me than a collection of writings spanning 1300 years of massive changes in a country the size of New Jersey. When the all gel together, I'm inclined to pay attention. When they diverge, I remain skeptical of anything being definitive one way or another.

So I'm open to some challenges of the interpretation I've given -- I'm not married to it. But I also don't need to convince you I'm right either. Ultimately, I'm a man of action. Words, thoughts and beliefs, to me, are just the ways that we rationalize our behavior. And only what we do matters. If our words contradict our behavior, then our words are meaningless. So, since I do a little bit of farming and live a my life in the benefits of civilization, it's all just BS anyway -- mere thought experiments and nothing to get upset about one way or another. Again, just my 2-cents.