breaktown
The Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good And Evil: Methaphorical or Literal?
Posted on: 04/29/2009 22:34
We all know God is a very symbolic being. He refers to us a sheep, He's got helmet of salvation and breastplate of righteousness, all that jazz. So I have a question to pose: Was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil methaphorical? Let me explain my thoughts a little.
Adam and Eve simply were and lived and enjoyed life. Everything was fine and dandy for them. They knew nothing of discord, being distraught, disgusted, or any other dis words. They had one rule: do not eat from The Tree of the Knowledge Of Good And Evil. Why not? Certainly it couldn't be the reason that serpent suggested.. that God wants to keep all the knowledge to Himself. Well, in my mind, I see it as this: the fruit itself was not in possesion of helping Eve spot the difference between good and evil, but the action of (heres another dis) DISobedience itself contributed to Eve's new ability of picking out her flaws.
I tihnk God commanding them not to eat from that tree was an act of protection, keeping their minds pure an innocent. When the act of disobedience was commited, it was like a gateway sin. Everything else wrong she did became evident to her after that.
Or perhaps the fruit did cause her to see evil and good.
What do you think?
Comments
GordW
Posted on: 04/29/2009 22:41
I hold that all of Genesis 1-11 is metaphorical and not history. (And much of the rest of the book too.)
Mate
Posted on: 04/29/2009 22:50
Gord
I certainly agree with that.
Shalom
Mate
bishop
Posted on: 04/29/2009 23:37
They knew nothing of discord, being distraught, disgusted, or any other dis words. They had one rule: do not eat from The Tree of the Knowledge Of Good And Evil. Why not?............... the fruit itself was not in possesion of helping Eve spot the difference between good and evil, but the action of (heres another dis) DISobedience itself contributed to Eve's new ability of picking out her flaws.
They were ignorant and could not understand what would be considered good or evil as they had only been exposed to God's love and light. When Eve DISobeyed God....how could she know what she was doing was wrong if she didn't know right from wrong?
I can't see how it could be literal. If that makes me closed minded, then maybe I'll get lucky and someone can help me open it with a flawless explaination.
As to why God told them not to eat the fruit, maybe God wanted them to eat it and told them not to because He wanted them to gain wisdom through the act of a negative experience.....He wanted them to see the true value of the Light by exposing them to Darkness.
Thanks,
Bishop B.
Mate
Posted on: 04/29/2009 23:45
bishop
I don't believe for one mo ment that the story is literal. It is an ancient myth borrowed and altered to fit the early Hebrew situation. This does not negate the truths that it presents.
Shalom
Mate
Namaste
Posted on: 04/30/2009 00:33
Completely metaphorical, but with numerous truths.
Freundly-Giant
Posted on: 04/30/2009 00:33
Maybe, though, if it WAS completely literal, there are other fruits God created to do DIFFERENT things! I mean, one day you could just be chillin with yo' villians, take a bite of your pear and BAM! you don't have a kidney and there's a herd of sheep in your living room.
But, aside from the funny stuff, you went very deep with this, I never saw things that way. Very enlightening, my dear!
revjohn
Posted on: 04/30/2009 10:36
Hi breaktown,
I tihnk God commanding them not to eat from that tree was an act of protection, keeping their minds pure an innocent. When the act of disobedience was commited, it was like a gateway sin. Everything else wrong she did became evident to her after that.
I think you are on target in that interpretation.
Or perhaps the fruit did cause her to see evil and good.
What do you think?
Even if the fruit did cause her to see good and evil it doesn't appear to impart the ability to choose the good over and above the evil.
If it did the world would be a more pleasant place.
Grace and peace to you.
John
Arminius
Posted on: 04/30/2009 13:02
Appearantly, Adam and Eve forgot to eat the fruit from the Tree of Life. Had they eaten that fruit, in addition to the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, then they would have remained in paradise. The fruit from the Tree of Life appears to contain the antidote to the poisonous fruit from the Tree of Knowledge.
I think the Tree of Knowledge symbolizes analytical knowledge, or duality. The Tree of Life symbolizes synthesis or non-duality as the actual state of being.
boltupright
Posted on: 04/30/2009 13:28
The question I ask myself is, what difference would it make if it was a metaphore or it actually happened exactly like it is written.
We all can agree that for it to actually happen exactly like it is written is unlikely, but to believe it as truth doesn't mean it has to be exactly as written as long as there is no false point of the referance involved.
The story makes a point & it is a good point, & is very believable to me.
For me to beleive in this story literally isn't harmful in any way, I choose to beleive it literally because I believe it to be possible, as with all of the signs & wonders I believe to be true because I believe with God, all things are possible.
But realy, what real differance does it make? The story makes a point, believe in the point, don't doubt it just because it's unlikely it happened exactly as it is written.
The parables that Jesus spoke didn't happen & least it was never claimed to have actually happened. That is why they were called parables.
But the points they make are valid indeed. & I beleive in them for what they are. An example.
Bolt
bishop
Posted on: 04/30/2009 14:03
One of my favourite stories is "The Emperor's New Clothes".
Mate
Posted on: 04/30/2009 23:53
I can accept the truths presented in Genesis. Does it matter how one reads it? Yes and no. If you are a person content to take it literally then go for it. However, I've seen people turned away from the Christian faith because they were told they had to take it literally.
That is a good spot for discernment. How will this person take the story? How could I best present it?
If I thought for one moment, many years ago, that I had to take it literally I would not be here or even a Christian today.
Shalom
Mate
oui
Posted on: 05/01/2009 12:50
Hi breaktown
There was another thread not long ago discussing the same subject, which you might enjoy:
www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/religion-and-faith/where-tree-knowledge-bible
I wonder, how can God offer man life and knowledge with the tree being accessible, and then forbid him to take of it? Is that reasonable?
bishop
Posted on: 05/01/2009 13:00
Hi breaktown
There was another thread not long ago discussing the same subject, which you might enjoy:
www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/religion-and-faith/where-tree-knowledge-bible
I wonder, how can God offer man life and knowledge with the tree being accessible, and then forbid him to take of it? Is that reasonable?
That's a great quetion! And when God gave them the law so that they would obey, how could He expect them to do the right thing if they didn't know right from wrong?
GordW
Posted on: 05/01/2009 14:02
bishop,
A classic answer is that GOd in this story wants blind obedience and anything else is wrong. I don't believe that the Scriptural witness as a whole calls for blind obedience. Especially since some heroes in the story argue with God and change God's mind (Abraham and Moses are the ones that leap to mind).
bishop
Posted on: 05/01/2009 14:11
A classic answer is that GOd in this story wants blind obedience and anything else is wrong.
Good answer.
I don't believe that the Scriptural witness as a whole calls for blind obedience. Especially since some heroes in the story argue with God and change God's mind (Abraham and Moses are the ones that leap to mind).
It is odd to think that God's mind can be changed, that He doesn't have to be the same today as yesturday. Scripture seems to contradict is self throughout the whole bible.