The Tree of Life

[FWI]

In Genesis 1-3, it is decreed that every herb and fruit tree would be food for Adam/Eve, except for one: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Yet, there is a growing belief that Adam and Eve actually didn't eat from the tree of life, because if they did, they would have become immortal.

So, the question is: Is it your belief that Adam/Eve ate from the tree of life or is it your belief that they didn't. Please supply your reasoning (if possible) for your position.

[jgh7]

My belief is they didn't. Here is the only clue I could find:

Genesis 3:24
So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

-----

The simplest assumption which I choose is that they never ate of the tree prior to being kicked out. Thus the flaming sword was put there to make sure they never could get to the tree to eat of it.

Now one could theorize that perhaps you have to continually eat of the tree of life to live forever. Thus maybe they ate of it before getting kicked out and the flaming sword was put there to make sure they don't eat of it again. But this doesn't quite make sense to me. The tree of knowledge was permanent in its effect, so I think the tree of life would be the same way. And if the tree of life isn't permanent, then how often does one have to eat of it: once a day, a week, month, after the third day of each new lunar cycle??? I kid, but it just seems less sensible to me in this regard.

[Checkpoint]

My belief is they didn't. Here is the only clue I could find:

Genesis 3:24
So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

-----

The simplest assumption which I choose is that they never ate of the tree prior to being kicked out. Thus the flaming sword was put there to make sure they never could get to the tree to eat of it.

Now one could theorize that perhaps you have to continually eat of the tree of life to live forever. Thus maybe they ate of it before getting kicked out and the flaming sword was put there to make sure they don't eat of it again. But this doesn't quite make sense to me. The tree of knowledge was permanent in its effect, so I think the tree of life would be the same way. And if the tree of life isn't permanent, then how often does one have to eat of it: once a day, a week, month, after the third day of each new lunar cycle??? I kid, but it just seems less sensible to me in this regard.

Yes.

As I read what we are told, they blew their one chance and that was it.

They then had to live with the result.

Genesis 3:

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.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 3 by Checkpoint]

So then, it seems there were two different trees. One, the tree of the knowledge, and the other, the tree of life.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 3 by Checkpoint]

So then, it seems there were two different trees. One, the tree of the knowledge, and the other, the tree of life.

Yes, that is correct; the Genesis narrative refers to two seperate trees with two different names


Tree #1) Tree of the knowledge of good and bad

Tree #2) Tree of life





JW

[JehovahsWitness]

My belief is they didn't. Here is the only clue I could find:

Genesis 3:24
So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

Yes it doesn't seem logical for God to post guards barring Adam and Eve's access to the tree of life if they had already eaten from it.

JW

[ttruscott]

In Genesis 1-3, it is decreed that every herb and fruit tree would be food for Adam/Eve, except for one: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Yet, there is a growing belief that Adam and Eve actually didn't eat from the tree of life, because if they did, they would have become immortal.

So, the question is: Is it your belief that Adam/Eve ate from the tree of life or is it your belief that they didn't. Please supply your reasoning (if possible) for your position.

In Rev 10, eating is a metaphor for gaining knowledge, in this case, from a small bible.
In keeping with this metaphor the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the choice to bring the abstract ideas of good and evil into one's experience by choosing evil to become a sinner.

To eat of tree of life is to eat / gain righteous sanctity so we are heaven ready, fully disciplined as per Heb 12:5-11. Proverbs 12:28 In the way of righteousness there is life; along that path is immortality. OR: The way of the godly leads to life; that path does not lead to death.

There is no mystery about life and death; life is our existence with GOD which has yet to end and death is an existence without GOD which has yet to start. Physical death is a metaphor...

To post a guard against righteousness is expressed in the thoughts of hiding the truth from those condemned to death, letting their sins be as well as believers unable to sanctify themselves and enter where righteousness leads, ie, the heavenly state. As such it refers to the natural consequence of becoming evil, righteousness unavailable except by HIS grace.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 3 by Checkpoint]

So then, it seems there were two different trees. One, the tree of the knowledge, and the other, the tree of life.

Not just "of the knowledge", but "of the knowledge of good and evil".

In your opinion or understanding, was their infraction that they had chosen to eat what God had said not to, or was it more than or other than just that?

[FWI]

The bible tells us that God placed two trees in the midst of the garden and that one of these trees was intended for consumption and the other was not. Since, these trees were the focal point of the garden, it doesn't seem reasonable that they could've been avoided.

So, at stake here was not some legalistic point, it was not merely a matter of Adam and Eve doing what they were told by God. These trees represented life and death. But, not just life and death as "things." Rather, they represented Adam and Eve's relationship with God Himself.
God created Adam/Eve as being dependent upon their Creator and it was considered good. Adam/Eve were created into an environment, which was perfect and Adam/Eve were in need of nothing, not even clothing. And, they were not ashamed of their nakedness.
The "Tree of Life" represented God Himself as Adam/Eve’s provider. Thus, as Adam/Eve continually ate of the "Tree of Life" they showed their acceptance of this dependency upon God for everything.

However, eating of the forbidden tree represented a declaration of independence from God. When, Adam/Eve sinned by eating of the forbidden tree, they were still naked, but now they was ashamed of this condition. Why? Because, they decided to separate themselves from God and the result was that God no longer completed them. Therefore, they became conscious of need. They became spiritually dead.
So, what we see here are two choices, two eternal paths. There is life, which is found only in God, and worked out through the eating of the "Tree of Life" and there is death, which is the result of disobeying God and separating ourselves from God.

Hence, Adam and Eve enjoyed this dependency on God, for an extended period of time and regularly ate from the "Tree of Lie," until Eve was deceived and Adam disobeyed. They had now decided for themselves, what was "good and what was not" and there would be no turning back for them.

Yet, we should all be thankful that God (again) has offered mankind to eat from the tree of life.

[EBA]

JESUS CHRIST IS THE "TREE OF LIFE" so NO they did not eat of that tree.

God Bless.