Why Not The Tree of Life?

[Dad Ernie]

Greetings Ovedya,

The question is easily answered: He went as many years not having eaten of the Tree of Knowledge either. It is therefore unreasonable to presume that Adam or Eve had eaten of the Tree of Life.

You err because Adam was specifically told to NOT eat the the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, whereas, he was encouraged to eat of the Tree of Life. It was Eve that was tempted by the serpant. She had probably gone to get some fruit from the Tree of Life when the Serpant caught her attention and enticed her.

It just takes common sense to understand this, why such resistance?

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

[OneLight]

Bottom line is that we all are reading between the lines, trying to figure something our that is not given to us. To say one is in err is pointing the finger right back at the one saying it, because scripture does not speak clearly on this matter, one way or the other. All we have is what we believe is correct. Nothing more.

[Guest shiloh357]

Bottom line is that we all are reading between the lines, trying to figure something our that is not given to us. To say one is in err is pointing the finger right back at the one saying it, because scripture does not speak clearly on this matter, one way or the other. All we have is what we believe is correct. Nothing more.

Exactly. It is best to be silent where the Bible is silent. So far, all that has really been presented is conjecture and speculation.

[Guest shiloh357]

Bottom line is that we all are reading between the lines, trying to figure something our that is not given to us. To say one is in err is pointing the finger right back at the one saying it, because scripture does not speak clearly on this matter, one way or the other. All we have is what we believe is correct. Nothing more.

Exactly. It is best to be silent where the Bible is silent. So far, all that has really been presented is conjecture and speculation.

I dont believe the Bible is silent on them eating of the Tree of Life. I believe that Gen 3:22 states it clearly. Man did not eat of that tree.

It is silent on most of what is being speculated on, though.

[BlindSeeker]

Bottom line is that we all are reading between the lines, trying to figure something our that is not given to us. To say one is in err is pointing the finger right back at the one saying it, because scripture does not speak clearly on this matter, one way or the other. All we have is what we believe is correct. Nothing more.

Exactly. It is best to be silent where the Bible is silent. So far, all that has really been presented is conjecture and speculation.

I dont believe the Bible is silent on them eating of the Tree of Life. I believe that Gen 3:22 states it clearly. Man did not eat of that tree.

I disagree.

How it can be stated, "Gen 3:22 states it clearly. Man did not eat of that tree" is beyond me.

Maybe . . . just maybe if the original was both spoken and recorded verbatim in old English as the KJV quotes it. But it wasn't.

You are reading both an interpretation of what was some translators believed was intended to be communicated . . . not a "word for word" translation.

.

[BlindSeeker]

Bottom line is that we all are reading between the lines, trying to figure something our that is not given to us. To say one is in err is pointing the finger right back at the one saying it, because scripture does not speak clearly on this matter, one way or the other. All we have is what we believe is correct. Nothing more.

Exactly. It is best to be silent where the Bible is silent. So far, all that has really been presented is conjecture and speculation.

I dont believe the Bible is silent on them eating of the Tree of Life. I believe that Gen 3:22 states it clearly. Man did not eat of that tree.

I disagree.

How it can be stated, "Gen 3:22 states it clearly. Man did not eat of that tree" is beyond me.

Maybe . . . just maybe if the original was both spoken and recorded verbatim in old English as the KJV quotes it. But it wasn't.

You are reading both an interpretation of what was some translators believed was intended to be communicated . . . not a "word for word" translation.

.

By the way my reason for saying Gen 3:22 states is clearly is because of what God states. Unless they put forth his hand and take also, of the Tree of Life and eat, and live forever.

If they were already eating of the Tree of Life then they would have been living forever already. The Tree of Life provided eternal Life. It is a type of Christ...or the Life of God in Christ.

I already posted why in my earlier post here but have reposted it below

There are 17 Hebrew words in the following verse being translated/interpreted with 41 English words. That is 2.4 times as many English words as Hebrew, or 140% more English . . . which makes for sufficient room for a pure translation to be distorted by another culture/language

[Guest shiloh357]

"v'omer Adonoi Elohim hinei ha'adam hayah k'echad m'minoo ladah-ayt tov v'rah-ah. v'atah pen-yishlach yadoh v'lakach gahm m'etz ha'chaim v'achal v'chai l'olam."

Not that it matters, but there are actually 22 Hebrew words in the verse, not 17.

The word "gahm" is the word translated as "also." It is nothing but a adverbial conjunction. No need to make more of it than is there. In this verse it indicates a future action but, is not an indicator of any past action, meaning that it does not serve as adequate indicator that anyone had eaten of the tree of life up to that point.

The point is, that it neither denies nor confirms either position. The real issue is not how the word is translated or its lexical definition. It is the intent of the author or the object the author has in view that is important.

Did Adam eat of the tree of life? The Bible does not say one way or the other, and that is really what our position should be, utlimately.

[silviawang]

Why didn't Adam and Eve eat from the tree of Life rather than the tree of knowledge of good and evil if it was their desire to live forever?

bcs if the guy do not know the knowledge of good and evil ,he will not accept the evil nature of himself,and will not accept that he can not be the righteous person through doing the right,and ...he will not depend on G-D to seek the salvation

it seems not so serious to one specific person?but if the whole society are this kind of ethic------know the good and evil,but to seek the righteousness of humanbeing not G-D,y know the result?the society is DYING!bcs they worship the idol,the righteous person they CREAT,if they do not know the evil and good,they will not worship their own"hero",their own "savior",bcs no one worship some guy they think who is do not worth to respect and admire.

i think on some degree eating that "apple"means die do not means a person's die,but a group's die,bcs the nature of humanbeing is like to worship the one they can see,not the ONE who can not see ,and even not now his image,so eat the fruit means lose the faith of G-D,creat the "depending and worshipping" of humbeing,this kind of person,even y give them the eternal life,THEY WILL KILL EACHOTHER

[nebula]

The word "gahm" is the word translated as "also." It is nothing but a adverbial conjunction. No need to make more of it than is there. In this verse it indicates a future action but, is not an indicator of any past action in this verse, meaning that it does not serve as adequate indicator that anyone had eaten of the tree of life up to that point.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly does gahm mean?

[Guest shiloh357]

The word "gahm" is the word translated as "also." It is nothing but a adverbial conjunction. No need to make more of it than is there. In this verse it indicates a future action but, is not an indicator of any past action in this verse, meaning that it does not serve as adequate indicator that anyone had eaten of the tree of life up to that point.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly does gahm mean?

Depends on the context. It can mean, "both," "as well as, " "also," "moreover," "yes," " though," "even." Those are the various ways it is employed. It does not mean all of those things at once. In Gen. 3:22, it simply means, "also."