Negative Speaking

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Curious

I want to chip in here and suggest a very excellent resource on the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It's a book titled 'There Were Two Trees In the Garden' by Rick Joyner.

I know he's a bit controversial and and out on the loopy end for some, in other of his books, but this book is not loopy at all. I suggest to forget the author and just take the book on its own. Personally, I have read it about 5 times and each time I learned much more, than the time before. Its pretty dense but to me makes so much sense. Just my suggestion to those curious.

It certainly also lays the groundwork to easily expose those such as WL or anyone using what seems good to trap people into a system that served himself at their expense (evil).

I have an ever-growing backlog of books to purchase when finances are less tight, so I wouldn't be able to buy this book any time soon, but I took a look on Amazon in hopes there would be a "look inside" feature for it. There was.

While the rest of the book may be more accurate (and it does have a good review rating), I choked on the very first page of chapter 1 where he says "...the Lord did not implement this restriction just to test Adam and Eve; He prohibited the eating of its fruit because He knew it was poison."

I'm sorry, but the verses are simply not there to back this conclusion up. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was literally described as being "good for food". There is just no way to say that poison can be good for food. It was described as "making you like God." "Poison" and "makes you like God" simply don't mesh.

And if you take that the tree itself was poisonous, then you are immediately on your way down the road to "not only is evil poison, but knowledge is poison and good is poison too", and we are forest-deep into a spiritually abusive teaching.

Ah, I just read a little more, and it's right there on the very next page: "the knowledge of good and evil kills us....."

Nope. It's the punishment for disobeying God by being restricted from having access to the tree of life that killed us. (If you are prevented from eating the tree that makes you live forever you.......die.) The bible doesn't say that "sin is death" but that "the WAGES (punishment) of sin is death."

Who punished us with death for our sins? God did. Death was punishment; it wasn't from the TOTKOGAE itself.

He then says, "It is significant that the Tree of Knowledge is found in the center of the garden (see Genesis 3:3). Self-centeredness is the chief malady with which it afflicts us."

Okay.....well he used Genesis 3:3, which refers to the TOTKOGAE only. However, Genesis 2:9 speaks of BOTH trees, and the tree of life is also described as being in the center of the garden, so his negative attribution of the central placement as pertains to the TOTKOGAE also means the tree of life has to do with self-centeredness too, which doesn't make any sense.

Then two pages later he says:

"The fruit of these two tree is to forever be separate and distinct, as the Lord Jesus also testified.

For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit; nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit. For each tree is known by its fruit. Luke 6:43-44."

The verse he uses actually supports the conclusion that the TOTKOGAE was not a bad tree. It was described as being good for food. This means the fruit was good for food. It had good fruit. And Luke tells us straight out that a bad tree cannot produce good fruit. The TOTKOGAE cannot, Biblically, be a bad tree. Or poisonous. Or death.

I'm not saying there isn't good stuff in his book. In the next page or two he starts speaking of Jesus and it seems good, but that's where the preview cuts off for me .

For better or for worse, I get particular with the two trees teaching because getting it a half inch wrong up front leads so incredibly far off just a mile or two down the road. I don't mean to take away from your enjoyment of the book or your recommendation! The rest of the book may be just wonderful! I've just seen where the misinterpretation of this particular story leads, and the way it is used in the LC, and so I'm not super loosy-goosy about this one. Happy to get into it if someone disagrees, but this is just what I see.

Originally Posted by Curious

I'm fact, thinking about it, WL did care an awful lot for good and evil. At least to present the LC as good not evil. That is, he certainly understood the need to use a 'good' facade to attract newcomers, as if people would think the LC to be bad they wouldn't join. So he used the impression of good to cover over doing evil. And that's the context the above mentioned book explains.

Yeah, and he also cared for good and evil when he thought others were perpetrating his version of "evil" upon him!