Good vs. Lee's Trees

[awareness]

I have to comment on this nugget:

Originally Posted by John

While reading some of Barnes’ Notes on the Bible about Genesis 3:22, I found that he thought that eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not poison mankind (as Witness Lee had told us), as if the masticated fruit itself, going into Adam and Eve’s stomachs, could have caused some interaction with their intellects that brought them to know good and evil. Barnes stated, instead, that it was the disobedience itself that caused the knowledge, as in, “Oh no; now I know the guilt and shame of having disobeyed God, which was an evil act on my part.” His commentary may or may not be true; however, I think that it is healthy, for those of us who were immersed solely in incessant indoctrination via Lee, meeting after meeting, to read and consider a contrary view (which is what the Living Stream Ministry does not want any of its captive audience to do).

We need to nail down what this is, to clearly identify what is actually going on in the LSM local churches.

It is called, and actually is : Cognitive capture.

It is a type of mind control. Getting out of your mind, and into your spirit leaves your mind free to be captured by, in this case, Witness Lee and Company (like a duck fresh out of the egg fixated on the first thing it sees). If it's not cultish, it sure looks like it. Because of the phenomena of cognitive capture happening in the LSM local churches I personally think, for what it's worth, that the LSM local church is undeniably cultish.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

I have to comment on this nugget:


We need to nail down what this is, to clearly identify what is actually going on in the LSM local churches.

It is called, and actually is : Cognitive capture.

It is a type of mind control. Getting out of your mind, and into your spirit leaves your mind free to be captured by, in this case, Witness Lee and Company (like a duck fresh out of the egg fixated on the first thing it sees). If it's not cultish, it sure looks like it. Because of the phenomena of cognitive capture happening in the LSM local churches I personally think, for what it's worth, that the LSM local church is undeniably cultish.

I would really like to think that Lee didn't have any intention of using a teaching like this (or his other teachings) to control. I'm not convinced that this was the case, however, I wouldn't go as far to make an argument either way. What I can say is that the end result of his teaching was that it became a form a control, as were things like "getting out of your mind". All to often, I've seen these teachings used in a way where one person has power over another to determine what is of the "Tree of Knowledge" or what constitutes being "in the mind".

I'm sure that all the local minion-leaders see this kind of teaching as a easy means to silence the congregation. Like I said, as to whether or not this was the original intention, I don't know. My theory is that many leaders might have picked up on this as an easy way to control the masses. That is really where such a teaching has an impact. If any rational can be silenced as being part of the "Tree of Knowledge", then it is scary what can come of it.

[SpeakersCorner]

The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’”

Personally, I have always appreciated Lee's interpretation and emphasis on the two named trees in Eden. I just don't think he went far enough.

He pointed out, I believe, that Eve added to God's word when she said they weren't even supposed to touch the fruit of the tree of knowledge. That was a great catch. But he didn't emphasize this point adequately. By inference we can conclude that touching the tree of knowledge was fine. In fact, because it was centered in the garden, it was almost mandatory.

The point seems clear: handling knowledge isn't wrong; imbibing on it is. Modern academia, particularly the humanities -- of which I was part -- eats voraciously from this tree. Eating, rather than simply handling, has caused academia to become the ugly thing that it is.

[aron]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Personally, I have always appreciated Lee's interpretation and emphasis on the two named trees in Eden. I just don't think he went far enough.

He pointed out, I believe, that Eve added to God's word when she said they weren't even supposed to touch the fruit of the tree of knowledge. That was a great catch. But he didn't emphasize this point adequately. By inference we can conclude that touching the tree of knowledge was fine. In fact, because it was centered in the garden, it was almost mandatory.

The point seems clear: handling knowledge isn't wrong; imbibing on it is.

Interesting point. It connects also with John's delineation in Revelations of the difference between the nations touching the tree of life, or being healed by its leaves (22:2b), versus eating the fruit, which is new every month (22:2a). Perhaps that's a corollary of sorts to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. We're to have our faculties exercised to discern between good and evil. But to feed on this, i.e. to take our sustenance from it, is not allowed.

Back to the essay at the beginning of the thread. I think that the point is well made that a focus on "life" was made-up as an excuse to avoid noticing the lack of good works. In addition to the verses John quoted, one which has helped me is in the testimony of Peter, regarding the ministry of Jesus. Peter was speaking to the gentiles, and summarizing Jesus' life in a few brief words. Here's how he phrased it: "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him." (Acts 10:38) The fact that Jesus "went around doing good" made such an impression on Peter shouldn't be lightly dismissed. And WL's stressing of "life" essentially allowed him to do just that.

Additionally, "we don't care for right and wrong, only for life" becomes a cloak for unrighteousness.

And lastly, in a highly-charged charismatic environment, where feelings can become overwhelming, and "experience" or sensory response our primary focus, relying on your feeling of "life" can be an awful trap. Then the Bible itself becomes "dead letters" to you if you can't extract "life" out of it; conversely, anything barely related to the Bible can give "life" if you get sufficiently excited about it. Thus came the equivalent of braying "four legs good, two legs bad" at meetings: we thought if we shouted something loudly enough, for long enough, it would become real. "It's the life, life, life, that makes me want to shout" went the LC song. But we shouted a lot of slogans that were tenuously related to the Bible, if at all. Our focus was not on Jesus Christ, good works, or even "life"; it was on the experience of repetetive shouting.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

And lastly, in a highly-charged charismatic environment, where feelings can become overwhelming, and "experience" or sensory response our primary focus, relying on your feeling of "life" can be an awful trap. Then the Bible itself becomes "dead letters" to you if you can't extract "life" out of it; conversely, anything barely related to the Bible can give "life" if you get sufficiently excited about it. Thus came the equivalent of braying "four legs good, two legs bad" at meetings: we thought if we shouted something loudly enough, for long enough, it would become real. "It's the life, life, life, that makes me want to shout" went the LC song. But we shouted a lot of slogans that were tenuously related to the Bible, if at all. Our focus was not on Jesus Christ, good works, or even "life"; it was on the experience of repetetive shouting.

I agree. In the LC, whatever it is that constitutes "life" is something that is highly subjective and usually it is a matter of an elder calling something life, and then calling the alternative death. For the rank and file member, they think Lee's ministry makes them feel happy or excited, so they say it gives them "life" while other ministries don't. It is indeed a trap.

Because they feel that "life" can only exist in the realm of Lee's ministry, they have already narrowed what they are willing to accept as "life". If someone criticizes Lee's ministry, that automatically is labeled as "death", and it might not even be necessary for a brother like Ron to come in and say that. The rank and file member already believes that speaking positively about Lee's ministry is imperative for "life" to exist.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Because they feel that "life" can only exist in the realm of Lee's ministry, they have already narrowed what they are willing to accept as "life". If someone criticizes Lee's ministry, that automatically is labeled as "death", and it might not even be necessary for a brother like Ron to come in and say that. The rank and file member already believes that speaking positively about Lee's ministry is imperative for "life" to exist.

In the LC mind, when it comes to quarantines, to seek the other side of the story is going to the Tree of Knowledge. If you accept without question what the LSM co-workers say, that's the Tree of Life. It's the systems method of controlling the brothers and sisters from seeking information dare the Local churches turn into the next Mars Hill church fallout.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

In the LC mind, when it comes to quarantines, to seek the other side of the story is going to the Tree of Knowledge. If you accept without question what the LSM co-workers say, that's the Tree of Life. It's the systems method of controlling the brothers and sisters from seeking information dare the Local churches turn into the next Mars Hill church fallout.

So if you do not care for truth, you are living, and if you care for truth, you are dead.

Wow! I want more of that kind of religion.

NOT!

[Nell]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

...He pointed out, I believe, that Eve added to God's word when she said they weren't even supposed to touch the fruit of the tree of knowledge. That was a great catch. But he didn't emphasize this point adequately. By inference we can conclude that touching the tree of knowledge was fine. In fact, because it was centered in the garden, it was almost mandatory....

In bringing this thread back to the top, I'd first like to comment on this "great catch" highlighted above. A "greater catch" is this:

When God told Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge, Eve had not yet been "made". She wasn't there---she didn't exist. How 'bout them apples? :-)

How did she know?

Did God repeat the warning to her directly? This is possible.
Did Adam repeat God's warning to her? If so, did he repeat it exactly as told to him by God, or, did Adam add "neither shall ye touch it" when he repeated it to Eve? Possible.
Or, did Eve add "neither shall ye touch it" on her own? Totally possible.

Regardless, it is notable that Eve had not yet been formed when the warning not to eat of the tree of knowlege was spoken. If Lee had "caught" this, he didn't share it with us.

Next, there are only 2 references to the "tree of knowledge" in the Bible: Genesis 2:9 and 2:17.

In verse 2:9 we are simply told of the existance of the tree of knowledge. In verse 2:17, we are commanded not to eat of it on penalty of death. So...either eat of the tree, or don't. Obey or disobey. Nothing about "life". Nothing about "source". Just a command.

Where, in the teachings of Lee, is disobedience to God's command not to eat of the tree of knowledge? OBW states below in Post #2 that "the fall was the result of disobedience, not fruit or snakes." I agree with this. The Bible is full of verses on obedience to God's Word, to His commands, to His commandments, yet Lee takes one verse on the tree of knowledge and forms a "ministry" around it.

Nell

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
...
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

*****
Genesis 2: 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
...
22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Gen. 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

[Nell]

This is a bit off topic, but worth noting. Are you ever curious about your IP address? (Your IP address is how your computer is identified and/or tracked on the Internet.)

You can Google "what is my IP address" and a list of web sites will appear.

Or you can go to an LSM web site, like this:
http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?p

You'll see this message near the bottom of the page:
Downloading this material, even for personal use, is prohibited.
Your IP address is 166.17.199.18 [10:56:53 AM (GMT -08:00), September 24, 2015].

I was researching the trees for my last post and found a "Life Study" that I would have quoted, but found this warning. Just to get the point across, by adding your IP address, the LSM is saying: "we know who you are, how to find you, and when you were on our website downloading our stuff."

Nell

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Nell

You'll see this message near the bottom of the page:
Downloading this material, even for personal use, is prohibited.

LSM forgets (or fails to mention) that quoting or citing material is protected by fair use. Maybe they should be more forthcoming about what is considered acceptable use of their material.

Why would they want to scare people away anyways? What are they so afraid of?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

LSM forgets (or fails to mention) that quoting or citing material is protected by fair use. Maybe they should be more forthcoming about what is considered acceptable use of their material.

Why would they want to scare people away anyways? What are they so afraid of?

Since they got the richest ministry on the planet, yo gots to pay for it!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Nell

When God told Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge, Eve had not yet been "made". She wasn't there---she didn't exist. How 'bout them apples? :-)

How did she know?

I agree with so much of what you said. But right at the beginning, it would seem that you momentarily fell into one of the errors of over-thinking that we all do too often.

The errors that Lee seemed to center on so intentionally are things that we are all prone to at times. See through one error but charge right past the next. The difference is that Lee appears to have used them to his benefit.

But to claim that Eve was not around to hear God speak about the tree of knowledge of good and evil and/or the tree of life is a tough call in a story that begins with an extremely shortened version of the whole of creation and then starts part of it over again. A second telling before the first has sunk in. We hear so little of the interaction of God with Adam, and then including Eve that you either draw the conclusion that they didn't really interact that much, or you can't really say what was or was not spoken in Eve's presence, or after she was made.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

But to claim that Eve was not around to hear God speak about the tree of knowledge of good and evil and/or the tree of life is a tough call in a story that begins with an extremely shortened version of the whole of creation and then starts part of it over again.

It's pretty clear from the Genesis account that God gave that commandment to Adam, who passed it on to Eve. That's why the Serpent was effective when he asked, "Has God said?" The Serpent undermined Adam's credibility at least as much as God's.

Obviously Paul interpreted it this way, since he wrote that Eve was deceived, but Adam transgressed God's command.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's pretty clear from the Genesis account that God gave that commandment to Adam, who passed it on to Eve. That's why the Serpent was effective when he asked, "Has God said?" The Serpent undermined Adam's credibility at least as much as God's.

Obviously Paul interpreted it this way, since he wrote that Eve was deceived, but Adam transgressed God's command.

Excellent.

Nell

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

I agree with so much of what you said. But right at the beginning, it would seem that you momentarily fell into one of the errors of over-thinking that we all do too often.

The errors that Lee seemed to center on so intentionally are things that we are all prone to at times. See through one error but charge right past the next. The difference is that Lee appears to have used them to his benefit.

But to claim that Eve was not around to hear God speak about the tree of knowledge of good and evil and/or the tree of life is a tough call in a story that begins with an extremely shortened version of the whole of creation and then starts part of it over again. A second telling before the first has sunk in.

OBW, what are you talking about? What error? What over-thinking? I quoted the verses. The verses are clear. If I'm in error, I want to know. Biblically, where is my error?

We hear so little of the interaction of God with Adam, and then including Eve that you either draw the conclusion that they didn't really interact that much, or you can't really say what was or was not spoken in Eve's presence, or after she was made.

You are correct. We don't know what happened in the background. We DO know what was written in Scripture. So what if they didn't interact that much? Not my problem. I CAN repeat the Word that Eve had not been made when God spoke the warning to Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge.

She was told after she was made because she repeated to the devil.

Why does this trouble you?

Nell

[OBW]

You can observe that Eve had not been made when the particular speaking that was recorded in scripture seems to have been made. But that is not the same as being certain that Eve did not hear God say it — later.

I guess I am troubled that there is something to catch here. An account that is obviously abbreviated, and like all the accounts of the day, it was spoken over and over, possibly even by God. How long was it from man's beginning with God until he decided to go his own way? Unknown. We get two chapters. But it could have been a significant period of time.

What do we gain by implying that Eve didn't hear God say it (she may have)? What does this "catch" do for us?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I agree with so much of what you said. But right at the beginning, it would seem that you momentarily fell into one of the errors of over-thinking that we all do too often.

I guess I am troubled that there is something to catch here. An account that is obviously abbreviated, and like all the accounts of the day, it was spoken over and over, possibly even by God. How long was it from man's beginning with God until he decided to go his own way? Unknown. We get two chapters. But it could have been a significant period of time.

I find it a little humorous that OBW could warn another poster not to "fall into the error of over-thinking" the stories in Genesis.

I think the sin in Eden occurred quite quickly. It was perhaps the first time the serpent had ever spoken to Eve, waiting for the first opportunity to catch her alone in the center of the garden. If God had told Eve directly, I doubt if the serpent would ask, "Has God really said?"

Anyways, the max length should be 9 months, unless we should assume that Adam and Eve remained celibate during their "engagement." Perhaps I am overthinking this though, isn't there some new show called "dating naked" inspired by true events.

Otherwise we would have some record of how Eve had given the fruit to her children.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Nell

When God told Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge, Eve had not yet been "made". She wasn't there---she didn't exist. How 'bout them apples? :-)

How did she know?

Originally Posted by OBW

I agree with so much of what you said. But right at the beginning, it would seem that you momentarily fell into one of the errors of over-thinking that we all do too often.

The errors that Lee seemed to center on so intentionally are things that we are all prone to at times. See through one error but charge right past the next. The difference is that Lee appears to have used them to his benefit.

But to claim that Eve was not around to hear God speak about the tree of knowledge of good and evil and/or the tree of life is a tough call in a story that begins with an extremely shortened version of the whole of creation and then starts part of it over again. A second telling before the first has sunk in. We hear so little of the interaction of God with Adam, and then including Eve that you either draw the conclusion that they didn't really interact that much, or you can't really say what was or was not spoken in Eve's presence, or after she was made.

I also don't understand OBW's strange resistance to what Nell pointed out here. Many people, including Harvest House's John Ankerberg in an interview series with physicist Hugh Ross note explicitly that quite some time went by between Adam's creation and admonishment not to eat of the tree, and Eve's eventual creation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YkHSBG5fm0 - they start around 2:11:38 and Hugh mentions around 2:21:00 that it was probably months or years between Adam's creation and Eve's. (You can adjust the speed to up to 2x and they are still understandable if anyone doesn't have 15 minutes to spare.)

Ohio's subsequent comment that Eve was deceived and Adam disobeyed is dead on. There is explicit record that Adam was told directly. Eve is created later, no record of God telling her, she doesn't get the benefit of the time to build a relationship with God and trust in God that Adam did, and then the serpent deceives her.

I would say this actually IS a "good catch" because it helps push back against the implicit thought in the LC that sisters are more easily deceived. The Bible never says or implies that...ever...and what we actually see in Genesis is that it really is important for us to hear God directly.

[John]

A few days ago, the Lord reminded me of an email I received from UntoHim over four months ago, which included this:

I was reviewing a LCD thread recently revived by Nell, and upon scanning back to the opening post I found that it was made by "John" way back in 2012….

I was wondering and hoping that I could talk you into giving us your thoughts about the subject "Good vs. Lee's Trees" all these years later.

I replied that I didn’t have the time. The reason, which I didn’t explain to him, was that my wife (“Thankful Jane”) and I were authoring a book together: Return To Follow the Rightful King, and it was requiring our time and focus. When, a few weeks after publishing it, I was reminded of UntoHim’s email (in a surprising way that got my attention), I decided I should post a response.


Good

My post was mostly about how Lee turned us away from biblical good and gave us a false choice between two trees. We then had to choose “life,” of course, which enabled him and the others to narrowly focus us on “life,” which came to have a new definition in practice. Good became effectively “bad.” Regarding this topic, to distill my journey to this point into a sentence, I went from looking for good, to pursuing “life,” to wondering why the Bible had so much good to say about good if it was really bad (that is, not “life”), to choosing the good part.

We Americans are told that we have a right to “the pursuit of Happiness.” Is that what we Christians are supposed to be pursuing? I have recently thought about the title of a Christian classic, The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life, and wondered where in the Bible we Christians are promised a happy life pre-eternity (as Americans would probably define “happy”). I don’t recall it, although I am just writing from memory here (maybe there is a passage). I do recall that those who leave all to follow the Lord are promised persecution. Think about someone like Paul: Did he have what many Christians in the United States would consider a happy life? I recall one passage in which he wrote about the beatings and stoning he endured, the times he was hungry and thirsty, as well as his time in the deep. Thinking about myself, I have spent my own time in “the deep,” that is, the deep of the Christian religion (not saying that my difficult times compare with Paul’s, of course).

When I came back to the main page of this forum in route to my post about good versus Lee’s trees, I saw a thread entitled, “Trying to find a good church in AUSTIN TX.” It caught my eye because Austin is in our neck of the woods. The thread title reminded me of a really big problem I have had until fairly recently (until the last two years or so). I always found myself, to one degree or another, in pursuit of a “good church.” In addition to all the indoctrination about church that I got from Witness Lee, I still remember the gist of part of what I was told when I was first born again: “Now that you’re a Christian, find a good church to attend.” So, exactly what constitutes a good church, and how would a newborn Christian possibly be equipped to go about finding one? (I mean no disparagement to anyone looking for a good church.) Well, Jane and I (new-Christian John) thought we had found a great church, only to see it morph into the church that is now the subject of this website. (That story is in The Thread of Gold.) Even if it were possible to find a good church (whatever that means), it is now plain to me that this is not to be my main endeavor.


Him

These days, I am not so much focused on things like the meaning of the two trees and other such things from the library of Lee (although I still spend time investigating basic Christian assumptions, including those of Lee). The “good” I am pursuing now is Him. After all these years, I want to be more like Mary, about whom Jesus said,

… but one thing is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her. (Luke 10:42)

What I am trying to learn day by day is to focus on my living King, Jesus. I’m endeavoring to turn away from so many other voices, thoughts, methods—whatever (or whoever)—and learn to follow my rightful King by listening to and hearing His living word, that is, paying particular attention to Him as I read the Bible with Him, pray to Him, talk to Him, type a post with Him, and so forth. You might say, “Well of course, John, everyone knows that.” I might say then, “It’s one thing to know about how to know Him and another to actually get to know Him in your everyday, hour by hour experience.”

In my view nowadays, I see only one King, one leader (Matt. 23:10, NASB). The job of mankind’s leader has been filled by the resurrected Jesus; He is the leader I am told to follow. If Jesus leads me to XYZ Church, I will follow Him there, whether or not I think it is a good church. He is taking me there for His reasons. As I am there, I will do my best to keep in step with the Spirit (Gal. 5:25). If He leads me out of XYZ, I will follow Him out. If He doesn’t lead me to some kind of conventional church, I’ll stay as close to Him as I can. Jesus has shown me that I am to follow Him regardless of what others are doing. (In John 21, Jesus tells Peter to follow Him and not to be concerned at all with what John is doing.) Therefore, I desire to be completely focused on Jesus and on following Him, not on participating in a “good church” and following a “good pastor.” I can trust that Jesus will lead me to other believers as He sees fit in line with His plans for me in His kingdom.

One thing that Witness Lee did to most of us, if we weren’t already programmed that way by Christian culture, was to make the church all-important. However, Jesus is all-important, the most important, not any church. (Again you might say that everyone knows that.) Yes, it should be obvious that Christ is to be in first place (pre-eminent); but in my experience, Christian church culture often doesn’t leave room for Him to be first.

It is clear to me from the Bible that we are called out to be in His kingdom where He reigns supreme. We are to keep Jesus as our first love and to spend time with Him, not focus on programs or methods or various kinds of groups or churches run by men. We are to find out from God what He wants us to be doing. We are to get to know Him—really know Him—and follow Him. We are to trust Him to lead us. Being with Jesus every day makes every day a new day! Sometimes, the excitement in a day reminds me of how I felt when I was first born again!


Them

Jane and I have had quite a journey learning to follow Him together. In recent years, we have had experiences of Him speaking to each of us individually and then, as we fellowship and put together these “speakings” from Him, we find clarity about our pathway forward. As we stay right with Him and with one another, we have seen Him answer specific prayers we have prayed together, often in amazing ways.

I think that what I have written expresses how I feel and where I am right now in my Christian walk. Let me conclude with verses that Jane and I have been working with for awhile:

So God created man in His [own] image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." (Gen. 1:27–28, NKJV)

Christians are to have dominion on earth over God’s enemy (not each other). Simply put, in our case as a married couple, Jane and I have been learning from Jesus to be a “them.” (This motif is fully explained on our website, “LemonsToGrapes.com.”) To us, this means that we are to be responsible to be right with God and with each other, and then to take care of, in concert with Him, what He has put in our sphere. We also have been learning about the importance of being similarly right with other believers for the same purpose of dominion on the earth over God’s enemy.

I hope that what I have written in brief won’t be misunderstood. My intent with this writing is to be helpful to others on their journey with the Lord. In my experience now, it is liberating and fulfilling to concentrate on keeping the Lord set before me (Psa. 16:8) rather than being distracted with other things. I do so hope that all believers will be encouraged to pursue our common calling of being in fellowship with the Son of God (1 Cor. 1:9), which includes having an experiential, first-hand, intimate knowing of Him (Eph. 4:13).

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Personally, I have always appreciated Lee's interpretation and emphasis on the two named trees in Eden. I just don't think he went far enough.

He pointed out, I believe, that Eve added to God's word when she said they weren't even supposed to touch the fruit of the tree of knowledge. That was a great catch. But he didn't emphasize this point adequately. By inference we can conclude that touching the tree of knowledge was fine. In fact, because it was centered in the garden, it was almost mandatory.

The point seems clear: handling knowledge isn't wrong; imbibing on it is. Modern academia, particularly the humanities -- of which I was part -- eats voraciously from this tree. Eating, rather than simply handling, has caused academia to become the ugly thing that it is.

Thanks for bringing this thread back up Nell.

Just want to comment six years later on SpeakersCorner's post here, for anyone reading down the road. He seems to make the classic mistake of calling the tree "the tree of knowledge" and comparing it to what goes on in academia.

It's not the tree of knowledge. It's the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Two very different things.

I mention this mainly because truncating the name of the tree, while convenient for typing, ends up changing what it is entirely. Lee also did this - called it the tree of knowledge - and used that to condemn knowledge. Well, it's not the tree of knowledge generally. It's specifically the tree of the knowledge of good and evil only.

After they ate of it God didn't say "behold they have become like us, knowing things, or having knowledge". God said, "behold they have become like us, knowing good and evil."