Things Learned from LGBTQ+ Discussions

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

What is the point of the fruit then, which purpose is to be eaten and therefore gets into us? From what I remember of the other thread, it was being said that the fruit itself wasn't bad, but rather the act of eating the fruit, right? So why did God not want man to eat it? Was it just to say, "Don't cross that line, because I said so!" just to see if they would be obedient? Or was it because there was something deadly about the fruit?

I think perhaps both are true here.

Not true. The Bible is explicit that the tree was "good for food". There is no way to slice it whereby deadly fruit can be called "good for food".

[Trapped]

And remember, God is not a liar. He called the trees by what they were. Eat the tree of life - get life. Eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - get the knowledge of good and evil ("....they've become like us, knowing good and evil..."). For there to be poison in the tree means God would have called it "the tree of deadly poison", otherwise we are saying that He named the trees in a tricking way. But that's not what they got when they ate the tree. They got what God said - the knowledge of good and evil.

It was a sin to eat the tree. Death is the punishment for sin. So they got death as punishment (".....let us cut him off from the tree of life lest they eat and live forever...")

This is a major shift from Lee's teaching, but it's a critical one as far as I'm concerned. I'm actually directly looking to change your mind on this one.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

And remember, God is not a liar. He called the trees by what they were. Eat the tree of life - get life. Eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - get the knowledge of good and evil ("....they've become like us, knowing good and evil..."). For there to be poison in the tree means God would have called it "the tree of deadly poison", otherwise we are saying that He named the trees in a tricking way. But that's not what they got when they ate the tree. They got what God said - the knowledge of good and evil.

It was a sin to eat the tree. Death is the punishment for sin. So they got death as punishment (".....let us cut him off from the tree of life lest they eat and live forever...")

This is a major shift from Lee's teaching, but it's a critical one as far as I'm concerned. I'm actually directly looking to change your mind on this one.

Thanks for the responses. But you don't want to hear my take on the fruit.

The question I was addressing was that the fall caused the LGBTQ.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks for the responses. But you don't want to hear my take on the fruit.

The question I was addressing was that the fall caused the LGBTQ.

Yer probably right! (in that we don't really want to hear your take on the fruit . . . )

As to the 2nd part, whether the fall caused LGBTQWERTY, this gets to the heart of the matter of whether it's off-the-mark (i.e. sin) or not. My contention is the Bible clearly calls it sin along with a bunch of other things; whereas some do their best to demonstrate that the Bible doesn't actually call it a sin (and perhaps even promotes it).

So assuming it is a sin (as I do), therefore it was something that just came along with the fall as another corruption of the flesh.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Not true. The Bible is explicit that the tree was "good for food". There is no way to slice it whereby deadly fruit can be called "good for food".

Where does it say the tree of the knowledge of good & evil was "good for food"?

Here's an article that agrees with your basic premise, but disagrees that the TOTKOGAE was "good." Tree Meaning Article

However, the question remains, why did God use something that would be ingested? (As we know, what we eat becomes part of us.) Why wouldn't he perhaps have said instead, "Don't cross over that river!" as the test? This way nothing would be ingested and therefore assimilated into them.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Where does it say the tree of the knowledge of good & evil was "good for food"?

Good for food verses:

Genesis 2:9
Out of the ground the LORD God gave growth to every tree that is pleasing to the eye and good for food. And in the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 3:6
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom, she took the fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Here's an article that agrees with your basic premise, but disagrees that the TOTKOGAE was "good." Tree Meaning Article

The article ends with this sentence, so I think it actually agrees that the TOTKOGAE was "good":

"In short, the answer to the commenter’s question is, yes, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was good. The fault for man’s fall lies with Adam and Eve, not the tree."

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

However, the question remains, why did God use something that would be ingested? (As we know, what we eat becomes part of us.) Why wouldn't he perhaps have said instead, "Don't cross over that river!" as the test? This way nothing would be ingested and therefore assimilated into them.

All I can say here between tasks at work is don't take the Witness Lee approach of looking for "the intrinsic significance of the nature of the element of the command." If God said "don't cross over that river" then what would you say --- it matters where our feet go? It matters what we drown ourselves in? As you know, if you cross over a river, you get wet and muddy. God was simply never concerned with 'what they ate'. It's just not there in the verses. He's concerned with their obedience, and the tree was the way He chose.

I've put forth my personal view somewhere on this forum already I think. Hebrews somewhere speaks of mature believers distinguishing between good and evil. I think the TOTKOGAE was possibly forbidden until, say, Adam and Eve showed they would obey God's commands. Show maturity. Then maybe be allowed to eat the tree. Some things are forbidden until the right time - dessert (after dinner), sex (after marriage), using a gun (after gun training), etc. I can see the TOTKOGAE falling into that category, although as I said, those are just my thoughts and I don't intend to try to convince you of that particular part.

[Sons to Glory!]

Thanks for the reply, Trapped! You've given me something to think over and ask the Lord about. I do wonder about the word "good" that is used in both of the Genesis verses concerning the trees. Good can also mean "fit." That is you can say, "It's good (or fit) for that purpose." In other words, "It is good for food - it can be eaten." Strong's says the word can also be translated as "pleasant."

Another thing I notice about Genesis 2:9 is it also describes the trees in two ways: 1) pleasing to the eye; 2) good for food. Were all trees both, or were some just pleasing to look at and others good for food?

But I still come back to why use something that was food? Man ingesting food and drink is a big thing in the Bible, is it not? Lots and lots of references to eating, tasting and drinking of the Lord in both the OT and NT. Here's a few: "Taste and see that the Lord is good." "He that eats Me shall live because of Me." "Do this [the Lord's Table] until I come." "He who drinks of the water I give him shall never thirst again." "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you." "The marriage feast of the Lamb." God surely seems to be making some key point about taking the right things into us. I can't help but think that it wasn't an accident that He used the fruit of two trees in the garden.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Thanks for the reply, Trapped! You've given me something to think over and ask the Lord about. I do wonder about the word "good" that is used in both of the Genesis verses concerning the trees. Good can also mean "fit." That is you can say, "It's good (or fit) for that purpose." In other words, "It is good for food - it can be eaten." Strong's says the word can also be translated as "pleasant."

Another thing I notice about Genesis 2:9 is it also describes the trees in two ways: 1) pleasing to the eye; 2) good for food. Were all trees both, or were some just pleasing to look at and others good for food?

But I still come back to why use something that was food? Man ingesting food and drink is a big thing in the Bible, is it not? Lots and lots of references to eating, tasting and drinking of the Lord in both the OT and NT. Here's a few: "Taste and see that the Lord is good." "He that eats Me shall live because of Me." "Do this [the Lord's Table] until I come." "He who drinks of the water I give him shall never thirst again." "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you." "The marriage feast of the Lamb." God surely seems to be making some key point about taking the right things into us. I can't help but think that it wasn't an accident that He used the fruit of two trees in the garden.

Will be curious to know if/what the Lord says!

Genesis 2:16 - And the LORD God commanded him, “You may eat freely from every tree of the garden,

From God saying this, it seems to me that every tree was indeed good for food....if God Himself is saying they can eat from them all. He wouldn't tell anyone to eat from a tree that wasn't good for food!

Good for food....fit for food.....all of them mean you can eat it. God would never tell one of His children that something poisonous is good or fit for food and can be eaten.

Regarding the pleasing to look at versus good for food, Eve saw that the TOTKOGAE was both. The Bible doesn't record that that view of hers was wrong.

I won't push back too hard on the ingesting thing. I agree it does matter what we take into ourselves, although I usually think of it in terms of what we hear, read, watch, etc. if you want to take the metaphorical approach. I'm not saying it isn't important in general, but as far as everything the Bible says about this story in particular, including in Romans, the emphasis is consistently on the act, the offense, the disobedience, the sin, rather than the eating, the ingesting, the "taking in", etc. The main reason I'm not totally acquiescing here is because once we say there was anything wrong with the fruit of the TOTKOGAE is the nanosecond we give the grounds for the abusive teachings of "good is death/poison" or "knowledge is death/poison", etc. I know the potential for abuse of a teaching doesn't negate a teaching, but when the verses aren't there to back up that the ingesting of the fruit (aside from disobedience) was a problem, then we've got an unbiblical teaching that turns into an abusive teaching. And that riles me up!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Will be curious to know if/what the Lord says!

Genesis 2:16 - And the LORD God commanded him, “You may eat freely from every tree of the garden,

From God saying this, it seems to me that every tree was indeed good for food....if God Himself is saying they can eat from them all. He wouldn't tell anyone to eat from a tree that wasn't good for food!

Good for food....fit for food.....all of them mean you can eat it. God would never tell one of His children that something poisonous is good or fit for food and can be eaten.

Regarding the pleasing to look at versus good for food, Eve saw that the TOTKOGAE was both. The Bible doesn't record that that view of hers was wrong.

I won't push back too hard on the ingesting thing. I agree it does matter what we take into ourselves, although I usually think of it in terms of what we hear, read, watch, etc. if you want to take the metaphorical approach. I'm not saying it isn't important in general, but as far as everything the Bible says about this story in particular, including in Romans, the emphasis is consistently on the act, the offense, the disobedience, the sin, rather than the eating, the ingesting, the "taking in", etc. The main reason I'm not totally acquiescing here is because once we say there was anything wrong with the fruit of the TOTKOGAE is the nanosecond we give the grounds for the abusive teachings of "good is death/poison" or "knowledge is death/poison", etc. I know the potential for abuse of a teaching doesn't negate a teaching, but when the verses aren't there to back up that the ingesting of the fruit (aside from disobedience) was a problem, then we've got an unbiblical teaching that turns into an abusive teaching. And that riles me up!

Concerning the bolded above, I wonder about "may eat . . ." Sure, we may eat a lot of things, including things we shouldn't - as they did.

So if it was about just the disobedience, and wasn't about both the disobedience and the ingesting, then this means that everything happened because of the disobedience. That is, sin got into the flesh and corrupted man and death was brought in, only as a result of the disobedient act. Their very genes seemed to have changed and they passed this on to all generations of those in Adam #1, again, simply because they were disobedient.

It's easier for me to think that something got into them through what they ingested, that caused things to drastically change in them - from the perfect beings they were as created, into the monumental mess of a train wreck of flesh that resulted.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Concerning the bolded above, I wonder about "may eat . . ." Sure, we may eat a lot of things, including things we shouldn't - as they did.

So if it was about just the disobedience, and wasn't about both the disobedience and the ingesting, then this means that everything happened because of the disobedience. That is, sin got into the flesh and corrupted man and death was brought in, only as a result of the disobedient act. Their very genes seemed to have changed and they passed this on to all generations of those in Adam #1, again, simply because they were disobedient.

It's easier for me to think that something got into them through what they ingested, that caused things to drastically change in them - from the perfect beings they were as created, into the monumental mess of a train wreck of flesh that resulted.

Romans 5:15-19
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many!
16 Again, the gift is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment that followed one sin brought condemnation, but the gift that followed many trespasses brought justification.
17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive an abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
18 So then, just as one trespass brought condemnation for all men, so also one act of righteousness brought justification and life for all men.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Romans 5 agrees with your statement that it's about the disobedience, the sin, the trespass, the act. Everything truly happened because of the disobedience. Sin is in us because of the act of disobedience of Adam and Eve. Death reigns because it's the punishment for sin and we all sin.

Other verses (also in Romans I think?) talk of SIN dwelling in us. Sin came in through the sinful act of disobedience. There is never a mention of any kind of element or poison or substance that entered from the tree. Not one.

It's a shift of some neurological pathways that have believed for so long that it's something external, some element, something from the tree that "got in", but the support for it is an echoing silence in scripture.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Thanks for the reply, Trapped! You've given me something to think over and ask the Lord about. I do wonder about the word "good" that is used in both of the Genesis verses concerning the trees. Good can also mean "fit." That is you can say, "It's good (or fit) for that purpose." In other words, "It is good for food - it can be eaten." Strong's says the word can also be translated as "pleasant."

The good for food is the same as the tree of good and evil. And God declares each day of His creation good, or very good.

It's all the same good. The same word.

In other words, the forbidden fruit was GOOD for food. Not poison.

And what happened after eating it was not just disobedience. Their eyes were opened. They could see like gods.

What could cause something like that?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Where does it say the tree of the knowledge of good & evil was "good for food"?

Gen 3.6 "And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and delightful to the eyes, and desired to make one wise."

Jehovah never said that the TOKOGAE was good for food and pleasant to the sight, rather Eve said it after being deceived by the Serpent.


When WL taught these verses, he totally dismissed the disobedience, Adam's transgression in Rom 5, and portrayed the event as a child eating poison after the mother said to stay out of the cabinet.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Gen 3.6 "And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and delightful to the eyes, and desired to make one wise."

Jehovah never said that the TOKOGAE was good for food and pleasant to the sight, rather Eve said it after being deceived by the Serpent.


When WL taught these verses, he totally dismissed the disobedience, Adam's transgression in Rom 5, and portrayed the event as a child eating poison after the mother said to stay out of the cabinet.

OK, Got it! Trapped did a good job, and I'm considering, as mentioned in earlier posts . . . still wondering why it was through something eaten though . . .

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

OK, Got it! Trapped did a good job, and I'm considering, as mentioned in earlier posts . . . still wondering why it was through something eaten though . . .

Eating makes all the sense in the world.

[awareness]

“Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God,” Francis said. “You can’t kick someone out of a family, nor make their life miserable for this. What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered.”

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

OK, Got it! Trapped did a good job, and I'm considering, as mentioned in earlier posts . . . still wondering why it was through something eaten though . . .

Weeeellll......I'll mention one thing.

Where were they placed? In a garden. A big garden. A garden full of trees. Full of trees with fruit that can be eaten.

So in a sense, it makes perfect sense for God to use a tree as the test......because in a garden FULL of other options, man has no excuse for taking from the only, one, singular thing that was forbidden.

In other words, man can't claim "it's not fair.....there were only 4 trees and I didn't like the taste of some of them so in order to eat I had to take from the one you told me not to eat of." They had, probably literally, at least hundreds of other trees to take from. There was no reason to eat of the TOTKOGAE. It's a good test God set up that used something so prevalent so that man could be.....

.....without excuse.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

In other words, man can't claim "it's not fair.....

.....without excuse.

By man I hope you realize Adam. And Adam, and Eve, were like children, who didn't understand anything ... much less complaining, or excusing, by the number of trees.

As I read it. Adam and Eve ran straight for the forbidden tree, ignoring all the others, including the tree of life. But in their defense, they didn't know what life, or death, meant.

[Ohio]

[QUOTE=awareness;96060]By man I hope you realize Adam. And Adam, and Eve, were like children, who didn't understand anything ... much less complaining, or excusing, by the number of trees.
[/BQUOTE]
This is pure conjecture. Where is the evidence that God created immature children, who did not understand His commands?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness

By man I hope you realize Adam. And Adam, and Eve, were like children, who didn't understand anything ... much less complaining, or excusing, by the number of trees.

As I read it. Adam and Eve ran straight for the forbidden tree, ignoring all the others, including the tree of life. But in their defense, they didn't know what life, or death, meant.

By man I mean mankind, both Adam and Eve. Neither could claim unfairness (even though they both tried to point the finger at someone else).

Between verse 7 and 13 (when Adam and then Eve were created), enough stuff happened between God and Adam that we should be hard pressed to call Adam like a little kid. God entrusts him with responsibilities and tasks and interacts with him repeatedly. Even a kid understands "don't eat that".

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Gen 3.6 "And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and delightful to the eyes, and desired to make one wise."

Jehovah never said that the TOKOGAE was good for food and pleasant to the sight, rather Eve said it after being deceived by the Serpent.

When WL taught these verses, he totally dismissed the disobedience, Adam's transgression in Rom 5, and portrayed the event as a child eating poison after the mother said to stay out of the cabinet.

Yes there is the verse in chapter 3, but don't forget this verse in chapter 2:

Genesis 2:9
Out of the ground the LORD God gave growth to every tree that is pleasing to the eye and good for food. And in the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

That's the Biblical description of the trees.....not just Eve's view of them.

Yes, WL totally tossed the disobedience aside. How convenient for him to downplay the sin......

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Genesis 2:9
Out of the ground the LORD God gave growth to every tree that is pleasing to the eye and good for food. And in the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Yes, and did you see my question about these two description of the trees: 1) pleasing to the yes 2) good for food. So were some just #1 and some just #2 and maybe some both?

Also, "In the day you eat of it in dying you will die." (lit)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yes, and did you see my question about these two description of the trees: 1) pleasing to the yes 2) good for food. So were some just #1 and some just #2 and maybe some both?

Also, "In the day you eat of it in dying you will die." (lit)

Gen 2:17 KJV - "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
ESV - "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yes, and did you see my question about these two description of the trees: 1) pleasing to the yes 2) good for food. So were some just #1 and some just #2 and maybe some both?

Also, "In the day you eat of it in dying you will die." (lit)

Yes I did, and I could have sworn I answered it but don't have time to scroll back right now to look. How about this - if I said "I saw a bunch of horses that were wild and free" would you question whether some of them were only wild and some were only free? Nope, you would know that that kind of phrased description applies to all.

And Eve sees both attributes in the TOTKOGAE in chapter 3. Those two attributes are repeated twice, once about all the trees, and another time when Eve is looking only at one. I don't see a way to read it that somehow one adjective phrase refers to some and one adjective phrase refers to others.

If your reasoning is correct, that would mean some were good for food but some weren't. And yet God told them all blanket "you can eat all of them except one". What on earth would God be doing creating some of them NOT good for food but yet telling them they can eat all of them? That's a God who feeds His kids rocks and tells them they are bread!

The phrase "dying you will die" is a known Hebrew idiom that implies judicial punishment, not inherent natural consequence.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

The phrase "dying you will die" is a known Hebrew idiom that implies judicial punishment, not inherent natural consequence.

And where is that idiom in Gen.?