Things Learned from LGBTQ+ Discussions

[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.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

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.

Thanks for that - a compelling argument from scripture! Again, something to consider and pray about. As is probably your experience, sometimes I get the answer pretty quickly, and other times it takes awhile - oftentimes a verse that comes my way in reading or fellowship, or sometimes "out of the blue." But I still wonder about the eating aspect . . . (was that just happenstance? I doubt it)

So to tie back to the LGBTQ+ main topic; if sin came in through the one act of disobedience, that's the source of all the things of the flesh, including gayness.

[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?