Login close

How Many Significant Trees Were in the Garden of Eden?

Submitted by Jaymes on August 6, 2010 - 9:05 am 90 Comments

The two significant trees in the Garden of Eden were the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad

This article is available as an mp3!

I picked up the good book, dusted it down, opened it and began to read from Genesis. I like to do this every now and then as it reminds me why I am now an atheist. You see, the Garden of Eden account was one of the real clinchers in my decision that there was no God, no Jehovah.

The real cracker is the account of the significant trees that are mentioned in the Garden of Eden account. Let me put this easy question to you; were there one or two significant trees in the Garden of Eden?

If you said one; the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad, you’d be wrong. If, by the magic of chance, you guessed there were two trees; the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad and the Tree of Life, you’d be spot on.

“Oh yeah! Of course there were two significant trees in the Garden of Eden.” How did you forget that? If you didn’t forget that there were two trees, kudos to you.

Please open your bibles with me to Genesis chapter 2, verse 9.

“Thus Jehovah God made to grow out of the ground every tree desirable to one’s sight and good for food and also the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.” – New World (Masonic Alert – Masonic Alert) Translation

Interesting, isn’t it. Now then, we come to the crux of the conundrum. Why oh why, do ALL Christian religions rarely talk about the Tree of Life?

The answer can be found in the bible. Please turn with me to Genesis chapter 3, verse 22.

“And Jehovah God went on to say: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad, and now in order that he may not put his hand out and actually take [fruit] also from the tree of life and eat and live to time indefinite.”

Hmmm, that’s interesting, isn’t it? This scripture shows two things; 1.) that the trees were not symbolic, for Moses, the secretary to whom the privilege was bestowed upon to write Genesis, states very clearly that the tree and fruit were actual and not symbolic, as many would have you believe.

Point 2.) Jehovah God made Adam and Eve perfect, but their perfection didn’t merit living forever; we can see that clearly from the above scriptures. Let’s not forget; in order for Adam and Eve to have lived eternally, they would have had to eat from the Tree of Life; their own perfect bodies could not sustain living forever. To clarify this point, please turn with me to Genesis chapter 3, verse 24:

“And so he drove the man out and posted at the east of the garden of E’den the cherubs and the flaming blade of a sword that was turning itself continually to guard the way to the tree of life.”

Therefore, Jehovah knew that he would need to cut them off from the Tree of Life if he was to make good on his promise that man would not live forever.

Also, the word “perfect” cannot be found in any scripture, but I don’t want us to get sidetracked, so I’ll talk about that in another article.

So then, why do you think the topic of the Tree of Life is mentioned only on very rare occasions? Could it be that Jesus Christ died so that we could live forever? Oh, but wait, we would all need our very own Trees of Life, right?

Think about it.

Always ask questions and seek logical answers.

Listen to this blog by downloading this mp3 recording – read by Teeny Pyjamas

  • DSA

    If the tree gave them knowledge of good and bad, how would abstaining from it allow them to know what was good. They would be in limbo ‘I don’t know anything’ land!

  • Albert

    The second tree is mentioned later on in the Scriptures. Revelation 2:7 Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations: To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.’.

  • Ste Ríkharðsson

    I did read it correctly. You said :

    “It was clear that abstaining from the TREE ie. not eating from it and not touching it .. would have symbolised ‘life’ and their continuing to live (sinless).”

    Those were your exact words in the post I was commenting about. Seeing as you are talking about a tree which symbolises ‘life’, I’m assuming you are actually referring there to the Tree of Life.

    Don’t get me wrong, I do understand your scenario. The main pieces of constructive criticism are that A) it does not fit in with the text as I have pointed out several times (the mention of both trees in 2:9 and the use of “also” in 3:22), B) it does not fit with the separate and opposite functions of and results of eating the trees (you’re basically saying that God said “Eat this tree when I tell you not to eat it and you will die, but eat it when I tell you you can and you will live”), C) God had to take measures to stop Adam and Eve from eating of the Tree of Life and living forever, implying that if there were a single “traffic light” tree, God had now switched it permanently to the “life-giving” function and couldn’t do anything to stop them from eating it short of physically barring them.

    There are just too many pitfalls with your scenario, even though it’s interesting from a theological standpoint. It is also a very modern and “Christian” view that you have imposed on an ancient near-eastern text. In some ways it seems that you so desperately want there to be only a single tree that you’re willing to ignore what the text actually says. In order to fully comprehend it, I recommend anyone to read the texts which are contemporary and prescedent to Genesis in order to understand the ancient near-eastern theology behind Genesis. Gilgamesh, the Enuma Elish, the Eridu “Genesis”, the Barton Cylinder, the “Debate between sheep and grain” and the “Debate between Winter and Summer”. You cannot understand the origins of Genesis without a basic grasp of these formative texts.

  • matthewscottUK

    You haven’t read this section properly – I was not there referring to ‘the tree of life’. I was referring to the time period during which Adam and Eve would have refrained from going near ‘the tree of the knowledge of good and bad’. As long as they continued in this obedient course, they would never have died. Eating from ‘the tree of life’ with permission would have symbolized God’s promise of rewarding them with everlasting life. It’s like passing your driving test, having proved that you’re fit to drive, but once you have your driving licence then you have a recognizable document proving your qualification. Similarly, would God have approved of Adam and Eve, had he allowed them to eat also from ‘the tree of life’.

    There may have been one literal tree, though serving two symbolic purposes. It makes sense to me – I thought up this possible scenario some 18 years ago and welcome any constructive criticism.

  • matthewscottUK

    This is how one literal tree could provide two symbolic purposes. One purpose during the test and one purpose at the conclusion of the test. The test of obedience – the time period of that test – could have been concluded either by God in His own due time or by either Adam and Eve’s disobedience. It was by their choice that the test came to an end – it wasn’t premature; it served its purpose in concluding the test at their instigation and in their free choice to sin and accept the forewarned consequences. God would have already have determined, that however the test was concluded, thereafter, the tree in the middle of the garden would now symbolize ‘life’ and therefore, taking account of the death sentence that had now been passed on Adam and Eve – proving that God is true to His word and keeps His promises .. it is logical that God would now have to take preventative measures and prevent the couple from also eating from the ‘tree of life’ [the same literal tree] as eating from it would symbolize God’s promise of rewarding them with everlasting life. This demonstrates that God’s promises are real and guaranteed – the choice is ours.

  • matthewscottUK

    Supposing that after a certain time period, God was able to see and determine that Adam and Eve had been sufficiently tested as to their obedience. They would have displayed that they trusted their creator in defining for them what was right and what was wrong – they would have shown trust in God’s guidance, not acted according to the possibility of their own choice and refrained from being greedy. After all, they had everything that they needed that was appropriate for them at this time. God could subsequently have terminated the test and brought it to an end. In doing so, the tree in the middle of the garden would no longer be a prohibition. There would have been no law against it. God would now be able to reward Adam and Eve for their faithfulness and a suitable way to symbolize this would be to allow them now to eat from the tree with permission. In symbolism of having remained obedient, God could now grant them everlasting life and by eating from ‘the tree of life’ (the same literal tree), God would symbolize and furnish a guarantee that the first humans would receive God’s blessing and inherit life everlasting with an endless future before them in complete happiness. At the curtailment of the test, the tree would have become ‘the tree of life’ and signified a different purpose.

  • Ste Ríkharðsson

    This part of your argument is not logical. It was not abstaining from the Tree of Life that resulted in them living forever, it was the opposite, it was “stretching out their hand and eating of the Tree” which granted them eternal life.

  • matthewscottUK

    During the time that Adam and Eve complied with God’s commandment, they would not have had any experience of doing wrong. God had satisfied their desire as was appropriate for them at that time and they only had to keep one law. They had no experience of doing bad – only disobedience would have given them the ‘knowledge of bad’ and consequently they would have experienced the real results of sin. [sin means falling short of God’s perfect law – His perfect requirements].

    Adam and Eve’s choice defined what the tree meant to them – it could signify either ‘life’ or ‘death’ – it was their choice. It could signify the ‘knowledge of good’ and/or ‘bad’ with real life consequences.

    Further, it could be a plausible scenario that this tree would have been in place for Adam and Eve’s children, so that future generations could also demonstrate love for God’s law and show respect for His Sovereignty. Nevertheless, we only know of the Bible’s account of what actually happened and the history that followed.

  • Ste Ríkharðsson

    Yes, I agree with you that there is a logical way to approach this to get the sense of two trees. I’m very glad that you seem to have taken back your original comment that the original poster was unintelligent and wrong for assuming the existence of two trees.

    I agree that at a stretch, one might be able to see the symbolic meaning of the Tree of Life/Knowledge as a single tree if you ignore the fact that two different names were used, at the same time, for two completely unrelated contexts and with two opposite outcomes (Life & Death) upon eating the fruit.

    However, I do understand your ideological and theological argument. The problem is Gen 2:9 where God mentions the “Tree of Life in the middle of the garden AND the Tree of Knowledge”. Presumably, according to your hypothesis, the Tree of Knowledge only changed into the Tree of Life after its fruit had been eaten, so the mention of the Tree of Life at this point is redundant if they were merely a single tree.

    It was an interesting discussion though, I appreciate your time and research.

  • matthewscottUK

    Therefore, whatever Adam and Eve’s course of action was with regards to ‘the tree of the knowledge of good and bad’, it was clear that abstaining from the tree ie. not eating from it and not touching it .. would have symbolised ‘life’ and their continuing to live (sinless). They had the real prospect of living forever (without dying). In staying away from this tree, they would have had a clear conscience and the ‘knowledge of good’. They would have known that they were doing good and were leading a good life.

  • Ste Ríkharðsson

    That is a very interesting opinion, and one that is supported by a few bible scholars, but it is not a unanimous or majority viewpoint, and more importantly it is not supported by the text in general.

    If the two trees were indeed the same, then there would be no logical need for God to have stopped Adam and Eve from eating the Tree of Life in Gen 3:22 for fear that they would live forever, as they would already have eaten from it in verse 6.

    In addition, the Hebrew text at Gen 3:22 uses the word “gam” meaning “also”, implying that they’d already eaten from the Tree of Knowledge and that God was preventing them from “also” eating from the Tree of Life.

    The Epic of Gilgamesh also supports the ancient view of two separate sought-after qualities, one of Knowledge and one of Life. The prostitute Shamhat offers Endiku sex which makes him aware of good and evil and also that he is naked. The prostitute clothes him and then says ” You are wise like a God… Let us go to the world of men”. Later, a serpent steals the plant of eternal youth from Enkidu which was lying at the bottom of the sea, thereby preventing him from completing his quest to find the elixir of life.

    The names of the two trees are a dead giveaway as well. The Tree of Knowledge made humans “like God, knowing good and bad”, and the Tree of Life made humans “live forever”. The only possible way that your view could be valid is if eating once from the Tree granted knowledge and eating twice from the same tree granted eternal life.

  • matthewscottUK

    Perfect humans had the ability to reason and to follow a command given by their creator if they chose to. Adam and Eve were created perfect – they had no mental deficiencies, they had no worries and were not under pressure or stressed in their idyllic surroundings. Yet, as free moral agents they had the choice to develop a relationship with their creator and to show their appreciation for all that He had done for them. This was only fair and right. They had a very real choice. Also, the consequence of disobedience was put before them – they were supremely intelligent and would have understood fully the course of their actions with regard to God’s one and only commandment.

  • matthewscottUK

    The ‘one tree’ in the middle of the garden could be considered as a traffic light or a pedestrian crossing light, in that it could change its state according to the action taken by Adam or Eve. We can consider one literal tree – God would have pointed it out and clearly mentioned its location in the middle of the garden. It would have taken a prime position in the centre and likely been positioned so that it would have been encountered every day of Adam and Eves daily work routine. This would have been the objective of the test of loyalty and obedience to God. The tree would not have been hidden towards the edge of the garden making the possibility of visits to be infrequent. The tree would also likely have been beautiful in appearance, with genuine and edible fruit, possibly having a pleasant aroma. The ‘prohibited’ tree would have blended in perfectly with the nature of the paradise setting and also been pleasing to the eye – a perfect creation of God.

  • matthewscottUK

    It is clear that ‘both’ symbolic trees were located in the middle of the garden of Eden. Genesis 2:9 states ‘ Thus Jehovah God made to grow out of the ground every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food and also the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.’

    God’s prohibition was against eating from ‘the tree of the knowledge of good and bad’.

    “But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die.”
    Genesis 2:17

    Later, Eve confirms the prohibition on ‘the tree that is in the middle of the garden’. Genesis 3:3 “But God has said about the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden: ‘You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die.’”

    There do not have to be two literal trees – the symbolic ‘trees’ are one and the same. This avoids the problem of the possibility of eating from ‘the tree of life’ which wasn’t prohibited at that time. Also, having two literal trees, both located in the middle of the garden could have added to further confusion.

  • matthewscottUK

    I believe that the Genesis account can refer to one literal tree. The ‘tree of life’ did not exist while ‘the tree of the knowledge of good and bad’ was operative and God allowed an indeterminate time period for Adam and Eve to be tested as to their loyalty and obedience.

  • Ste Ríkharðsson

    You said, “Life is not something that can just appear out of thin air, or out of space, can it?”… If God is in the class of beings that is said to be alive then that implies that He Himself just appeared out of thin air.

    The whole long-winded explanation of your point hinges on the assumption that an infinite intelligence, aka. God, is the eternal, default state of the universe.

    The God hypothesis has no explanatory power whatsoever, it merely assumes that Life merely exists in the form of God, eternally with no origin and just happens to be omnipotent. Modern scientific thought is not satisfied with such a lazy answer. It recognises the patterns in nature and says that from simple beginnings, complex systems are formed. Religion assumes that the Complex merely exists eternally then creates the simple (for surely we are “simpler” than God?).

  • matthewscottUK

    There is a completely logical way to approach the account in Genesis and most people get the sense of two trees, as the scriptures clearly mention two distinct symbolisms. However, it is possible to see this scenario as a workable situation without any paradoxes or problems .. by looking at it objectively as one literal tree that had a very important symbolic meaning and outcome form the first human couple.

  • Ste Ríkharðsson

    I’m not sure how it is possible to deny what the verse actually says. God’s statement at Gen 3:22 clearly implies that if humans were to stretch out their hand and eat the fruit of the Tree of Life, that they would live forever. What about the analysis is wrong, in your opinion?

  • matthewscottUK

    The person who wrote this obviously doesn’t have the intelligence to work out the two-tree scenario. His analysis is completely wrong!

  • jws

    Exactly. Well said.

    Furthermore, “all God has purposed he will surely do” apparently could have been thwarted if Adam and Eve had gotten to the tree of life before being barred.

  • Pingback: How Jehovah's Witnesses View Bible Time()

  • smmcroberts

    Good points Belle and Andres!

    According to Wikipedia bread was invented about 30,000 years ago. That means that for 85% of modern humankind’s existence we didn’t know what bread was. So the “first man” wouldn’t have had a clue what God was talking about, and God’s prophecy about him eating it was false.
    But then, of course, having the “first man” created 6,000 years ago throws reality out the window from the get-go.

  • Andres Torres

    And why is Adam told that “by the sweat of your brow you will eat bread” when he was kicked out of the garden? He took all his food from the trees of the garden so he never needed to invent the process of making bread. Growing wheat, harvesting it, grinding it up, mixing it with other ingredients and baking it into bread -that’s a lot of work to be doing considering he got all the food he wanted for free. So it seems he didn’t know what bread was, and this statement from God was meaningless to him.

  • http://www.JehovahsWitnessBlog.com Teeny

    You sir, are my hero!

    If you can read past Genesis chapter 6, you deserve religion…

  • Martin

    Genesis chapter 3, verse 22.

    “And Jehovah God went on to say: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad, and now in order that he may not put his hand out and actually take [fruit] also from the tree of life and eat and live to time indefinite.”


    So Man (and presumably spare-rib-afterthought Woman) didn’t know good from bad BEFORE eating from the tree of knowledge?

    Why punish them for it then, at all, let alone so severely? Eve didn’t know that what she was doing was BAD …. she had no understanding of the concept of BAD at that time, according to the Bible.

    What nomal ‘father’ would punish his child for making a mistake born of ignorance not malice? If that is Jehovah’s standard of compassionate parenting then he can keep it.

    Honestly if you can get out of the book of Genesis and still be a believer in all this superstitious claptrap, you seriously need a critical faculties test.

  • http://yahweh-immanuel.info Reader

    Satan said -1-if you eat you will not die
    -2- you will be like God
    Two false statements of the same tree.
    Jehovah was being sarcastic. simple.
    one tree, differs by viewpoint.

  • Shabba

    Sorry to bump an old thread but… “7 million JWs cant be wrong..” so what about the 230 Million Christians?.. are they wrong?? or the however many million Muslims?.. sorry but if your playing numbers then the JWs are below the moonies or the Jedi.

    I have studied the Org at great detail and to me the quote from Orwell’s 1984 applies perfectly. It was in reference to a future under compete party control.. substitute party for Org and its perfect:

    “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever”

    I’m a Christian but a pragmatic logical one.. I accept evolution and science (I’m a geneticist).. U know Gregor Mendel (the father of genetics) was a Roman Catholic priest.. He could also see that religion and science are cool together if your not an idiot 😉

  • http://www.JehovahsWitnessBlog.com Andrew

    And how do you know all this? How do you have a source of information and interpretation that we don’t? You’ve told us what you believe, but just like all believers, assert your beliefs with no evidence at all that they are accurate, and without any sound reason for your particular version of the myth.

  • http://xjwsforChrist.madmooseforum.com AGuest

    My apologies – I should have posted that the trees were “real”, not that they were “literal” (the latter isn’t quite accurate).


  • http://xjwsforChrist.madmooseforum.com AGuest

    Please forgive the intrusion (peace to you all!), but I think that if you understood what the “garden” and “Trees” were/are, and what Adham/Eve were and were not, you might have a different take on some of your understandings. Not saying you would become a “believer”, but that perhaps the accuracy would cause you to have posted different comments. Because it really isn’t as you describe it.

    Both “trees” were literal. One… the Tree of Life… was… and IS… is a person, actually. Let me show you. The garden and tree, first:

    “[Jehovah] God planted a garden in E′den, toward the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. Thus [Jehovah] God made to grow out of the ground every tree desirable to one’s sight and good for food and also the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.” Genesis 2:8, 9

    Now… one of the trees:

    “And it must occur in that day that there will be the root of Jes′se that will be standing up as a signal for the peoples. To him even the nations will turn inquiringly, and his resting‐place must become glorious.” Isaiah 11:10

    “‘Hear, please, O Joshua the high priest, you and your companions who are sitting before you, for they are men [serving] as portents; for here I am bringing in my servant Sprout!'” Zechariah 3:8

    “I am the way, the TRUTH, and the LIFE”… John 14:6

    “I am the true vine, and my Father is the cultivator. Every branch in me not bearing fruit he takes away, and every one bearing fruit he cleans, that it may bear more fruit. … I am the vine, ​YOU​ are the branches.” John 15:1, 5

    “And he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of its broad way. And on this side of the river and on that side the TREE OF LIFE producing twelve crops of fruit, yielding their fruits each month. And the leaves of the TREE for the curing of the nations.” Revelation 22:1, 2 (Note: The NWT normally states… and the WTBTS erroneously teaches… that there are “trees”, plural, and that they represent the 144,000″. Without going into the lie that this even refers to the 144,000 I will only state that this rendition AND its teaching is false – there is only ONE “tree” of life. Thankfully, they had the wherewithall to support that truth – and thus, negate their lie – in the footnote for the verse in the NWT Reference Bible).

    To further help those who want to know the truth about this matter understand how and why Christ is that “Tree”, I offer his words, as recorded at John 6:48-58 (please note verses 50, 51, 54, and 58):

    “‘I am the bread of life. YOUR​ forefathers ate the manna in the wilderness and yet died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that anyone may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; and, for a fact, the bread that I shall give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world.’”

    “Therefore the Jews began contending with one another, saying: ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ Accordingly [Jesus] said to them: ‘Most truly I say to ​YOU, Unless ​YOU​ eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ​YOU​ have no life in yourselves. He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I shall resurrect him at the last day; for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me, and I in union with him.Just as the living Father sent me forth and I live because of the Father, he also that feeds on me, even that one will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. It is not as when ​YOUR​ forefathers ate and yet died. He that feeds on this bread will live forever.'”

    Christ is the Tree of Life: the TRUE Vine… the ROOT of Jesse… SPROUT! His flesh is the “leaves” that “cure” the nations. Anyone who EATS of HIM, the Tree [of Life]… will live forever. That really is the only way – there is no other.

    By its teachings that only small group of individuals can/should “partake” of Christ’s flesh and blood the WTBTS is, in essence, “shutting up the kingdom of the heavens before men.” Since THEY do not go in/are not going in… they are making it so others also don’t/won’t go in… by convincing them that it is absolutely okay to “reject” the very means by which such ones can attain [everlasting] life: by eating from the Tree OF Life. (Matthew 23:13)

    As for the other Tree, that was NOT a tree that allowed Adham/Eve to know good FROM bad, or good VERSUS evil. It was a Tree that they were told would allow them to KNOW… good… AND bad. The knowledge of good… AND bad. Not good FROM bad/good VERSUS bad.

    What does this mean, the knowledge of good AND bad? It was a tree that allowed them to know good… LIFE… AND bad… DEATH. Good = life. Bad = death. Prior to eating, they only knew good. Life. The Adversary told Eve that if she ate she would be “life God”… knowing good… AND bad. Meaning… she could know good (life) and bad (death) and yet LIVE. LIKE God (over whom death has no hold).

    Eve believed this… that she COULD know (i.e., have personal knowledge of) good… life… and bad… death… and yet live. That she would “NOT die.” So… she ate. When Adham saw that she had eaten and NOT died (as of that time)… he, too, ate. She was deceived into doing so because of the lie told to her (that she would not die); he chose to eat because he thought that although she’d eaten she really wasn’t going to die. She was wrong; so was he.

    Adham’s “sin,” however, wasn’t so much that he disobeyed and ate – that was not blasphemy and so could have been forgiven. His SIN… was that, rather than give HIS life in exchange for Eve’s, after HER error, which he could have done because he was still “perfect” and so his life COULD have atoned for hers… he sold her out, her and their seed. In exchange for the RIGHT to live forever, he made a “deal” with Death (well, Death’s agent, the Adversary). His progeny for the “key” so that Death would not hold HIM. In doing so, he sold his wife… and his progeny… to sin and death.

    Unlike Christ… who GAVE his life… for his wife/children: the Bride, New Jerusalem, and the “children of Light” (John 1:3, 5; 8:12). In contrast to Adham, he showed that he had “no greater love”… than to give HIS life on behalf of [his friends], his “best” friend being his “bride.” Adham, on the other hand, showed that he would not only put his own life first, but above those he was SUPPOSED to love: his bride and their children.

    Now, I realize you’ve never heard these things before but that’s because those you’ve learned what you have from don’t know it. Because they are not who they say they are – “anointed”. To the contrary, they are “false christs” and “false prophets” (Matthew 24:24), whose very purpose is the “mislead the even the chosen ones, if possible.” And they have misled you dear folks here, as is evident by your perception of the garden and trees. They are imposters, claiming to know… and worse, claiming to know by holy spirit. That is a lie! They possess no such spirit for it they did… they COULDN’T lie… and they lie all the time.

    So, please… consider letting go of ALL that they have taught you… and start over, completely. One way to get an accurate understanding of what IS the truth is to go TO the Truth, Christ (John 14:6). That One even stated:

    “‘YOU​ are searching the Scriptures, because ​YOU​ think that by means of them ​YOU​ will have everlasting life; and these are the very ones that bear witness about me. And yet ​YOU​ do not want to come to me that ​YOU​ may have life.'”

    Seriously. If you are interested in learning the truth about these things, then I exhort you to go TO the Truth… and to no one else. Now, don’t get me wrong: I did not post this to convert anyone. It is not up to me who gets called… or who hears the call. I posted it because the comments by some as to what the trees were… and whether they were real or not… are erroneous. Given that, I thought perhaps if someone WANTED to know the truth, the least I could do was share it. What ones choose to DO with/about it is entirely up to them… and God.

    Peace to you!

    A slave of Christ,


    P.S. The “garden” was/is not a physical place; it is a spiritual place. Adham/Eve were created in the physical realm and taken from that INTO the spirit realm (garden). This could be done because, like Christ, they were half-breeds: bodies of physical flesh but spirit (life force/blood) from God. By means of that blood (GOD’s blood – holy spirit), they could “go in and out” between the spirit and physical realms. As Christ did when he transfigured. Once they were given “long garments of skin”, however (and this was NOT animal skin but a body with hemoglobin as its blood, vs. holy spirit)… they could no longer transfigure. Flesh… with ITS blood… cannot enter into the kingdom (spirit realm). It is only flesh with God’s blood… holy spirit… that can transfigure/transcend… so as to enter into the spirit realm/kingdom of God. I hope this helps and, again, peace to you!

  • cw

    ”Oh my, I really can’t wait for Jehovah to weed you out at Armageddon and instruct all the birds to peck out your eyes as all the faithful Jehovah’s Witnesses look upon your silly excuse of a body.”

    Does this sound like neighborly love and spiritual concern to anyone here?

  • cw

    Wow, this is my first time on this website. I used to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I quit for my own reasons.

    Why are people getting so worked up over this? Certain people that have commented here that claim to be Jehovah’s witnesses do not post in a very respectable manner. About half of my family are still JW’s, the other half decided it’s not for them for various reasons. We all live happy lives and of the two groups, our actions and beliefs don’t hurt anyone. SO live your lives, relax. We are allowed to have and have the human right to, differing points of view, and differing beliefs.

  • FutureMan

    Even though this universe is made up of matter and energy, it is also made up of spirit.

    “God is a Spirit”.

    So therefore you must investigate the evidence from a spiritual vantage point.

    Science as we understand today through scientists, who themselves are floundering in intellectual darkness as proven by the variety of theories and explanations that they come up with, only later to be disproved by a more progressive scientist and so on it goes.

    God is not something that we can tangibly prove by physical evidence, but we can see his existence through the formation of things and through our own intelligence for what that is worth.

    Animals do not testify to God’s existence, but we do because we are made in his Image, via advanced beings.

    This planet as I understand was seeded with life and it evolved from there.

    But yes as you say, I’m done as you wish.

  • http://www.JehovahsWitnessBlog.com Andrew

    No FutureMan you have not presented any real evidence whatsoever. It isn’t a fact at all. It’s just your opinion. You’re done.

  • FutureMan

    Andrew, the truth is that an intelligent Creator does exist, we can not get around that fact.

    But how creation has come about via the creator is another issue entirely.

    Secular Science today as described through evolution, does not rule out the existence of a creator.

    Quite the contrary really as it shows a very complex mechanism that has being put in place to evolve all life in our universe.

    A programming that is far beyond our comprehension and yet it exists in every cell that makes up part of our bodies.

    Scientists, the geneticists, can rely on this complex programming that exists in our genetic code to map out our DNA and so on.

    Scientist can rely on the laws of our universe to send a spacecraft to the moon and beyond that to mars and so on.

    This is not a haphazard universe even though it does have chaotic events happen within it.

    The universe is seemingly chaotic yet there is an order to it that holds it all together as it expands and contracts.

    Stars supernova in a blinding flash of light, yet out of the remnants of these once magnificent stars, comes a genesis of a new creation of stellar objects.

    One day our sun too, will supernova, but we will be ready when it does if we are still living on the earth as humans at that time period.

    Everything in this universe changes or transforms into something else.

    Humans one day too will have to transform as a race into a higher form of life.

    But in the mean time as one by one we finish our earthly destinies, we move on to the next level of life in a different form.
    Not spirit, but a more durable body that is more energy efficient and that is not prone to the sickness and illness that is so prevalent on this planet today.

    May our Creator bless you all in your endeavors to find the real truth that is out there.

    May you all progress to perfection and spiritual maturity that brings us much closer to God himself as approved children of his.

  • http://www.JehovahsWitnessBlog.com Andrew

    Urantia papers… Ste, I wouldn’t waste your time on this anymore if I were you.

  • FutureMan

    To Ste Ríkharðsson

    You stated this :
    “Cause and effect is a change in time or in space. Time and space only exist *within* our universe so all effects *within* our universe must have a cause.

    “Outside” the universe however there is neither time nor space so there is no cause and effect. Nothing can “cause” something which does not have a time-line, the universe doesn’t have a time-line, the universe just is. The universe has “always” existed in the sense that time is a *part* of the universe, not something that the universe exists in. There was never a “time” when the universe didn’t exist.”

    Ok, that is a fair enough statement.

    So our universe has always existed in one form or another.

    But what about life? Awareness? Consciousness?

    Where did we receive this?

    Life is not something that can just appear out of thin air, or out of space, can it?

    Therefore intelligent life and must have always existed, in one form or another.

    That is what I call God, the cause and the source, and origin of all things.

    God is life and the light of all life in this universe.

    This is what the apostle John had to say about this as is written in the gospel of John of the Bible.

    John 1
    1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    2 He was in the beginning with God.
    3 All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.
    4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men; [LITV]

    This is what the Urantia papers have to say about this.

    Paper 1
    The Universal Father *

    (21.1) 1:0.1 THE Universal Father is the God of all creation, the First Source and Center of all things and beings. First think of God as a creator, then as a controller, and lastly as an infinite upholder. The truth about the Universal Father had begun to dawn upon mankind when the prophet said: “You, God, are alone; there is none beside you. You have created the heaven and the heaven of heavens, with all their hosts; you preserve and control them. By the Sons of God were the universes made. The Creator covers himself with light as with a garment and stretches out the heavens as a curtain.” Only the concept of the Universal Father — one God in the place of many gods — enabled mortal man to comprehend the Father as divine creator and infinite controller.

    (21.2) 1:0.2 The myriads of planetary systems were all made to be eventually inhabited by many different types of intelligent creatures, beings who could know God, receive the divine affection, and love him in return. The universe of universes is the work of God and the dwelling place of his diverse creatures. “God created the heavens and formed the earth; he established the universe and created this world not in vain; he formed it to be inhabited.”

    (21.3) 1:0.3 The enlightened worlds all recognize and worship the Universal Father, the eternal maker and infinite upholder of all creation. The will creatures of universe upon universe have embarked upon the long, long Paradise journey, the fascinating struggle of the eternal adventure of attaining God the Father. The transcendent goal of the children of time is to find the eternal God, to comprehend the divine nature, to recognize the Universal Father. God-knowing creatures have only one supreme ambition, just one consuming desire, and that is to become, as they are in their spheres, like him as he is in his Paradise perfection of personality and in his universal sphere of righteous supremacy. From the Universal Father who inhabits eternity there has gone forth the supreme mandate, “Be you perfect, even as I am perfect.” In love and mercy the messengers of Paradise have carried this divine exhortation down through the ages and out through the universes, even to such lowly animal-origin creatures as the human races of Urantia.

    P404:5, 36:6.7 There are some things connected with the elaboration of life on the evolutionary planets which are not altogether clear to us. We fully comprehend the physical organization of the electrochemical formulas of the Life Carriers, but we do not wholly understand the nature and source of the life-activation spark. We know that life flows from the Father through the Son and by the Spirit. It is more than possible that the Master Spirits are the sevenfold channel of the river of life which is poured out upon all creation. But we do not comprehend the technique whereby the supervising Master Spirit participates in the initial episode of life bestowal on a new planet. The Ancients of Days, we are confident, also have some part in this inauguration of life on a new world, but we are wholly ignorant of the nature thereof. We do know that the Universe Mother Spirit actually vitalizes the lifeless patterns and imparts to such activated plasm the prerogatives of organismal reproduction. We observe that these three are the levels of God the Sevenfold, sometimes designated as the Supreme Creators of time and space; but otherwise we know little more than Urantia mortals — simply that concept is inherent in the Father, expression in the Son, and life realization in the Spirit.”

    This is what the entity who called themselves the RA Collective have to say about God:

    13.5 Questioner: Thank you. Can you tell me of the first known thing in the creation?

    Ra: I am Ra. The first known thing in the creation is infinity. The infinity is creation.

    13.6 Questioner: From this infinity then must come what we experience as creation. What was the next step or the next evolvement?

    Ra: I am Ra. Infinity became aware. This was the next step.

    13.7 Questioner: After this, what came next?

    Ra: Awareness led to the focus of infinity into infinite energy. You have called this by various vibrational sound complexes, the most common to your ears being “Logos” or “Love.” The Creator is the focusing of infinity as an aware or conscious principle called by us as closely as we can create understanding/learning in your language, intelligent infinity.

    13.8 Questioner: Can you state the next step?

    Ra: The next step is still at this space/time nexus in your illusion achieving its progression as you may see it in your illusion. The next step is an infinite reaction to the creative principle following the Law of One in one of its primal distortions, freedom of will. Thus many, many dimensions, infinite in number, are possible. The energy moves from the intelligent infinity due first to the outpouring of randomized creative force, this then creating patterns which in holographic style appear as the entire creation no matter which direction or energy is explored. These patterns of energy begin then to regularize their own local, shall we say, rhythms and fields of energy, thus creating dimensions and universes.

    13.12 Questioner: Can you tell me how intelligent infinity became, shall we say (I’m having difficulty with the language), how intelligent infinity became individualized from itself?

    Ra: I am Ra. This is an appropriate question.

    The intelligent infinity discerned a concept. This concept was discerned due to freedom of will of awareness. This concept was finity. This was the first and primal paradox or distortion of the Law of One. Thus the one intelligent infinity invested itself in an exploration of many-ness. Due to the infinite possibilities of intelligent infinity there is no ending to many-ness. The exploration, thus, is free to continue infinitely in an eternal present.

    13.13 Questioner: Was the galaxy that we are in created by the infinite intelligence or was it created by a portion of the infinite intelligence?

    Ra: I am Ra. The galaxy and all other things of material of which you are aware are products of individualized portions of intelligent infinity. As each exploration began, it, in turn, found its focus and became co-Creator. Using intelligent infinity each portion created an universe and allowing the rhythms of free choice to flow, playing with the infinite spectrum of possibilities, each individualized portion channeled the love/light into what you might call intelligent energy, thus creating the so-called Natural Laws of any particular universe.

    As you can see, slightly different vantage points, but all alluding to an intelligent Creator.

    The Urantia papers were delivered by entities who were very much aware of the Creator, however we might view these entities.

    Same goes for those who channeled information through the research paranormal group and called themselves Ra.

    These entities are real, and they testify themselves to the existence of an intelligent Creator..

    We might not understand exactly who they are, but they are very much part of the reality of the fabric of this universe.

  • http://www.JehovahsWitnessBlog.com Andrew

    The cause and effect argument is flawed, I agree.

    However, physicists more favoured explanation is that everything was created in the big bang and the universe will continue to expand, driven by dark energy, rather than collapse (the big crunch) until everything is so far apart that life can not exist. The big crunch would be more likely to happen if gravity would suck things back in, but dark energy counteracts this, as we see the universe expanding an an increasing rate, not slowing down as would be the case if it was going to collapse again (like a ball slowing down in the air before it falls again).

  • Ste Ríkharðsson

    Your question is loaded but I will give you an answer to that question:

    Cause and effect is a change in time or in space. Time and space only exist *within* our universe so all effects *within* our universe must have a cause.

    “Outside” the universe however there is neither time nor space so there is no cause and effect. Nothing can “cause” something which does not have a time-line, the universe doesn’t have a time-line, the universe just is. The universe has “always” existed in the sense that time is a *part* of the universe, not something that the universe exists in. There was never a “time” when the universe didn’t exist. It expends (Big Bang) and probably contracts, but according to latest astrophysical and mathematical calculations it is never created or destroyed.

    Therefore (2) is more logical from a scientific standpoint but that logic cannot apply to the universe itself because the universe is NOT an effect of anything… the cause and effect principle works only *inside* the space-time universe not “outside” it.

  • FutureMan

    To Ste Ríkharðsson

    Which is more logical, from your point of view?

    (1) In the beginning there was nothing and then there was something?

    (2) In the beginning there was something and then there was something more than something?

    (1) 0 (cause) = effect ?

    (2) 1 (cause) =effect ?