How many trees in the Garden of Eden were Adam and Eve not supposed to eat from?

2 trees….

The other was the tree of life.

42!!!

I just don’t get why he put that tree there in the first place. If he didn’t want Adam or Eve to eat it, why the Hell would he put it there? Would a parent baby proof the entire house just to leave one thing deliberately unprotected for the baby to hurt themselves?

one

Nope, it was just the one tree that was forbidden, personally I don’t get why God made a tree if people weren’t supposed to eat from it, I think he wanted man to fall… jerk..

there was only the one tree, God stated that the whole of the garden was permissable except for the tree. It had nothing to do with the tree itself, it was a test of choosing to do the right thing.

They were also instructed to avoid the tree of excrement, the tree of poison, the tree of high cholesterol, and the tree whose fruit they liked, but it didn’t like them.

I don’t, but I forbid my children from playing around Old Man Withers trees as he will likely think they are squirrels and fire away.

There was a tree, in a particularly SUNNY spot in the GARDEN…

It was called the Tree of ‘High’…

It had five-pointed leaves and lots of nuggets!

THIS TREE WAS NOT FORBIDDEN!

ANd so…. you have the REST of the story!

If I was God, I would have pointed out one tree as the Tree of Knowledge and forbidden Adam and Eve to eat from it.

Of course, it wouldn’t have been the real Tree of Knowledge; Just something whose fruit produces explosive diarrohoea and projectile vomiting 4-6 hours after consumption.

Makes spotting those sinners very easy!

Well,

“The Garden” focuses on a more solitary Eden. The symbol continues with the “forbidden fruits” on trees and “young lovers” being tempted by the ripe, but off-limits fruits (Cavendish 12). The Devil’s presence solicits “flattery” and temptation to Eve, who in return supposedly tricks Adam into eating the forbidden fruit (Cavendish 16). Although Margaret Cavendish’s attitude points towards an ignorance preference, she concedes to the beauty and wisdom of the forest. Both poems rejoice in the pleasure of the common day garden and the similarity of gardens to the Garden of Eden. The stab at men for their hastiness in decisions proves very tasteful; she chose not to say anything outright such as, men sometimes lack common sense and commence in stupid acts. People try so hard to win mere parts of a tree when they could enjoy so much more from it, such as shade, the greenness of the leaves, and the general beauty of the entire tree (Marvell 1-8).

Revelation 2:7
7He who is able to hear, let him listen to and give heed to what the Spirit says to the assemblies (churches). To him who overcomes (is victorious), I will grant to eat [of the fruit] of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.

The place fixed upon for Adam to dwell in, was not a palace, but a garden. The better we take up with plain things, and the less we seek things to gratify pride and luxury, the nearer we approach to innocency. Nature is content with a little, and that which is most natural; grace with less; but lust craves every thing, and is content with nothing. No delights can be satisfying to the soul, but those which God himself has provided and appointed for it. Eden signifies delight and

pleasure. Wherever it was, it had all desirable conveniences, without any inconvenience, though no other house or garden on earth ever was so. It was adorned with every tree pleasant to the sight, and enriched with every tree that yielded fruit grateful to the taste and good for food. God, as a tender Father, desired not only Adam’s profit, but his pleasure; for there is pleasure with innocency, nay there is true pleasure only in innocency. When Providence puts us in a place of plenty and

pleasure, we ought to serve God with gladness of heart in the good things he gives us. Eden had two trees peculiar to itself. 1. There was the tree of life in the midst of the garden. Of this man might eat and live. Christ is now to us the Tree of life, Re 2:7; 22:2; and the Bread of life, Joh 6:48, 51. 2. There was the tree of the

knowledge of good and evil, so called because there was a positive revelation of the will of God about this tree, so that by it man might know moral good and evil. What is good? It is good not to eat of this tree. What is evil? It is evil to eat of this tree. In these two trees God set before Adam good and evil, the blessing and the curse. (Ge 2:15)

they could have eaten from the tree of eternal life if they had done so before commiting sin. once they fell god removed the tree of life

I’m with Sparta Kitteh.

“Ok, got the outlets plugged, the cupboards under the sink locked, stairs blocked with the baby gate, door’s locked, lots of food in the fridge, lots of diapers, lots of toys, and some friends to play with… I think we’re set. Well, Junior, have fun. My machete’s on the coffee table. Don’t play with it!”

Atheistically yours,
JM Gendron.

Just the Tree of the Fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

After they ate from that, they were forbidden to eat from the Tree of Life too.

2 Trees… 2 Gardens… 2 of everything to sort out

But let us consider what’s greatest of 3 things,
not just what’s great or greater of 2 things,
such as great tribulation or greater damnation.
For us of us-ward is neither of them vs them.

Only the greatest of 3 things is what never fails.

It was only one tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and bad

There was only the one – the tree of life, in the center of the garden.

At least, every scholar of Genesis I’ve read considers them to be the same tree. If there was another tree, its inconsequential and I’m not sure why it’d even be mentioned.

was there another tree that God did not directly forbid them from eating from, but would have been upset if they did?

those verses do indeed speak of the other tree….

very soon after that , you read the age of Adam…. perhaps he already got into that tree?…

it’s not until later that the ability to live that long is taken away from Man…..

but, hey… gotta get those begats to add up right somehow, yes?

1 the tree of life.

Please consider this:

You can argue endlessly about how Adam and Eve populated the world. Was everybody related. But that was a long time ago and no one alive today was there. However, there is evidence that is here today that bears on the story of Adam and Eve as revealed in the Bible.

If all mankind came from Adam and Eve then all humans would have an identical genetic makeup. This is because Eve was created out of Adam’s rib. Even if Eve were of a different genetic makeup the entire human race would have come from two sets of genes. The genetic variability within the human species (kind) today would be essentially ZERO. Everybody would essentially be like identical twins.

All humans, all over the world today, would suffer the same problem of a lack of genetic variability that the Cheetah does today. The genes of Cheetahs are so similar, one to another, that when skin grafts between non-related Cheetahs are made there is no rejection of the donor skin. Cheetahs experienced a near extinction about 10,000 years ago (down to perhaps less than ten individuals). Today they have almost no genetic variability within the species because of that near extinction.

Yet, this is not what is found in humans. That is because humans were never produced from just two individuals, 6,000 years ago. There was never a unique creative act.

A similar problem would have occurred if there had been a flood where all humankind was reduced to just six individuals, 4,300 years ago. There never was a general flood that caused all life to perish except for two of a kind of every animal and just six humans. The wide variety of genes of humans and the wide variety of genes of all the animals in the world attest to that fact.

It is obvious that the story of creation and the story of Noah’s ark are wonderful stories – but just stories. They never happened. The very genes inside you and me declare that fact. That does not reduce the importance of the two stories for they are beautiful stories of God’s love for us and of his justice and regret. They are just not accurate, but they are not supposed to be. The Bible is about God’s love and about how to live a righteous life and achieve everlasting life. Don’t dishonor God by using and interpreting his written word incorrectly.