So was there something about the fruit that inherently separated them from God? Did God make a fruit that was so poisonous that it caused eternal death?

So you're saying that God made a poisonous fruit, then told A&E to stay away from it lest they be poisoned? And we're not even talking just physically poisoned, but one that causes eternal death? Is this your view of what happened to cause human mortality?

God always destroys His enemies. It's up to us what kind of destruction we want to experience.

Sin originated in self-seeking. Lucifer, the covering cherub, desired to be first in heaven. He sought to gain control of heavenly beings, to draw them away from their Creator, and to win their homage to himself. Therefore he misrepresented God, attributing to Him the desire for self-exaltation. With his own evil characteristics he sought to invest the loving Creator. Thus he deceived angels. Thus he deceived men. He led them to doubt the word of God, and to distrust His goodness. Because God is a God of justice and terrible majesty, Satan caused them to look upon Him as severe and unforgiving. Thus he drew men to join him in rebellion against God, and the night of woe settled down upon the world. (DA 21, 22)

Satan misrepresented God's character, deceiving man, and so led him into rebellion, separating himself from God, the only source of life. The fruit was not the issue, but believing Satan's misrepresentations about God's character. Because this is what led man into rebellion, the solution to man's predicament must be the revelation of God as He is in truth, so that man, by believing, may be set right. This is why the whole purpose of Christ's mission on earth was the revelation of God.

If the fruit wasn't the issue, why did God say that eating it would be fatal? He could have said, "Believing Satan's misrepresentations about Me would be bad, but go ahead and eat the fruit." But He didn't. He said, "If you eat the fruit, you will die."

You're not yet seeing the connection.

God didn't give them that fruit to eat. They were embarking on Satan's principles, which leads to death. They took for themselves that which God had not given them. The principle of life is to receive from the hand of God, and give to others. They broke the "circuit of beneficence" which is the principle of life. By rebelling against God, they separated themselves from God, the source of life. The eating of the fruit was an act of rebellion, which is why it was fatal. If there were some way to eat the fruit without rebelling, it wouldn't have been fatal. The fruit itself was not poisonous.

I bring up the point of misrepresentation of God's character, because this is how Satan led man to distrust God, and go into rebellion. The solution to man's problem must involve believing the truth about God, which leads to faith, and harmony with God and the principles of His government.

If God did not want them to eat that fruit, then who put it there in the middle of a garden full of fruit to eat? And how can eating a fruit, fruit that is not even poisonous, be an act of rebellion? How was Satan able to use the fruit to dupe man into rebellion?

This question makes no sense to me. What's your thinking behind this question? That is, I'm not seeing the connection here, between the "if" and the "then."



The fruit wasn't theirs to eat. They took that which was not theirs. The principle of life of the universe is to receive from the hand of God, and give to others from that which one has received. This is the "circuit of benefiscence" spoken of by EGW in DA 21 or so. Satan broke this circuit, choosing to exalt self instead. Adam and Eve joined this rebellion when they also chose to bypass the circuit of benefiscence.



By insinuating that God was withholding something from them which was for their benefit. He lied in regards to God's character, deceiving man, and in so doing led him into rebellion.

You're still not getting it, Tom.

Who put the forbidden fruit - edible fruit - in the middle of a garden full of fruit? It's a very simple and straightforward question. Or do you refrain from answering until you are convinced that I have a good reason for asking?

And how were A&E supposed to know that it wasn't for them to eat, since the serpent told them it was OK, and Eve saw it was good for food, and able to make one wise? And exactly what was it that they were rebelling against?

BTW, did they know about the "circuit of beneficence" that EGW articulated 6000 years later?

Are you sure it's me?



I think I've answered every question you've asked. I don't recall your asking this question. I recall this question:



which I asked for clarification on, which I haven't received. By the way, I would like to know the answer to my question, which is why you asked the question you actually did ask, which is if God did not want them to eat of the fruit, then who put it there. The way this question is posed, it seems to imply that God wanted them to eat of the fruit, since obviously He put it there. However, it seems most unlikely to me that you believe that God wanted them to eat of the fruit, so this is why I'm asking for clarification.

Rather than ascribe an unfortunate motive to a question you perceive to be unanswered, wouldn't it be well to assume a more charitable reason? In this particular case, I don't believe you have even asked the question you are accusing me of refraining to answer.



They knew the fruit wasn't theirs to eat because they had been told they could eat the fruit of all the trees except for one.



They were created in the image of God, so yes, they must have known it.