From what I’ve read, it wasn’t a ‘tree’ it wasn’t ‘fruit’ and it wasn’t a ‘snake’ in Eden. The snake was satan. Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. (KJV)
Here’s the rest.-—> **What was the Real sin in the Garden of Eden?**
http://biblestudysite.com/realsin.htm
“From what I’ve read, it wasn’t a ‘tree’ it wasn’t ‘fruit’ and it wasn’t a ‘snake’ in Eden.”
_____________________________________
Sorry that I’m not able to reply at length about all this.
Here’s a transcript of a class taught by Dr. Robert L. Dean, Jr. (more about him is found at http://www.deanbible.org ) which I believe gives good info on correct Biblical hermeneutics (principles for accurate interpretation of Scripture):
http://www.divineviewpoint.com/sane/dbm/setup/Hebrews/Heb102.htm
See also:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2004/04/06/jesus-christ-infallibility-of-scripture
Also see the last few paragraphs of:
http://www.divineviewpoint.com/sane/dbm/setup/Genesis/Gen058.htm
And here’s a transcript of a class taught by Dr. Dean in which I believe he accurately interprets Genesis 2 using the hermeneutical principles discussed in the above links:
http://www.divineviewpoint.com/sane/dbm/setup/Genesis/Gen028.htm
http://biblestudysite.com/realsin.htm
Checked this site, and it is utterly unreliable.
How can one tell? The source, KJV (Old Testament in English is very acceptable to eminent Jewish scholars); and the lexical tools Strong's "Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible" and Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary are acceptable, but his method of interpretation (hermeneutics) is not.
Why not? A previous commenter mentioned knowledge of "hermeneutics" helps in making an evaluation, but at the moment did not have time to respond directly. Let me attempt to do a little of that. The identification of its methodical and repetitious errors is rather simple from spiritual discernment. The author(s) of this material do not render the Scripture in its plain sense, so they wind up with nonsense. And you have been suckered by it because you haven't yet reached a Biblical maturity that would have raised a spiritual Klaxon (not an attack on you, just a clear admonition).
What's wrong with their interpretations? Well, first look at what a proper method really is, to get a benchmark. According to Webster. "Hermeneutics is the art or science of interpretation; especially applied to the Scriptures; exegesis." The author(s) of that site get into false doctrine by abandoning universal laws of human language. Instead of bringing out the plain sense of a passage the meaning that is there (= exegesis), they read into a passage a meaning that is not there (= eisegesis). And this is repeatedly done. What the Bible says about this is "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isa 8:20) They do not speak according to the method of giving the plain sense of what is being communicated, as was done in the context of this passage.
Here are the rules as to how to prevent problems:
o Normal interpretation is basic. People write what they mean to say, lest it be taken in the wrong way. Problems arise when the interpreter reads something into the passage which is not there. Then communication becomes impossible.
o Literal interpretation is normal; and contains both literal language (x.: This baby is cute!), and figurative-literal language (This baby is an angel!).
o Figurative and/or allegorical interpretation is not normal. (The authors in your link use this illegitimate trick to deceive you.)
o There is only ONE (1) primary interpretation. God wants us to understand His word. Scripture has but one meaning, one primary interpretation to which all context lends itself. It applies directly to those addressed at some specific time indicated, and must have a specific meaning to them. The meaning can be applied to the reader(s) under similar conditions if/when they exist relative to those prevailing in the context. (Ex. 15:26 only applied to the Israelites at that time. It does not apply to us now.)
o Every statement of Scripture has only one sense. (Ex.: Is. 53:5 "... and with his stripes we are healed." compare 1 Pe. 2:24 "... by whose stripes ye were healed." Isaiah writing to pre-Exilic Hebrews vs. Peter writing to Hebrews in the Diaspora --). When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense. These passages make sense when they are interpreted literally using literal and figurative-literal language. NOT a figurative/allegorical interpretation.
*******
The above on hermeneutics is pretty much cribbed from "Here's How! The Bible Can Make Sense to You Today!" by Dr. Fred Wittman, my discipler. This is an excellent paperback for the beginner in finding Bible truths. (Note: Most purveyors adverise their weakest points: "Smoke Kools -- they satisfy." Why does one then want more? "Sears Weatherbeater Paint." Oh yeah? Have you seen the weather side of my house? So, be very careful about any site or blog that claims "Bible Truths.")
Now, tree of knowledge of good and evil. It was a single plant, a literal tree which was the focus upon which God's test of obedience and love for Him fell upon Adam's freedom to choose. It was not Satan, for angels are spirit beings and have no material substance. They have no DNA and cannot produce offspring with or from an herb or carnal form.
"And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. " Heb 1:7
"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, ..." (Heb. 2:16-17a).
Satan had no DNA, he was not a tree, trees do not beget offspring with a human, Cain and Able were not twins (that's a deliberate bend), etc. etc.
Now the bottom line is that today, in the Age of Grace, the Covenant of the New Birth, without spiritual regeneration and spiritual discernment, a human is utterly incapable of understanding the deep things of The Spirit of The God, nor is he qualified to interpret the Holy Scripture without twisting it. (1 Cor 2:6-16, esp. v. 10 & 13-14). Furthermore, if reborn but not having been discipled to spiritual maturity, not having overcome the wicked one, he is not fit for exegetical authority. (2 Pe. 3:15-18; noting that "unlearned" is a little more accurate as "undiscipled").
Enough. Ye have need that one teach you which be the first principles of the oracles of The God. Find a discipler and be discipled to maturity. Grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
So long ---