Garden of Eden, tree of knowledge

[oi_antz]

I think it's very fitting to discuss the symbolism of the story. There's a lot of power there! While I've personally never looked at Jesus being the tree and it strikes me as odd, He did say He is the vine ...

Yes I do agree that it is very odd. Jesus describing Himself as the true vine is something quite different from saying that He is the tree of life that stands in the garden of Eden. Consider especially that many false Christ's have gone into the world so there are many vines but Jesus claims to be the only true vine. It is especially hard to accept when in Revelation Jesus says that He will give the right to eat from the tree of life to those who "overcome" - specifically talking about a tree that exists in the paradise of God as being a literal tree whose literal fruit Jesus will grant the right to eat, thereby stating that He Himself is not a tree.

Mainly though I am grappling to understand why elmar doesn't think of the story as being a literal garden with a literal tree that Adam and Eve were literally banished from. The fact that he wants to contort the story of Genesis to fit a symbolic understanding of Jesus as being both a tree and a sword is really quite a secondary matter and not one I'm going to get too carried away with. Symbolism is just superstition ultimately, the truth is very clear in black and white: we are to make disciples of the nations. Do we do it by putting meanings into texts that don't exist at face value, or do we do it by using clear words that directly hit the target?

 

[razeontherock]

Well the issue is, no words really hit the target directly. The goal is fellowship of the Spirit; with God Himself first and foremost, but that's totally impossible w/o also sharing it w/ one another. Words Jesus used to describe fellowship of the Spirit include "you know when the wind blows, but you don't know where it's coming from or where it's going."

Of course there are certain things words are good enough for, but those are also the things satan knows quite a bit more about than we do, and he's not entirely harmless re: using that against us, even though he is a defeated foe. But knowing G-d personally, 'breathing' His Love? Our enemy can't even get a glimpse of any of that ...

So even within the things that are clearly knowable and can be communicated clearly, there are also things that speak of a much greater depth. Take Abel's blood, for instance! There's some symbolism - has our Lord shown you anything about that yet? (And if any of the Scripture I'm referring to is something you can't place, ask for the reference)

 

[oi_antz]

Well the issue is, no words really hit the target directly. The goal is fellowship of the Spirit; with God Himself first and foremost, but that's totally impossible w/o also sharing it w/ one another. Words Jesus used to describe fellowship of the Spirit include "you know when the wind blows, but you don't know where it's coming from or where it's going."

Of course there are certain things words are good enough for, but those are also the things satan knows quite a bit more about than we do, and he's not entirely harmless re: using that against us, even though he is a defeated foe. But knowing G-d personally, 'breathing' His Love? Our enemy can't even get a glimpse of any of that ...

So even within the things that are clearly knowable and can be communicated clearly, there are also things that speak of a much greater depth. Take Abel's blood, for instance! There's some symbolism - has our Lord shown you anything about that yet? (And if any of the Scripture I'm referring to is something you can't place, ask for the reference)

I do agree with this Ray, the passage in Jeremiah 5:14 shows that God controls how effective our words are, but what I'm saying is that elman has quite specifically said something that is not scriptural and apparently it requires "symbolism" to interpret. Well I don't believe any of God's prophets have been instructed to obfuscate their message so it's well beyond my interest to believe something if it is not stated clearly in the Bible, and likewise I cannot believe that what the Bible says isn't meant to mean what it says. So I'm still waiting to see if elman can substantiate his claims. Only two issues I have with what he has said:

• Does he not believe the garden of Eden literally has a tree in it and that Adam and Eve were literally banished from it?
• Where does the Bible say that the tree of life is in fact Jesus?

In my most humble manner, I have to say that if we don't find agreement then one of us must be wrong, and that means that someone is propagating false teaching. It's a serious matter, and I'm going to stick 100% with what the Bible says in black and white.

Elman, can you please answer my questions.

 

[elman]

Yes I do agree that it is very odd. Jesus describing Himself as the true vine is something quite different from saying that He is the tree of life that stands in the garden of Eden. Consider especially that many false Christ's have gone into the world so there are many vines but Jesus claims to be the only true vine. It is especially hard to accept when in Revelation Jesus says that He will give the right to eat from the tree of life to those who "overcome" - specifically talking about a tree that exists in the paradise of God as being a literal tree whose literal fruit Jesus will grant the right to eat, thereby stating that He Himself is not a tree. Mainly though I am grappling to understand why elmar doesn't think of the story as being a literal garden with a literal tree that Adam and Eve were literally banished from. The fact that he wants to contort the story of Genesis to fit a symbolic understanding of Jesus as being both a tree and a sword is really quite a secondary matter and not one I'm going to get too carried away with. Symbolism is just superstition ultimately, the truth is very clear in black and white: we are to make disciples of the nations. Do we do it by putting meanings into texts that don't exist at face value, or do we do it by using clear words that directly hit the target?

Jesus also invited us to eat of His body and drink of His blood. The tree of life is not a literal tree in the sense of being a physical tree with physical fruit. The paradise of God is a spiritual existence, not a physical one. You could not find the paradise of God if you had a powerful enough space ship and could search the universe. God is a Spirit. That means God is not physical--unless He choses to be of course. Symbolism was used by Jesus to teach. Therefore symbolism is not just superstition and failure to see the symbolism when Jesus intended you to see it is to fail to see what Jesus was trying to teach you.

 

[oi_antz]

Jesus also invited us to eat of His body and drink of His blood. The tree of life is not a literal tree in the sense of being a physical tree with physical fruit. The paradise of God is a spiritual existence, not a physical one. You could not find the paradise of God if you had a powerful enough space ship and could search the universe. God is a Spirit. That means God is not physical--unless He choses to be of course. Symbolism was used by Jesus to teach. Therefore symbolism is not just superstition and failure to see the symbolism when Jesus intended you to see it is to fail to see what Jesus was trying to teach you.

Elman, please note the difference between the terms "physical" and "literal". Can you please answer my two questions. I cannot believe that what the Bible says is not what the Bible means.

 

[elman]

Elman, please note the difference between the terms "physical" and "literal". Can you please answer my two questions. I cannot believe that what the Bible says is not what the Bible means.

I think often what the Bible says is what it means, but you are missing what it is saying by literal interpretation of the words being used. Jesus said it this way--the letter kills, but the spirit gives life. Physical as opposed to spiritual or natural world as being different from the spiritual realm is what I am getting at, and a literal interpretation of various passages is the same as saying they are physical world realities. Another example of what I am talking about is your view of the new earth--I think you see another physical earth coming. Do you think the New Jersalem that is coming down from the sky to sit on the surface of the earth is physical reality? Will its streets be make of real earthly gold? Will it extend fifteen hundred miles into the sky?

 

[oi_antz]

I think often what the Bible says is what it means, but you are missing what it is saying by literal interpretation of the words being used. Jesus said it this way--the letter kills, but the spirit gives life. Physical as opposed to spiritual or natural world as being different from the spiritual realm is what I am getting at, and a literal interpretation of various passages is the same as saying they are physical world realities. Another example of what I am talking about is your view of the new earth--I think you see another physical earth coming. Do you think the New Jersalem that is coming down from the sky to sit on the surface of the earth is physical reality? Will its streets be make of real earthly gold? Will it extend fifteen hundred miles into the sky?

Elman, you are dodging my questions. Genesis is an account of the creation of earth and what led up to Israel's bondage in Egypt. Revelation is a vision. Yes I do believe the new heaven and earth will be physically new as stated in Revelation 21. As for the new Jerusalem having walls of transparent gold, I think it must be some sort of heavenly material and we will be witnessing it in our new immortal, heavenly bodies. So yes, I do take Revelation chapter 21 to literally mean what it says. Are you going to answer my two questions now?

 

[elman]

Elman, you are dodging my questions. Genesis is an account of the creation of earth and what led up to Israel's bondage in Egypt. Revelation is a vision. Yes I do believe the new heaven and earth will be physically new as stated in Revelation 21. As for the new Jerusalem having walls of transparent gold, I think it must be some sort of heavenly material and we will be witnessing it in our new immortal, heavenly bodies. So yes, I do take Revelation chapter 21 to literally mean what it says. Are you going to answer my two questions now?

Does he not believe the garden of Eden literally has a tree in it and that Adam and Eve were literally banished from it?

I don't know but whatever he believes might be wrong.

Where does the Bible say that the tree of life is in fact Jesus?

I tried to answer this question and doubt I can do any better. The Bible does not say a lot of things. It does not say the tree of life is Jesus, but it does indicate the source of all spiritual life is Jesus. It does not say the sword coming from the mouth of Jesus is not a literal sword and it does not say the streets of gold is not really going to be gold. I don't believe Genesis or Revelation is literal. I want to be in the New Jerusalem if you are correct and walk the streets of gold, but I think I will be a little bit disappointed. I expect much better than streets of gold. I expect an existence with God that our mind is incapable of imagining.

 

[oi_antz]

I don't know but whatever he believes might be wrong.

Elman, it does seem that your beliefs are not founded on the Bible. I believe everything the Bible says. This is what it says:

Genesis 2:8
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
9 The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

How can you say that the garden of Eden was not a literal garden where Adam was placed and where the tree of life was? Do you prefer not to believe what the Bible says?

I tried to answer this question and doubt I can do any better. The Bible does not say a lot of things. It does not say the tree of life is Jesus, but it does indicate the source of all spiritual life is Jesus. It does not say the sword coming from the mouth of Jesus is not a literal sword and it does not say the streets of gold is not really going to be gold. I don't believe Genesis or Revelation is literal. I want to be in the New Jerusalem if you are correct and walk the streets of gold, but I think I will be a little bit disappointed. I expect much better than streets of gold. I expect an existence with God that our mind is incapable of imagining.

I wonder why do you not believe what the Bible says. There is only one truth among a world full of lies that people have made up with the sheer power of their imagination. God's word is the authority on truth. If you are arguing with what the Bible states clearly in black and white, why do you think you are believing the truth?

 

[elman]

Elman, it does seem that your beliefs are not founded on the Bible. I believe everything the Bible says. This is what it says:

Genesis 2:8
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
9 The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

How can you say that the garden of Eden was not a literal garden where Adam was placed and where the tree of life was? Do you prefer not to believe what the Bible says?



I wonder why do you not believe what the Bible says. There is only one truth among a world full of lies that people have made up with the sheer power of their imagination. God's word is the authority on truth. If you are arguing with what the Bible states clearly in black and white, why do you think you are believing the truth?

You believe I must believe Jesus will actually fight with a physical sword coming from His mouth because that is what the Bible says. I believe what the Bible says, but the Bible is not saying Jesus will actually fight with a physical sword coming from His mouth when it says that. You are expected to use the mind God gave you to look for the spiritual truth contained in the words used. To take the position there is no symbolism in the Bible is not reasonable. In the first chapter of the gospel of John it says Jesus is the Word of God. Using your method interpreting the Bible, you must therefor deny the Bible is the Word of God, because it says Jesus is. Jesus said the letter kills but the spirit gives life. Using your method of interpretation you must therefore realize that literal interpretation of the words kills all life giving meaning.

 

[oi_antz]

You believe I must believe Jesus will actually fight with a physical sword coming from His mouth because that is what the Bible says. I believe what the Bible says, but the Bible is not saying Jesus will actually fight with a physical sword coming from His mouth when it says that. You are expected to use the mind God gave you to look for the spiritual truth contained in the words used. To take the position there is no symbolism in the Bible is not reasonable. In the first chapter of the gospel of John it says Jesus is the Word of God. Using your method interpreting the Bible, you must therefor deny the Bible is the Word of God, because it says Jesus is. Jesus said the letter kills but the spirit gives life. Using your method of interpretation you must therefore realize that literal interpretation of the words kills all life giving meaning.

Elman, the Bible is very clear in what it says. The LORD made a garden. He placed the man there. He caused trees to rise up from the ground. The tree of conscience and the tree of life were in the middle of the garden.

What makes you not want to believe this?

The Bible does not say that Jesus is the tree of life, you have said this.

Elman, there are many people who like to gain attention by saying things that are out of the ordinary. You have gained my attention and now I want you to prove that what you say is true. Any time I come across something that seems to be untrue you can be sure I won't let an untruth prevail.

So, I ask you again:

• Why do you not believe what the Bible says in black and white that the garden and tree's were literally a garden with trees (Genesis 1:8,9).
• Where does the Bible say that Jesus is the tree of life?

So far you have not managed to show me scripture to prove that Jesus is the tree of life. You have also said you don't believe Genesis should be read literally. From my point of view it appears that you are making up ideas that aren't biblical (false teaching), and denying that the Bible is an authority on truth. If God's word says Adam was in the garden of Eden, what authority do you claim to say that he wasn't?

 

[elman]

Elman, the Bible is very clear in what it says. The LORD made a garden. He placed the man there. He caused trees to rise up from the ground. The tree of conscience and the tree of life were in the middle of the garden.

What makes you not want to believe this?

The Bible does not say that Jesus is the tree of life, you have said this.

Elman, there are many people who like to gain attention by saying things that are out of the ordinary. You have gained my attention and now I want you to prove that what you say is true. Any time I come across something that seems to be untrue you can be sure I won't let an untruth prevail.

So, I ask you again:

• Why do you not believe what the Bible says in black and white that the garden and tree's were literally a garden with trees (Genesis 1:8,9).
• Where does the Bible say that Jesus is the tree of life?

So far you have not managed to show me scripture to prove that Jesus is the tree of life. You have also said you don't believe Genesis should be read literally. From my point of view it appears that you are making up ideas that aren't biblical (false teaching), and denying that the Bible is an authority on truth. If God's word says Adam was in the garden of Eden, what authority do you claim to say that he wasn't?

Why did you not respond to what I said?

 

[oi_antz]

Why did you not respond to what I said?

The reason for this is because you have refused to respond to what I have said. This is not a negotiation. However I will respond to what you said and then you will apparently have no other reason to avoid providing evidence of your beliefs.

You believe I must believe Jesus will actually fight with a physical sword coming from His mouth because that is what the Bible says.

I presume this is from the vision of Jesus in Revelation 1? I understand that the sword coming from Jesus' mouth is the same sword of the spirit that Paul instructs us to use:

17 Put on salvation as your helmet, and take the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God

So, the sword in Revelation 1 is actually the word of God. This makes sense since Jesus is the Word made flesh.

I believe what the Bible says, but the Bible is not saying Jesus will actually fight with a blade coming from His mouth, I believe it is the sword of the Spirit. The same sword that He already uses as He goes about sorting His sheep from the goats.

Yes, it is physical sword of the spirit, physical words and not a physical blade. The Word is the very same power that was used to form the earth and everything about it.

When John uses the word "sword" in this context in Revelation, it is his description of what he saw in the vision. When it comes to pass, it may appear a little different to what our imaginations see when we read those words.

Nonetheless, the Word of God has been called "the sword of the spirit" inside the Bible. Jesus has not been called "the tree of life" in the Bible. Do you see why I am picking a bone with you?

You are expected to use the mind God gave you to look for the spiritual truth contained in the words used. To take the position there is no symbolism in the Bible is not reasonable.

I don't take that position, I think you might have presumed I do. Maybe you have had a similar argument with someone else who has suggested you read meanings that aren't there. I wouldn't be surprised if you admitted yes to that. My point is that the Bible is clear in what it says. I only have two problems with what you teach:

• I have a problem when you state things which aren't biblical, as though they are biblical truths.
• I have a problem with you saying that what the Bible says is not literally true.

In the first chapter of the gospel of John it says Jesus is the Word of God. Using your method interpreting the Bible, you must therefor deny the Bible is the Word of God, because it says Jesus is. Jesus said the letter kills but the spirit gives life. Using your method of interpretation you must therefore realize that literal interpretation of the words kills all life giving meaning.

Jesus is the Word made flesh. Notice Word has an uppercase W. This means it is an entity.
Tell me now, is the Bible God's Word made flesh?
Is The Bible flesh?

I do have to wonder why you are arguing about these things. It is quite simple really. All you have to do is provide evidence for your beliefs or repent.

I'll say it again:

• Do you believe Adam was not in a real garden, which had real trees and the tree of life was a real tree in the middle of that garden?
• Do you believe Jesus is the same tree of life that is written of in Genesis, and where is this stated in scripture?

 

[elman]

Originally Posted by elman
You believe I must believe Jesus will actually fight with a physical sword coming from His mouth because that is what the Bible says.

I presume this is from the vision of Jesus in Revelation 1? I understand that the sword coming from Jesus' mouth is the same sword of the spirit that Paul instructs us to use:

17 Put on salvation as your helmet, and take the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God

So, the sword in Revelation 1 is actually the word of God. This makes sense since Jesus is the Word made flesh.

I believe what the Bible says, but the Bible is not saying Jesus will actually fight with a blade coming from His mouth, I believe it is the sword of the Spirit. The same sword that He already uses as He goes about sorting His sheep from the goats.

Yes, it is physical sword of the spirit, physical words and not a physical blade. The Word is the very same power that was used to form the earth and everything about it.

When John uses the word "sword" in this context in Revelation, it is his description of what he saw in the vision. When it comes to pass, it may appear a little different to what our imaginations see when we read those words.

Nonetheless, the Word of God has been called "the sword of the spirit" inside the Bible. Jesus has not been called "the tree of life" in the Bible. Do you see why I am picking a bone with you?

Yes, but inside the Bible Jesus has been show to be the only source of spiritual life, has He not? Inside the Bible Jesus say He is the bread of Heaven and the water of life. He invites us to eat His body and drink His blood and we will be known by our fruit, right?

Originally Posted by elman
You are expected to use the mind God gave you to look for the spiritual truth contained in the words used. To take the position there is no symbolism in the Bible is not reasonable.

I don't take that position, I think you might have presumed I do. Maybe you have had a similar argument with someone else who has suggested you read meanings that aren't there. I wouldn't be surprised if you admitted yes to that. My point is that the Bible is clear in what it says. I only have two problems with what you teach:
I have a problem when you state things which aren't biblical, as though they are biblical truths.
I have a problem with you saying that what the Bible says is not literally true.

But you agree the sword from the mouth is not literally true, correct?

Originally Posted by elman

In the first chapter of the gospel of John it says Jesus is the Word of God. Using your method interpreting the Bible, you must therefor deny the Bible is the Word of God, because it says Jesus is. Jesus said the letter kills but the spirit gives life. Using your method of interpretation you must therefore realize that literal interpretation of the words kills all life giving meaning.

Jesus is the Word made flesh. Notice Word has an uppercase W. This means it is an entity.

I believe you will find that in the original languages of the Bible, there was no uppercase.

Tell me now, is the Bible God's Word made flesh?
Is The Bible flesh?

I do have to wonder why you are arguing about these things. It is quite simple really. All you have to do is provide evidence for your beliefs or repent.

Having an incorrect understanding of God is not a sin. James 3:2

I'll say it again:
Do you believe Adam was not in a real garden, which had real trees and the tree of life was a real tree in the middle of that garden?

No, I believe that is a story with real spiritual truth being taught.

Do you believe Jesus is the same tree of life that is written of in Genesis, and where is this stated in scripture?

A tree of life would be a source of life. The scripture clearly teaches Jesus is the only source of spiritual life. Jesus said I am the way, the truth, and the life.

 

[oi_antz]

Yes, but inside the Bible Jesus has been show to be the only source of spiritual life, has He not? Inside the Bible Jesus say He is the bread of Heaven and the water of life. He invites us to eat His body and drink His blood and we will be known by our fruit, right?

But you agree the sword from the mouth is not literally true, correct?

I believe you will find that in the original languages of the Bible, there was no uppercase.

Having an incorrect understanding of God is not a sin. James 3:2
No, I believe that is a story with real spiritual truth being taught.

A tree of life would be a source of life. The scripture clearly teaches Jesus is the only source of spiritual life. Jesus said I am the way, the truth, and the life.

Hi Elman, I have to say that upon praying about your comments I have found you to be correct in what you say, except for one thing: the following verse clearly says the tree of life is a tree and that it is not a human called "Jesus of Nazareth". Therefore, while you may like to think of Jesus as being the tree of life in the garden of Eden, it is clearly not what Genesis means to teach us. So, thank you for your help, I have finally seen what you were trying to show me! I'll quote the verses again so those who are watching the new post's thread will see what we are talking about:

8 Then the Lord God planted a garden in Eden in the east, and there he placed the man he had made. 9 The Lord God made all sorts of trees grow up from the ground—trees that were beautiful and that produced delicious fruit. In the middle of the garden he placed the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

God assures me that the tree of life in verse 9 is in fact a tree and not a human, but in a symbolic and metaphoric way, some people enjoy thinking in ways that aren't intended.

Blessings and thanks for your patience

 

[elman]

Hi Elman, I have to say that upon praying about your comments I have found you to be correct in what you say, except for one thing: the following verse clearly says the tree of life is a tree and that it is not a human called "Jesus of Nazareth". Therefore, while you may like to think of Jesus as being the tree of life in the garden of Eden, it is clearly not what Genesis means to teach us. So, thank you for your help, I have finally seen what you were trying to show me! I'll quote the verses again so those who are watching the new post's thread will see what we are talking about:

8 Then the Lord God planted a garden in Eden in the east, and there he placed the man he had made. 9 The Lord God made all sorts of trees grow up from the ground—trees that were beautiful and that produced delicious fruit. In the middle of the garden he placed the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

God assures me that the tree of life in verse 9 is in fact a tree and not a human, but in a symbolic and metaphoric way, some people enjoy thinking in ways that aren't intended.

Blessings and thanks for your patience

OK---