Pick a Tree (Poll)

[HypnoToad]

Because the use of "historical" in the cases at hand, is a way to obscure the meaning, to take it as far away from what the writer wants to convey.

It's only so "obscured" if you subscribe to an interpretation such as yours. But I fail to see how, if you take what you think the tree of life in Genesis means, and add the detail that it was a real tree, how adding that changes the other meanings at all. It only adds to the meaning, it doesn't take anything away.

You understand that, and that is why you refrain from considering the other trees of life as "historical"/literal trees. Because you can see what a disgrace such a reading will have on those various passages.

No, I understand the other trees as metaphor because the context presents them as such. And I understand the Genesis tree to be historical because the context presents it as such.

The use of historical, is placing man instead of the angels as guarding the gate to the city of God, and when others seek to enter, you tell them it's the other way.

Your brothers tell others they should put a cover over their heads.

Only true if your interpretation is correct.

 

[Assyrian]

It's only so "obscured" if you subscribe to an interpretation such as yours. But I fail to see how, if you take what you think the tree of life in Genesis means, and add the detail that it was a real tree, how adding that changes the other meanings at all. It only adds to the meaning, it doesn't take anything away.

If the tree of life is a figure of the cross and the promised resurrection we have in Christ, if there was also a literal tree that can give everlasting life, it means there is an alternative to the cross.

Having two sources of everlasting life takes away from Christ being the only sourace. Is the tree of life a figure of Christ, or alternative and antichrist.

No, I understand the other trees as metaphor because the context presents them as such. And I understand the Genesis tree to be historical because the context presents it as such.

You mean the same context as the talking snake who wasn't really a snake but was a picture of Satan?

 

[HypnoToad]

If the tree of life is a figure of the cross and the promised resurrection we have in Christ, if there was also a literal tree that can give everlasting life, it means there is an alternative to the cross.

Having two sources of everlasting life takes away from Christ being the only sourace. Is the tree of life a figure of Christ, or alternative and antichrist.

Since access was permitted only BEFORE sin, your point is irrelevant.

You mean the same context as the talking snake who wasn't really a snake but was a picture of Satan?

When did I, or Scripture for that matter, say it was just a "picture" of Satan?

 

[Assyrian]

Since access was permitted only BEFORE sin, your point is irrelevant.

It could have given everlasting life after the fall, that is why access was forbidden. The point is very relevant. There exists another source of everlasting life. There was an alternative in Gethsemane. Jesus did not have to die, and though he did, he is not the only way, there is another guarded by cherubim.

The idea of a literal tree of life contradicts Jesus who tells us that perishable food does not give eternal live.
John 6:27 Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. Fruit perishes when it falls to the ground and rots, it perishes when it is eaten and digested. A literal tree physical could not give everlasting life. John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

When did I, or Scripture for that matter, say it was just a "picture" of Satan?

Revelation tells us Satan was the ancient serpent, Rev 12:9 & 20:2. But Satan is an angel not a reptile. In the story of the garden the snake is simply a very clever animal with no suggestion of its true nature. The story in the garden is an allegory and the snake in the garden is an allegorical picture of Satan. That is why Jesus fulfilled the first promise of a redeemer by defeating Satan on the cross, not by stepping on a snake's head.

 

[HypnoToad]

It could have given everlasting life after the fall, that is why access was forbidden. The point is very relevant. There exists another source of everlasting life. There was an alternative in Gethsemane. Jesus did not have to die, and though he did, he is not the only way, there is another guarded by cherubim.

It is still irrelevant, as God never permitted access after sin. Once Christ was actually needed, He was the only route available.

The idea of a literal tree of life contradicts Jesus who tells us that perishable food does not give eternal live.
John 6:27Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life
John 6:63It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. Fruit perishes when it falls to the ground and rots, it perishes when it is eaten and digested. A literal tree physical could not give everlasting life. John 3:6That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Since the tree didn't exist anymore, what Jesus said was true.

Revelation tells us Satan was the ancient serpent, Rev 12:9 & 20:2. But Satan is an angel not a reptile. In the story of the garden the snake is simply a very clever animal with no suggestion of its true nature. The story in the garden is an allegory and the snake in the garden is an allegorical picture of Satan. That is why Jesus fulfilled the first promise of a redeemer by defeating Satan on the cross, not by stepping on a snake's head.

There's nothing there preventing Satan from being in the form of a serpent. Simply because Genesis doesn't name him as "Satan" is an argument from silence. Further, as you say, Revelation specifically says, at least twice, that the serpent was Satan.

 

[theIdi0t]

It is still irrelevant, as God never permitted access after sin. Once Christ was actually needed, He was the only route available.

In the beginning was the Wood....and the Wood became flesh?

I always had a feeling John 1, was a scribal error..

 

[Assyrian]

It is still irrelevant, as God never permitted access after sin. Once Christ was actually needed, He was the only route available.

But not the only route possible, and access depends on the cherubim. Your literal tree of life provides a gnostic alternative to salvation in Christ, salvation through angels who control the tree of life.

You are confusing what God permitted with what was possible. God did not permit it because it was possible and God was not able to control the consequences if Adam did reach out an eat. He would have lived forever whether God wanted or not. That is why God set a guard. Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--" 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. Do you really believe there was a literal source of eternal life God was unable to control other than by keeping us away from it?

Since the tree didn't exist anymore, what Jesus said was true.

Who say it didn't exist? And what Jesus said was a spiritual principle. The physical only produces more of what is physical. It is the Spirit that gives spiritual life. A physical tree could not give eternal life.

There's nothing there preventing Satan from being in the form of a serpent. Simply because Genesis doesn't name him as "Satan" is an argument from silence. Further, as you say, Revelation specifically says, at least twice, that the serpent was Satan.

If Satan was in the form of a serpent, it would still only be an angel pretending. Genesis says it was a snake and God only gave the snake snakish punishments: crawling on his belly, eating dust and having its head stepped on. Yet when we see Satan again, Job 1:7 The LORD said to Satan, "From where have you come?" Satan answered the LORD and said, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it." Walking, not slithering. So not only was Genesis wrong saying it was a snake, but God got it wrong too and punished snakes with slithering while Satan walked free.

No Satan was not in the form of a serpent, Satan was the serpent.

 

[HypnoToad]

But not the only route possible, and access depends on the cherubim. Your literal tree of life provides a gnostic alternative to salvation in Christ, salvation through angels who control the tree of life.

Again, where does it say the tree offered salvation, not just physical life? Further, you seem to think that the angel might have decided to let people through for some reason. God seemed pretty clear that He wasn't allowing it, period.

You are confusing what God permitted with what was possible. God did not permit it because it was possible and God was not able to control the consequences if Adam did reach out an eat.

So, things that God doesn't permit to happen can happen anyway?? Also, God was "not able to" control?? What kind of inept god do you believe in?

He would have lived forever whether God wanted or not. That is why God set a guard. Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--" 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. Do you really believe there was a literal source of eternal life God was unable to control other than by keeping us away from it?

Again, where do you get the idea the tree offered salvation? And, again, God guarding the tree removed it as a possibility. Unless you think God is capable of failing such a simple task.

Who say it didn't exist?

It was likely destroyed in the flood. Unless you can show evidence of the tree an angel still being there somewhere.

And what Jesus said was a spiritual principle. The physical only produces more of what is physical. It is the Spirit that gives spiritual life. A physical tree could not give eternal life.

If God says the tree would make you live forever, I'll take His word over yours. Again, though, it never says the tree gives salvation from sin.

If Satan was in the form of a serpent, it would still only be an angel pretending.

So? What's the problem?

Genesis says it was a snake

Nothing in the Genesis text prohibits it from being the devil in the form of a serpent, and Revelation says it was the devil. I'll take Scripture's word for it.

and God only gave the snake snakish punishments: crawling on his belly, eating dust and having its head stepped on. Yet when we see Satan again, Job 1:7 The LORD said to Satan, "From where have you come?" Satan answered the LORD and said, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it." Walking, not slithering. So not only was Genesis wrong saying it was a snake, but God got it wrong too and punished snakes with slithering while Satan walked free.

Um, you seem to be under the impression that I made the claim that the devil can ONLY EVER be a serpent. It was just the form he picked at that time, not a permanent body.

No Satan was not in the form of a serpent, Satan was the serpent.

And why, exactly, can "was" not mean "took the form of"?

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Um, you seem to be under the impression that I made the claim that the devil can ONLY EVER be a serpent. It was just the form he picked at that time, not a permanent body.

That's exactly the point I think Assyrian is making. Your interpretation suggests that the serpent was just one of Satan's many disguises. The trouble is that if you read the account this way, the disguise fooled God! God punished the disguise (the serpent and serpent offspring; Genesis 3:14-15), but let Satan get away without any punishment.

Note the sequence of events: God confronts Adam, who blames Eve, who blames the serpent. God then pronounces the consequences to each in reverse order. If your interpretation is correct, and if God is not fooled, then the sequence should go one level further -- from the serpent to Satan. Yet, the account does not do this, and the punishment of the serpent is limited to affecting serpents.

An interpretation that doesn't lead to these consequences is that Satan is the serpent. He isn't in the form of a serpent, or possessing a serpent, but he is the serpent, just as Jesus is the lamb that was slain, without that meaning he was in the form of a young sheep at his crucifixion.

 

[HypnoToad]

That's exactly the point I think Assyrian is making. Your interpretation suggests that the serpent was just one of Satan's many disguises. The trouble is that if you read the account this way, the disguise fooled God! God punished the disguise (the serpent and serpent offspring; Genesis 3:14-15), but let Satan get away without any punishment.

I don't read the punishment as you suggest. The whole "strike his heel/crush your head" thing is about Christ being crucified, yet having victory over the devil; so why not read the "belly/dust" similarly?

Note the sequence of events: God confronts Adam, who blames Eve, who blames the serpent. God then pronounces the consequences to each in reverse order. If your interpretation is correct, and if God is not fooled, then the sequence should go one level further -- from the serpent to Satan.

No, since the serpent was Satan.

Yet, the account does not do this, and the punishment of the serpent is limited to affecting serpents.

Only through a very shallow interpretation which I do not support.

An interpretation that doesn't lead to these consequences is that Satan is the serpent. He isn't in the form of a serpent, or possessing a serpent, but he is the serpent,

That's ONE interpretation, yes.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

I don't read the punishment as you suggest. The whole "strike his heel/crush your head" thing is about Christ being crucified, yet having victory over the devil; so why not read the "belly/dust" similarly?

Well yes, that's the point. Why not read the whole story similarly? What you're suggesting here is an allegorical interpretation. Why would this one section be an allegory where the serpent's punishment symbolizes the devil's fate, while in the rest of the account the serpent is literally the devil in disguise?

Do you see how your reasoning here is about an allegorical meaning without a corresponding literal meaning (it's not also about Eve's descendant stepping on a snake), while elsewhere you are arguing for a literal meaning in addition to the deeper spiritual meanings?

 

[Assyrian]

Again, where does it say the tree offered salvation, not just physical life? Further, you seem to think that the angel might have decided to let people through for some reason. God seemed pretty clear that He wasn't allowing it, period.

It offered everlasting life. Sound like an alternate salvation to me, saving Adam from the death he bought when he ate the apple.

Whether the angels guarding it remained loyal or not it is still an alternative source of everlasting life controlled by angels. This is bad theology. There is only one source of eternal life, not two sources, Jesus plus an alternative that has been placed off limits.

So, things that God doesn't permit to happen can happen anyway?? Also, God was "not able to" control?? What kind of inept god do you believe in?

You forget, I don't believe the Genesis story is literal. I am just telling you what a literal interpretation says. I even quoted the passage for you Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--" 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. If Adam had eaten form the tree of life he would have lived forever. In other words, even though God had said Adam would die, Adam would have still lived forever if he had eaten the fruit. Here is a source of everlasting life God is unable to control, unable to stop, all God can do is keep mankind away.

That is the literal meaning and if it describes God as 'inept' the problem is reading it literally when it is an allegory.

Again, where do you get the idea the tree offered salvation? And, again, God guarding the tree removed it as a possibility. Unless you think God is capable of failing such a simple task.

The tree gave everlasting life. God wasn't guarding the tree. He told two cherubim to guard it. Sorry you still have two alternative sources of everlasting life. No matter how well guarded one of them is. It is still a source of life.

It was likely destroyed in the flood. Unless you can show evidence of the tree an angel still being there somewhere.

Why do I need to show evidence the tree of life is still there when I think it was allegorical?

But if the tree was literal, do you think the tree of life nourished by its own falling leaves and fruit, nourished by its own sap, is going to die? Maybe it has moved to heaven where the paradise of God is and Revelation say the tree of life is. Maybe it was in heaven all along. Maybe the British army drive past every day in Basra and can't see it because of the cherubim. Saying it died in the flood is wild speculation and completely contradicts the nature of a tree of life.

If God says the tree would make you live forever, I'll take His word over yours. Again, though, it never says the tree gives salvation from sin.

No just everlasting life. Quite a problematic alternative that, everlasting life without our sin being dealt with.

So? What's the problem?

He wouldn't be a snake, he would be an angel looking like a snake.

Nothing in the Genesis text prohibits it from being the devil in the form of a serpent, and Revelation says it was the devil. I'll take Scripture's word for it.

The devil in the form of a serpent is not a real serpent. Genesis say it was a snake and portrays the form of snakes today as a punishment for the snake's crime. That is either a genuine snake not an imposter, or the story is an allegory where the snake is a snake in the story and Satan in real life.

Um, you seem to be under the impression that I made the claim that the devil can ONLY EVER be a serpent. It was just the form he picked at that time, not a permanent body.

If God punished Satan in the form of a snake with slithering on its belly and eating dust all the days of its life, do you really think Satan could escape slithering and eating dust simply by changing form again?

And why, exactly, can "was" not mean "took the form of"?

Because the Genesis snake was a snake not something pretending to be a snake. You claim the account is literal but you don't believe the snake was really a snake like the story says.

 

[HypnoToad]

Well yes, that's the point. Why not read the whole story similarly? What you're suggesting here is an allegorical interpretation.

No, what I'm suggesting is a metaphorical reading of a passage.

Why would this one section be an allegory where the serpent's punishment symbolizes the devil's fate, while in the rest of the account the serpent is literally the devil in disguise?

It isn't an allegory.

Do you see how your reasoning here is about an allegorical meaning without a corresponding literal meaning (it's not also about Eve's descendant stepping on a snake), while elsewhere you are arguing for a literal meaning in addition to the deeper spiritual meanings?

Again, not allegorical. Your terms are incorrect.

 

[HypnoToad]

It offered everlasting life. Sound like an alternate salvation to me, saving Adam from the death he bought when he ate the apple.

Well, I'm interested in a little more than "sounds like" for evidence.

Whether the angels guarding it remained loyal or not it is still an alternative source of everlasting life controlled by angels. This is bad theology. There is only one source of eternal life, not two sources, Jesus plus an alternative that has been placed off limits.

It wasn't controlled by an angel, it was controlled by God. Really, now, do you think God could fail at this task? Yes or no? If yes, it is your theology that is bad. If no, then it is not a possible source of salvation. (Nor has it even been established that is what it actually offered in the first place.)

You forget, I don't believe the Genesis story is literal. I am just telling you what a literal interpretation says. [/quote]
No, your telling what one interpretation is.

I even quoted the passage for you Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--" 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. If Adam had eaten form the tree of life he would have lived forever. In other words, even though God had said Adam would die, Adam would have still lived forever if he had eaten the fruit. Here is a source of everlasting life God is unable to control, unable to stop, all God can do is keep mankind away.

Again, if that is how inept you think God is, then it is your theology that is bad.

That is the literal meaning

Nope, it is your interpretation of it.

The tree gave everlasting life.

And nothing states that that life is anything but physical.

God wasn't guarding the tree. He told two cherubim to guard it. Sorry you still have two alternative sources of everlasting life. No matter how well guarded one of them is. It is still a source of life.

Lol, hardly a "source" if it's impossible to reach. Of course, you apparently believe in a god too inept to guard a tree.

Why do I need to show evidence the tree of life is still there when I think it was allegorical?

Because when I said the tree was not there anymore, you tried to argue against that. If you believe it to be allegorical, then you already know it isn't there, and there is still no conflict with Jesus' statement.

But if the tree was literal, do you think the tree of life nourished by its own falling leaves and fruit, nourished by its own sap, is going to die? Maybe it has moved to heaven where the paradise of God is and Revelation say the tree of life is. Maybe it was in heaven all along. Maybe the British army drive past every day in Basra and can't see it because of the cherubim. Saying it died in the flood is wild speculation and completely contradicts the nature of a tree of life.

Oh, really? You must have Scriptural support showing this indestructible nature of the Genesis tree.

No just everlasting life. Quite a problematic alternative that, everlasting life without our sin being dealt with.

No problem since God didn't allow access to it anymore.

He wouldn't be a snake, he would be an angel looking like a snake.

Ridiculous that you would try to split hairs like that.

The devil in the form of a serpent is not a real serpent.

Splitting hairs again.

Genesis say it was a snake and portrays the form of snakes today as a punishment for the snake's crime.

Again, only by a very shallow reading.

If God punished Satan in the form of a snake with slithering on its belly and eating dust all the days of its life, do you really think Satan could escape slithering and eating dust simply by changing form again?

Again, shallow reading.

Because the Genesis snake was a snake not something pretending to be a snake. You claim the account is literal but you don't believe the snake was really a snake like the story says.

Ah, another TE who has no clue what taking an account literally entails. A literal view of Scripture is not the hyperliteral stance you TE's like to place on us. It's as flawed as saying evolution teaches we evolved from monkeys.

 

[Assyrian]

Well, I'm interested in a little more than "sounds like" for evidence.

This from the guy who makes thing up like Satan disuising himself as a snake and the tree being destroyed in the flood. The tree is an alternative source of everlasting life. Eat the fruit and live forever, according to Genesis.

It wasn't controlled by an angel, it was controlled by God. Really, now, do you think God could fail at this task? Yes or no? If yes, it is your theology that is bad. If no, then it is not a possible source of salvation. (Nor has it even been established that is what it actually offered in the first place.)

God gave the angels the task. You really have to read what the text says. But it does not matter that God forbids the source, however successfully he or his appointed servants keep humanity away the tree. The tree can give everlasting life. It is a cure for death. Jesus is not the only one, if the tree is literal. Instead of pointing to the true source of life, the tree proclaims a competitor so effective we had to be kept away from it.

No, your telling what one interpretation is.

If the tree is a literal tree then a text says it could give everlasting life to those who eat it.

That means Jesus is not the only one who can do that.

Again, if that is how inept you think God is, then it is your theology that is bad.

God is not inept because the story is not literal. You want a literal tree but ignore what the text says about the tree. Deal with the text. If a literal interpretation portrays an 'inept God' as you put it then there is something wrong with the literal interpretation.

Nope, it is your interpretation of it.

God proclaimed Adam would die, but Adam would have lived forever if he had eaten the fruit. How can a literal interpretation say anything else?

And nothing states that that life is anything but physical.

So? Adam would have lived forever without God's help and without restoring his relationship with God. That just make the alternative source of everlasting life more antichrist.

Lol, hardly a "source" if it's impossible to reach. Of course, you apparently believe in a god too inept to guard a tree.

Read the text. It was angels guarding the tree. The bible is a long litany of God's command's being disobeyed. Are you saying that makes God inept?

But it is irrelevant. There is a difference between something existing and it being available. You still have two sources of everlasting life in existence.

Because when I said the tree was not there anymore, you tried to argue against that. If you believe it to be allegorical, then you already know it isn't there, and there is still no conflict with Jesus' statement.

You show that the tree does not exist.

There is no conflict between what Jesus said and an allegorical tree. There is between what Jesus said and a literal tree, whether the tree still exists or not. Perishable food should never have been able to give imperishable life.

Oh, really? You must have Scriptural support showing this indestructible nature of the Genesis tree.

Sure. It turns up again in Revelation, still in the paradise of God. However your idea of a destructible tree of life makes no sense. How does a tree that provide everlasting life die? Support your interpretation from scripture not speculation.

No problem since God didn't allow access to it anymore.

The alternative still existed.

Ridiculous that you would try to split hairs like that. Splitting hairs again.

Just because Satan masquerades as something does not make it real. In Genesis the snake is a snake, it is punished as a snake and its snake descendants bear the punishment for its crime.

Again, only by a very shallow reading.

You mean the plain sense of the literal text? It is amazing how much difficulty literalists have with that.

Again, shallow reading.

It is the plain sense of the text. A real snake tempted Eve and was punished as a snake was given a snakelike punishment. The snake's descendants have born that punishment to this day. There is no mention, no suggestion that the snake was an angel in disguise. It is gross miscarriage of justice to punish snakes for the action of some other creature dressed up as a snake, while the real culprit escapes having to slither and eat dust.

Ah, another TE who has no clue what taking an account literally entails. A literal view of Scripture is not the hyperliteral stance you TE's like to place on us. It's as flawed as saying evolution teaches we evolved from monkeys.

This is not a metaphor within a literal text like Jesus calling Herod a fox. In the gospels Herod is a human king. But in Genesis the snake is pure snake all the way through the story. If the snake was Satan it is because the story is an allegory all the way through.

 

[chaoschristian]

4.) I'm a TE, and I didn't want to be left out, and I didn't think it would be nice to not have spot in the poll to put in my two sense, and I am going to state the obvious here and proclaim both trees are allegorical. Yippee!

For purpose of polls and TEs on this board the simple inclusion of the option of 'OTHER' will suffice and grant us sufficient grounds for expounding and redefining terms.

 

[HypnoToad]

Assyrian, it's clear you just don't get it. You keep circling around the same bad reasoning over and over, and I can only correct it so many times before seeing that you just don't understand.