Pick a Tree (Poll)

[Digit]

Let's recap, by quoting you: "Because as laptoppop mentions, it doesn't bear one way or another on the account of Genesis."

This is what you said about the Tree of Life, now you're back peddling and telling me it does have bearing?

What is it?

Did I get the memo?

Right. That's correct. I also just said I think it's literal. Yet, I did mention I haven't looked into it a great deal, and as such before embarking on a debate about specifics, I would like time to do so.

Clear?

Digit

 

[theIdi0t]

Right. That's correct. I also just said I think it's literal. Yet, I did mention I haven't looked into it a great deal, and as such before embarking on a debate about specifics, I would like time to do so.

Clear?

Digit

Let just go ahead and say, you think it's literal. Do you understand that you can take it as literal, but still say it does not matter either way if others don't take it literally?

So, I'll rephrase the question:

Do you think it maters if others don't take the Tree of Life literally?

I assume you think it matters if other don't take the resurrection literally, so now I am asking you about the tree of life.

So what is it?

 

[Digit]

Let just go ahead and say, you think it's literal.

Can we? That would be awesome, especially since it's what I just said!

Right. That's correct. I also just said I think it's literal.

My initial stance is literal for both.

*sigh*

See, this is why we have communication issues. Because you simply don't read what is written, and just forge ahead with you own agenda and notions. YECs can't even make a joke, without being jumped on.

Digit

 

[theIdi0t]

Can we? That would be awesome, especially since it's what I just said!
See, this is why we have communication issues. Because you simply don't read what is written, and just forge ahead with you own agenda and notions. YECs can't even make a joke, without being jumped on.

Digit

It seems previously you tagged along with Pops "it has no bearing", without understanding what he was saying. But never mind this, but perhaps you can answer this question, from the previous post:

So, I'll rephrase the question:

Do you think it maters if others don't take the Tree of Life literally?

I assume you think it matters if others don't take the resurrection literally, so now I am asking you about the tree of life.

So what is it?

 

[Digit]

It seems previously you tagged along with Pops "it has no bearing", without understanding what he was saying. But never mind this, but perhaps you can answer this question, from the previous post:

So, I'll rephrase the question:

Do you think it maters if others don't take the Tree of Life literally?

I assume you think it matters if others don't take the resurrection literally, so now I am asking you about the tree of life.

So what is it?

Like I said, I will need to learn more about it first before I have what I feel is a good understanding that represents a truthful view. I could say either way now, and one could hurt a persons viewpoint whereas another could help it, which I won't risk.

In regards to the tree of knowledge, I don't think it matters one way or another, yet I can see it being literal. Regardless of it's form, all the consequences remain intact and are not based on what form it actually took. A literal tree, pandoras box - whatever that part, is not as important in the account. Based on my view however, and my belief in a literal reading of Genesis, yes, I do take it to be literal and I feel others should too.

Digit

 

[Digit]

In other news. Do we really need to do this twice? Methinks no.

Edit: After some reading. In Genesis I believe it was a literal tree. God tells Adam he can eat of any tree freely, except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It doesn't make sense when you suggest they were all metaphorical trees with that in mind.

Digit

 

[shernren]

Pick-a-tree. Bigotry?

 

[theIdi0t]

In other news. Do we really need to do this twice? Methinks no. .

Well, apparently I thought yes. Perhaps instead of saying "Methinks no", you should have asked why "I thinks yes", because I find the "Methinks no." to be a bit arrogant.

Edit: After some reading. In Genesis I believe it was a literal tree. God tells Adam he can eat of any tree freely, except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It doesn't make sense when you suggest they were all metaphorical trees with that in mind.

Digit

Let's quote you:

"My point, is that in order to accept evolution as a true theory, one needs to first discount a factual Genesis, that reveals a historical and plain account of Creation. I cannot reconcile the two, as shown above, and it worries me that some have. We have accepted mankinds theory, taken it upon ourselves to change our understanding of Genesis in order to accomodate it and in my eyes, that further opens sequential holes in scripture. All of these actions are fallable to man's flaws. Very dangerous to me."

Here you are saying that taking Genesis as allegorical is very dangerous. Correct?

So is taking the Tree of Life, as allegorical dangerous as well (in Rev. and Genesis)?

....since as you claim, that if you take the tree of life as metaphorical, taking the tree of knowledge as literal does not make much sense.

 

[Digit]

Well, apparently I thought yes. Perhaps instead of saying "Methinks no", you should have asked why "I thinks yes", because I find the "Methinks no." to be a bit arrogant.

Did you ask yourself why I wanted to look into it more before providing an answer? It doesn't seem so, since you keep pushing for one and ignoring my statements. Yet you expected me to do the same. Odd.

Perhaps you are right, and I should have wondered why you wished to go through it twice. The only conclusion I can reach is that you wish me to make a mistake, or say something which may disprove an earlier statement. Which I am quite likely to do when not given time to consider my position.

Let's quote you:

"My point, is that in order to accept evolution as a true theory, one needs to first discount a factual Genesis, that reveals a historical and plain account of Creation. I cannot reconcile the two, as shown above, and it worries me that some have. We have accepted mankinds theory, taken it upon ourselves to change our understanding of Genesis in order to accomodate it and in my eyes, that further opens sequential holes in scripture. All of these actions are fallable to man's flaws. Very dangerous to me."

Here you are saying that taking Genesis as allegorical is very dangerous. Correct?

Yes correct.

So is taking the Tree of Life, as allegorical dangerous as well (in Rev. and Genesis)?

....since as you claim, that if you take the tree of life as metaphorical, taking the tree of knowledge as literal does not make much sense.

The quote is me talking specifically about the Creation events in Genesis which I can still see no reason to believe they are anything other than historical, and which I still believe adopting an atheistic view of creation, and reconciling it with scripture by forcing a figurative meaning into it, is still, dangerous.

My initial research into the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil hasn't really turned up much. I can't see why believing the tree as symbolising something else would cause an issue, as of yet. I feel I need to reiterate that I think it is literal however. In addition, I am not saying that nothing in scripture is symbolic, as we know Jesus isn't a real lamb is He? I am still maintaining that taking the creation account in this way causes problems however.

I did read an odd article where the writer talks about the sin between Eve and the serpent was actually sexual sin, not her eating and apple and it got quite confusing from there on, as nothing in scripture was literal, and it was all figurative. Oddness.

Thanks!
Digit

 

[HypnoToad]

Genesis literal, Revelation metaphor.

 

[busterdog]

Pick-a-tree. Bigotry?

And don't get persnickety!

 

[busterdog]

Right. That's correct. I also just said I think it's literal. Yet, I did mention I haven't looked into it a great deal, and as such before embarking on a debate about specifics, I would like time to do so.

Clear?

Digit

It is curious isn't it? I think I was the only one who said literal for both. This is largely since I assume literalness unless I have a specific direction in the text. So, I am using a default position and noting some of the same un-ease that you have.

But, not to worry. There is no better interpretation that a literal one. A metaphor is by definition a representation of something else. Here, there is no something else that anyone can even imagine. All we have are ideas about spiritual significance.

That stupid story about sexual sin is a maybe a viable thought experiment. But, it should be premised by an admission of fundamental ignorance, in which most of of share.

I appreciate your go slow attitude on this. I think that is the right attitude.

Contrasting some different passages, we have a woman clothed with the sun, and a dragon rising out of the sea. It would appear that the camera has panned out so to speak, and there is a broad prespective, suggesting symbolism.

Some would argue that there is a similar perspective in Eden. We have been through the literal Adam thing and some of us just start with that perspective.

In terms of scale, a literal man and woman apparently have a garden and their God, but really nothing else. A literal tress fits the scale. It also appears to be in line with the way in which God relates to his creatures, through the elements of the garden.

In Revelation, there is puzzlement. There is a mixture of literalism and symbol -- meaning, we should just as likely make literalism the default, rule-out assumption. It makes no sense to assume anything is a symbol just because God uses symbols in some instances.

We do of course have goats, bears, leopards and even the odd Transformer in Daniel (the evil robot beast with the iron teeth), which is taken to be a figure of the Roman empire, and which also resembles other evil fixtures of our latter day world like Serpentera from Power Rangers:

.

However, in Revelation, there is no doubt that there are concrete, literal figures. Like the keragma, or number of the beast. Or the mountain that falls into the sea. There are definite Churches in Ephesus, Philadelphia, etc., though they are also symbolic. There is a New Jerusalem with definite measurements and a definite location on the earth. There is an ark in heaven, corresponding a literal ark on earth. This should create a considerable amount of caution -- to see a mixture of literal and symbolic values. But, then, there are lampstands - whatever those are. My first thought was to question who was speaking about the trees in Revelation and how else did He express himself. As noted, Jesus spoke to specific Churches and was generally not given to using scripture except literally in the Gospels. But, He speaks of lampstands, which are apparently symbolic. Yet, he also speaks of Spirits, whcih appear to be literal, specific entities.

 

[Assyrian]

It is curious isn't it? I think I was the only one who said literal for both. This is largely since I assume literalness unless I have a specific direction in the text. So, I am using a default position and noting some of the same un-ease that you have.

But, not to worry. There is no better interpretation that a literal one. A metaphor is by definition a representation of something else. Here, there is no something else that anyone can even imagine. All we have are ideas about spiritual significance.

Aren't things of spiritual significance significant? The best explanation I have heard of the tree of life, one that has come up a number of times in discussions here is that it is a picture of the cross.

To say the tree of life is anything else raises all sorts of theological difficulties, because it mean there is an alternative salvation, another possible way for man to live forever. Forget about all that Jesus business, all you have to do is get past the cherubim and eat from the tree of life.

That stupid story about sexual sin is a maybe a viable thought experiment. But, it should be premised by an admission of fundamental ignorance, in which most of of share.

I appreciate your go slow attitude on this. I think that is the right attitude.

Contrasting some different passages, we have a woman clothed with the sun, and a dragon rising out of the sea. It would appear that the camera has panned out so to speak, and there is a broad prespective, suggesting symbolism.

I do not see the relationship between scale and symbolism. A whole nation walking through a parted sea can be literal, while few words 'this is my body' spoken over a broken loaf can be symbolic.

Doesn't the fact we have the tree of life and the ancient serpent in both books, with the snake unexplained in Genesis, suggest both books are symbolic?

Some would argue that there is a similar perspective in Eden. We have been through the literal Adam thing and some of us just start with that perspective.

In terms of scale, a literal man and woman apparently have a garden and their God, but really nothing else. A literal tress fits the scale. It also appears to be in line with the way in which God relates to his creatures, through the elements of the garden.

By the end of Revelation the scale has reduced down, the snake is cast into the lake of fire and death with him. All we are really left with is a bride and her beloved lamb, and the throne of God. And the tree of life for healing the nations.

In Revelation, there is puzzlement. There is a mixture of literalism and symbol -- meaning, we should just as likely make literalism the default, rule-out assumption. It makes no sense to assume anything is a symbol just because God uses symbols in some instances.

Except that in Revelation we are told who the dragon is. It is the ancient serpent, Satan. In Genesis we are not told who the serpent is. And yet it is really Satan. It seems in Genesis figurative is te default.

We do of course have goats, bears, leopards and even the odd Transformer in Daniel (the evil robot beast with the iron teeth), which is taken to be a figure of the Roman empire, and which also resembles other evil fixtures of our latter day world like Serpentera from Power Rangers:

.

Well spotted with the iron teeth!

However, in Revelation, there is no doubt that there are concrete, literal figures. Like the keragma, or number of the beast.

The number is literal..?

Or the mountain that falls into the sea. There are definite Churches in Ephesus, Philadelphia, etc., though they are also symbolic.

Actually Revelation never describes the seven churches as anything other than churches around in John's time. It is after the letters he is told he will be shown what takes place after. Oh well that is another discussion.

There is a New Jerusalem with definite measurements and a definite location on the earth. There is an ark in heaven, corresponding a literal ark on earth. This should create a considerable amount of caution -- to see a mixture of literal and symbolic values. But, then, there are lampstands - whatever those are.

They are the seven churches Rev 1:20 As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches. Just thought I should mention...

My first thought was to question who was speaking about the trees in Revelation and how else did He express himself. As noted, Jesus spoke to specific Churches and was generally not given to using scripture except literally in the Gospels. But, He speaks of lampstands, which are apparently symbolic. Yet, he also speaks of Spirits, whcih appear to be literal, specific entities.

 

[theIdi0t]

more tree of life verses

Proverbs 3:18
She is a tree of life to those who embrace her; those who lay hold of her will be blessed.

Proverbs 11:30
The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and he who wins souls is wise.

Proverbs 13:12
Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life.

Proverbs 15:4
The tongue that brings healing is a tree of life, but a deceitful tongue crushes the spirit.

So for Xianjedi, are you telling me that every other tree of life in the bible is symbolic but not the one in Genesis?

And for Busterdog and Digit, what do you have to say about these "tree of lifes"? I see the tree of life as clearly symbolic, but some of you assume it's dangerous to see it as symbolic in Genesis?

There is no better interpretation that a literal one. A metaphor is by definition a representation of something else. Here, there is no something else that anyone can even imagine. All we have are ideas about spiritual significance.

DO you beg to differ?

 

[HypnoToad]

more tree of life verses

Proverbs 3:18
She is a tree of life to those who embrace her; those who lay hold of her will be blessed.

Proverbs 11:30
The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and he who wins souls is wise.

Proverbs 13:12
Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life.

Proverbs 15:4
The tongue that brings healing is a tree of life, but a deceitful tongue crushes the spirit.

So for Xianjedi, are you telling me that every other tree of life in the bible is symbolic but not the one in Genesis?

You quote all from Proverbs, why wouldn't we expect metaphors all over the place?

 

[theIdi0t]

You quote all from Proverbs, why wouldn't we expect metaphors all over the place?

Someone once said to me there is no pointers in Genesis to see the Garden of Eden as symbolic, like when Jesus says a parable he always says something like "the parable" or something along those lines, that serve as pointers.

But what better pointers are there than the rest of scripture?

If every other verse in scripture sees the "tree of life" as symbolic, wouldn't the reasonable assumption be that the "tree of life" in Genesis is symbolic as well?

If God gives me the ability to differentiate between the symbolic and the literal, then I am going to use it. If he shows me that every other verse that speaks of the "tree of life", is symbolic, that even you can distinguish it, then I am not going to side with man, against what the Bible points me too.

Apparently the writers of the Bible, saw the "tree of life" as symbolic for them to use it throughout out like such, and it seems to me, that it is a fool's errand to assume it otherwise.

What offends me, is that some here like to say that it is dangerous to assume the Garden of Eden is allegorical. What they don't realize is that it's only dangerous to their faulty understanding.

The tree of life is something more than bark and leaves, and to teach men otherwise is wrong.

 

[HypnoToad]

But what better pointers are there than the rest of scripture?

The rest of Scripture is fine as long as you don't ignore the context of what you're looking at.

Outside of Genesis, every reference you've given to the (Proverbs isn't even "the", it's "a") tree of life is either from Revelation, a vision, or from Proverbs, a highly metaphorical book. Genesis gives no indication of anything other than a historical account.

Apparently the writers of the Bible, saw the "tree of life" as symbolic for them to use it throughout out like such, and it seems to me, that it is a fool's errand to assume it otherwise.

Just because it can symbolize something else doesn't automatically make it not real.

The tree of life is something more than bark and leaves, and to teach men otherwise is wrong.

Well, I guess it's a good thing I've never taken the position that the tree of life is nothing more than bark and leaves.

 

[theIdi0t]

The rest of Scripture is fine as long as you don't ignore the context of what you're looking at.
Outside of Genesis, every reference you've given to the (Proverbs isn't even "the", it's "a") tree of life is either from Revelation, a vision, or from Proverbs, a highly metaphorical book. Genesis gives no indication of anything other than a historical account.

What are you talking about that Genesis gives nothing other than a historical account? I can see that it's is allegorical, with the same deal of reasoning, that I can see the "tree of life" in other portions as allegorical. Do you see a single reference outside of Genesis that leads you to believe the "tree of life" is literal?

"When he expelled the man, he settled him east of the garden of Eden; and he stationed the cherubim and the fiery revolving sword, to guard the way to the tree of life."

Revelations uses the same imagery of a city beyond a gate, with the tree of life. Who are you fooling here to tell us that one is literal and the other is allegorical?

Just because you claim that Genesis is historical, does not make it so, that is not what the Bible tells me, that is what man tells me. Just because a man cannot figure out what is being said in Genesis, this don't give me the liberty to be as God and say it's historical, to prevent the pursuit of meaning.

And for your brothers here, who say that there is something ungodly about viewing the account as allegorical, and that cower away when that position is questioned, that is revolting. Because to accuse me of doing something ungodly, means that I am ungodly myself, and I don't even mind if one says so, but he better be prepared to defend his position.

I have no patience for men who can't see, who tell me that I should be as blind as them.

 

[HypnoToad]

this don't give me the liberty to be as God and say it's historical, to prevent the pursuit of meaning

Why do you persist with this strawman - that "historical" means it can't have any deeper meaning with it??

 

[theIdi0t]

Why do you persist with this strawman - that "historical" means it can't have any deeper meaning with it??

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.

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.

You see how obscure and convoluted the other passages become when seen as literal. 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.