Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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
Can we? That would be awesome, especially since it's what I just said!Let just go ahead and say, you think it's literal.
Right. That's correct. I also just said I think it's literal.
My initial stance is literal for both.
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
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.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?
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
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.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.
Yes correct.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?
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.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.
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
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Well spotted with the iron teeth!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:
.
The number is literal..?However, in Revelation, there is no doubt that there are concrete, literal figures. Like the keragma, or number of the beast.
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.Or the mountain that falls into the sea. There are definite Churches in Ephesus, Philadelphia, etc., though they are also symbolic.
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...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.
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.
You quote all from Proverbs, why wouldn't we expect metaphors all over the place?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?
The rest of Scripture is fine as long as you don't ignore the context of what you're looking at.But what better pointers are there than the rest of scripture?
Just because it can symbolize something else doesn't automatically make it not real.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.
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.The tree of life is something more than bark and leaves, and to teach men otherwise is wrong.
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.
Why do you persist with this strawman - that "historical" means it can't have any deeper meaning with it??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??
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?