The "Tree of Life"

[Numenor]

Who said Adam and Eve were perfect? Had they been perfect, then they wouldn't have sinned.

Read further up this page, Delta One says they were in a 'perfect sinless state'. I hear YEC say all the time that Adam and Eve were perfect ie. without sin.

Besides, you are going to be hard pressed to find someone that believes the Creation account is all "strictly literal".

That's not very consistent is it? I thought Genesis was supposed to be literal history.

 

[Remus]

Read further up this page, Delta One says they were in a 'perfect sinless state'. I hear YEC say all the time that Adam and Eve were perfect ie. without sin.

Your making the same mistake with this that you are with "literal". Adam and Eve were in a 'perfect sinless state', but this does not mean they were perfect. It simply means that they had not sinned. As I pointed out, had they been perfect, they would not have sinned. Contrast this with Jesus; He was perfect and thus He did not sin.

That's not very consistent is it? I thought Genesis was supposed to be literal history.

I see no inconsistency. The use of symbolism doesn't mean it isn't "literal history". To say it another way, by saying something is "literal history" doesn't mean every detail of the story is to be taken literally. I’ve used the breath of life as a good example in the past. It is not common opinion that God actually performed some kind of CPR on Adam.

 

[Vance]

I see no inconsistency. The use of symbolism doesn't mean it isn't "literal history". To say it another way, by saying something is "literal history" doesn't mean every detail of the story is to be taken literally. I’ve used the breath of life as a good example in the past. It is not common opinion that God actually performed some kind of CPR on Adam.

Exactly! Great job!

Now if the trees can be symbols and breathing figurative, why not the "days" motif?

Many (probably most) TE's agree with your statement above 100%. Literal events being told to us using figurative language. I believe that the creation story is telling us about literal history, but telling us about that literal history using non-literal language.

The difference between us is not literal or non-literal, but simply the degree to which literal language was used and figurative language was used.

I wonder what your fellow YEC's think about your position that the Tree is a symbol, and not literal. If they were consistent, they would say that you have one foot on that slippery slope!

 

[Remus]

Exactly! Great job!

Gee, my life is fulfilled now.

Now if the trees can be symbols and breathing figurative, why not the "days" motif?

I don't believe that the "days" have to be a literal 24-hour periods. However, to be consistent with other passages in the Bible, they do have to be 6 distinct steps of Creation.

The difference between us is not literal or non-literal, but simply the degree to which literal language was used and figurative language was used.

True, but the bigger difference is what we use to determine what is literal and what isn't.

I wonder what your fellow YEC's think about your position that the Tree is a symbol, and not literal. If they were consistent, they would say that you have one foot on that slippery slope!

You don't understand the position.

 

[SBG]

SBG, what you said doesn't fit with a literal reading of Genesis. Eating of the tree of Life meant you would live forever, why was it in the garden if Adam and Eve were perfect and never going to die in their pre-fallen state?

In Genesis 3 we find prophecy. In Genesis 1-11 we do find figurative pieces, but because we do, do we make every piece of it a myth then? No.

Because we find Jesus speaking in parables, do we make everything Jesus said to be a parable, therefore not literally true? No.

Those who want to understand the Bible must learn to rightly divide God's Word.

Now, do you think the tree itself contained eternal life? Or do you think only God gives that?

It is my belief that the trees were literal trees but represent choices. Adam and Eve could have ate of the Tree of Life before they sinned. There is no recording of it, but it is possible. The Tree of Life itself is a representative of God's Gift.

Do you think during communion, you are actually receiving forgiveness within the bread and wine? That the wine and the bread itself contain forgiveness? Or do you think that it is Jesus who is showing you through a personal way that He has forgiven you?

I think Adam and Eve were originally created to live forever. I don't think the Tree of Life was giving them eternal life by them eating it. It was rather a representation of their choice they make. Just as when they ate of the Tree of Knowledge they made their choice to disobey God. That was their sin, not the eating of the fruit, but the fact that they disobeyed God. God said don't eat it, they did it anyways.

Is that clearer for you to understand my position?

 

[Vance]

Remus, SBG and many other YEC's believe that the tree must be a literal tree, and your concession that it could be something other than 24-hour days would bother some as well. But regardless, I am still bothered by your statement that they "have to be" six distinct steps. While I agree that this is a possibility (since anything is possible with God), I don't see the text of ANY Scripture requiring it, and your use of the "have to" in regards non-salvation issues seems unecessarily dogmatic.

As for how we determine what is literal, are you saying that you would still be considering the idea that the "days" may not be 24-hour periods if it were not for the problems with a "young earth" in nature?

For me, I use every piece of evidence God has given me to determine the most likely reading of each Scripture. Why would anyone NOT use all the evidence?

 

[SBG]

I don't believe I said the Tree of Life must be a literal tree.

 

[Remus]

Remus, SBG and many other YEC's believe that the tree must be a literal tree, and your concession that it could be something other than 24-hour days would bother some as well.

Do they? I haven't seen it. I've seen SBG say that it could be a literal tree, which he is right in saying so. Either way, I don't form my opinions based on what others would think of me. No offence intended of course.

But regardless, I am still bothered by your statement that they "have to be" six distinct steps. While I agree that this is a possibility (since anything is possible with God), I don't see the text of ANY Scripture requiring it, and your use of the "have to" in regards non-salvation issues seems unecessarily dogmatic.

As I said "to be consistent with other passages in the Bible". In your free reading of the Bible, you don't have that opinion and it is your free reading that is the "slippery-slop" as you call it.

As for how we determine what is literal, are you saying that you would still be considering the idea that the "days" may not be 24-hour periods if it were not for the problems with a "young earth" in nature?

huh? I've stated before that I believe the age of the earth is a minor issue. Is that the question you are asking?

For me, I use every piece of evidence God has given me to determine the most likely reading of each Scripture. Why would anyone NOT use all the evidence?

When "evidence" contradicts, then something has to take precedence over the other. To me, that's the Bible. And yes, I know, you don't see any contradiction.

 

[Vance]

But I don't have a "free" reading of the Bible. I have a reading of the Bible that I believe is the proper reading based on sound hermeneutical principals and the guiding of the Spirit. This is no more of a "free" reading of Scripture than your reading is.

You say that your determination is based on Scripture when there seems to be a conflict with nature. Although you wish to relegate the age of the earth to a minor issue, you still have made it clear that the evidence points to an old earth. You also are willing to accept the six "days" as six distinct periods of time, but not necessarily six 24-hour days. My point is that your willingness to accept that it might not be 24 hour days is influenced by the fact that the evidence points to a young earth, is it not?

 

[SBG]

But I don't have a "free" reading of the Bible. I have a reading of the Bible that I believe is the proper reading based on sound hermeneutical principals and the guiding of the Spirit. This is no more of a "free" reading of Scripture than your reading is.

You say that your determination is based on Scripture when there seems to be a conflict with nature. Although you wish to relegate the age of the earth to a minor issue, you still have made it clear that the evidence points to an old earth. You also are willing to accept the six "days" as six distinct periods of time, but not necessarily six 24-hour days. My point is that your willingness to accept that it might not be 24 hour days is influenced by the fact that the evidence points to a young earth, is it not?

Actually I think it is his honesty that says it may not be a 24 hour period.

I do like how you phrased that the evidence points to a young earth. I think you are being converted and you don't even know it!

 

[Remus]

Actually I think it is his honesty that says it may not be a 24 hour period.

It is as SBG says. I freely admit that the length of the "days" is not necessarily clear.

I do like how you phrased that the evidence points to a young earth. I think you are being converted and you don't even know it!

LOL

 

[Vance]

So, on the one hand you have indicated that the evidence points to an old earth. And, at the same time, you have indicated that the "days" may not be 24-hour, but possibly longer periods. And you are honestly saying that the first did not influence the second?

Most OEC's (those who accept that the "days" could be long periods, and that the earth could thus be old) freely admit that the overwhelming evidence from nature influenced this willingness to consider the "days" issue as being less than dogmatically settled.

Now, if you say no, that you reached that conclusion on the "days" issue without any influence from the scientific evidence, that is perfectly fine by me. But I should warn you that SBG called me a liar ("dishonest") when I said that I had reached my conclusion regarding a figurative reading of Scripture without influence from science. But I am sure he would not apply the same to you.

 

[Remus]

Wow, your post is loaded with spin.

And you are honestly saying that the first did not influence the second?

I didn't say this. I never said that we should not consider any outside influences.

Most OEC's (those who accept that the "days" could be long periods, and that the earth could thus be old) freely admit that the overwhelming evidence from nature influenced this willingness to consider the "days" issue as being less than dogmatically settled.

I belive that I indicated a "willingness to consider the "days" issue as being less than dogmatically settled."

Now, if you say no, that you reached that conclusion on the "days" issue without any influence from the scientific evidence, that is perfectly fine by me.

I think you mean if I say "yes".

But I should warn you that SBG called me a liar ("dishonest") when I said that I had reached my conclusion regarding a figurative reading of Scripture without influence from science. But I am sure he would not apply the same to you.

Is this how it happened or is this more of your spin? I tend to believe that there was more to this than what you are indicating.

 

[Vance]

Remus, you have heard my history, and how I came to conclude that the Creation accounts were not meant to be read literally based on history, literary analysis and comparative Scriptural exegesis. Eventually, SBG told me that I was not being honest about this.

So, are you saying that you believe that we should allow the evidence of nature to influence our reading of Scripture to some extent? It seems very much as if this is what you are doing with your willingness to consider that the "days" could include longer periods than 24 hours, but on the other hand you seem to be saying that this is not appropriate.

It would be easier, really, if you just told us what your hermenuetical approach was, because I keep getting confused by where you are coming from. When do you let nature inform your reading of Scripture, if ever? How do you determine when something is meant to be read figuratively?

 

[Remus]

Generally speaking, when a part of Scripture is unclear and there is no other Scripture to clarify, then we can look to other sources. Something should be read figuratively when the context indicates and when other Scripture doesn’t indicate otherwise.

 

[Vance]

Generally speaking, when a part of Scripture is unclear and there is no other Scripture to clarify, then we can look to other sources. Something should be read figuratively when the context indicates and when other Scripture doesn’t indicate otherwise.

I agree with this completely, and follow it myself. The only thing different for most TE's however, is that we are willing to also allow that clarification to come from God's creation as well as other Scripture. While that is not necessary for me in the Creation accounts, I fully accept it as a valid hermenuetics.

The issue immediately arises, of course, in the fact that the "other Scripture" is also being interpreted by fallible humans (ourselves), and so on issues that are not salvation issues, we rarely have an absolute answer from Scripture on the proper interpretation of other Scripture.

The other issues that YEC's often raise is whether a Scripture is unclear. YEC's on this forum have said that the Creation and Garden accounts are NOT unclear, for example (contrary to Augustine's view), so they would see no need to look to other sources. How many times have we heard the mantra "since it is clear . . .", or more subtly "since the Bible says . . .", which is saying the same thing.

But just so I can be clear in seeing how you apply this standard to the Creation accounts. You think it is unclear what "days" mean, and you do not find any requirement in Scripture that it be 24-hour periods, so you are willing to look to outside sources to see what it means. To the extent the evidence points to an old earth, you are then willing to accept that the "days" may be very long periods of time. However, since you believe that there is Scripture requiring that it be six distinct periods, you hold to the the idea that the "days" are not a literary framework, but literal periods. Would that be about right?

As for the figurative language, I agree completely. We should look at the context. Would you say this should include the context of the time and culture within which the text was written? What contextual issues leads you conclude the tree is meant to be figurative, but not the Garden as a whole? Or the "breathing" is meant to be figurative, but special creation "out of dust" is not meant to be figurative?

It sounds like you reject the idea that we should assume a text is meant to be literal unless it is clear that it is figurative. Is that correct?

 

[SBG]

I would agree that usage of day in Genesis 1-2 is not perfectly clear to mean 24 hour day. That being said, one can look to the context next to see how day is used to see if it becomes clearer. Since Genesis 1 uses 'evening and morning' this helps us better understand what the author was using day to mean.

This is the idea of letting Scripture interpret Scripture.

 

[Remus]

But just so I can be clear in seeing how you apply this standard to the Creation accounts. You think it is unclear what "days" mean, and you do not find any requirement in Scripture that it be 24-hour periods, so you are willing to look to outside sources to see what it means.

I believe that the words that I used were "not necessarily clear", meaning that there is some room for interpretation. After all, I still am YEC.

To the extent the evidence points to an old earth, you are then willing to accept that the "days" may be very long periods of time.

It's possible. It's also possible that they could be very short periods of time.

However, since you believe that there is Scripture requiring that it be six distinct periods, you hold to the the idea that the "days" are not a literary framework, but literal periods. Would that be about right?

I think this part is accurate.

As for the figurative language, I agree completely. We should look at the context. Would you say this should include the context of the time and culture within which the text was written?

To a certain degree perhaps.

What contextual issues leads you conclude the tree is meant to be figurative, but not the Garden as a whole? Or the "breathing" is meant to be figurative, but special creation "out of dust" is not meant to be figurative?

None. It is pure speculation on my part.

It sounds like you reject the idea that we should assume a text is meant to be literal unless it is clear that it is figurative. Is that correct?

"Reject" is such a strong word. I believe that the Scripture should be read in Its natural form based on the context and other Scripture.

 

[Vance]

1. "Not necessarily clear" is good enough since it avoids dogmatic statements like "since it is clear that . . ." What even this concession means is that we have to study and learn and determine what Scripture says. It is not always obvious.

2. On the time issue, the relevant words were "to the extent the evidence points . . .". I did not say that you had concluded one way or the other, but you seem willing to accept an old earth if the evidence truly points that way. Other YEC's here have conceded that the evidence does, indeed, point strongly in that direction, but refuse to consider an old earth possible because of their interpretation of Scripture. In other threads, you have indicated that the evidence does seem to point to an old earth, but you seem willing, at least in theory, to let this inform your reading of Scripture to some extent. That is miles ahead of your fellow YEC's.

3. I am glad you are willing to consider the culture and literary styles of those who first told and wrote the accounts, even if only "to a certain degree". Any reason for such a limitation, though?

4. Why would you hold a belief merely on speculation? You have said on more than one occasion that you believe the tree is figurative, or symbolic, and the breathing is descriptive figurative language. I don't see you as sloppy enough in your exegesis as to not have a reason for such conclusions. There must be some reason for these positions.

5. OK, forget the word reject. Do you think the hermenuetics which insists that texts should be read literally unless there is a specific reason to read it figuratively is correct? In other words, do you accept the idea that you should start with default of literal, and only move to a figurative reading when it is the clear intent?

In other words, do you agree that we should approach the Creation accounts with no presumption of literalness whatsoever, but be EQUALLY willing to read it either literally or figuratively, depending on the context, other Scripture, nature itself and cultural/literary setting?

 

[Remus]

That is miles ahead of your fellow YEC's.

I’m going to let you in on a little secret Vance. If you and other TE’s weren’t ready to pounce on the first YEC that looks like you can make look wrong, then you might have a chance to discuss these issues without putting them on the defensive.

3. I am glad you are willing to consider the culture and literary styles of those who first told and wrote the accounts, even if only "to a certain degree". Any reason for such a limitation, though?

To make it harder for you to spin into something different later on.

4. Why would you hold a belief merely on speculation? You have said on more than one occasion that you believe the tree is figurative, or symbolic, and the breathing is descriptive figurative language. I don't see you as sloppy enough in your exegesis as to not have a reason for such conclusions. There must be some reason for these positions.

The Bible is largely silent on the issue of the Tree. The only other reference is in Revelations, and it’s clear that it’s not referring to a literal tree. Additionally, it doesn’t make sense to me that eating some fruit would provide some additional knowledge. Compare this to the garden; I have no reason to believe that it wasn’t a literal garden.

The “breathing” verse is commonly understood to mean God placing the soul into the body that He formed. I don’t know what “formed of the dust” would mean figuratively. I would think even TE’s would take this part literally.

5. OK, forget the word reject. Do you think the hermenuetics which insists that texts should be read literally unless there is a specific reason to read it figuratively is correct? In other words, do you accept the idea that you should start with default of literal, and only move to a figurative reading when it is the clear intent?

No

In other words, do you agree that we should approach the Creation accounts with no presumption of literalness whatsoever, but be EQUALLY willing to read it either literally or figuratively, depending on the context, other Scripture, nature itself and cultural/literary setting?

I believe that all Scripture should be approached with no assumptions either way.