The "Tree of Life"

[Delta One]

As SBG points out (although I firmly believe that "day" is very well and clearly defined the first time it is used in Genesis 1:5: Evening passed and morning came - that was the first day):

... 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.

The fact that the above with a day number (e.g. 1, 2, 3, ..., 6) after it basically is the last nail in the coffin of day-age theorists. Also, if "evening" and "morning" don't mean exactly that, what do they mean and symbolize?

If something as clear and plain as the determination of "a day" in Genesis does not mean what it says, then if you were God and you are trying to tell people through written word that you created everything in six days how would you go about doing it?

 

[JohnR7]

What do you suppose the purpose was for a 'tree of life' in the Garden of Eden if man was never going to die anyway?

Adam and Eve had the same choice we all have today. They could choose life or they could choose death. Eve was deceived, Adam followed Eve and they choice they made was death. Now, we have the example they left for us, so how much more will we be without excuse if we do not choose life?

 

[Numenor]

Adam and Eve had the same choice we all have today. They could choose life or they could choose death. Eve was deceived, Adam followed Eve and they choice they made was death. Now, we have the example they left for us, so how much more will we be without excuse if we do not choose life?

I think you're in the wrong thread or something because what you said doesn't really answer my question. I wasn't talking about the nature of the choice they made, I was talking about the purpose of the 'Tree of Life', you see?

 

[Vance]

" If something as clear and plain as the determination of "a day" in Genesis does not mean what it says, then if you were God and you are trying to tell people through written word that you created everything in six days how would you go about doing it?"

Well, that is assuming that God is trying to tell us He created it in six days. If He was trying to tell us that, He might have done in a way that does not contain a poetic literary framework, for one thing. But the important thing is that if He DIDN'T create it six 24-hour periods, it is very likely that He would have used the language that He did. That is the point. The language may sound clear to you, and I agree that the "day" being referred to is, indeed, a reference to a 24-hour period, but that does not mean God actually created in six 24-hour periods. If the entire passage is figurative for a greater process, then his choice to describe it in "days" would be like a poet describing a family using a "tree". The poet uses the actual word for a "leaf and bark" tree, and may refer to its "growing" and many phrases that are appropriate only to trees, and he would like you to keep that image of a tree in your mind when thinking about the family, and he would even want you to talk about the family by reference to the tree. But he does want you to realize that he is not actually talking about a literal tree.

 

[Delta One]

Hi Vance,

I asked you: "If something as clear and plain as the determination of "a day" in Genesis does not mean what it says, then if you were God and you are trying to tell people through written word that you created everything in six days how would you go about doing it?"

You clearly evaded my question and did not answer it sufficiently. If you were God trying to convey to everyone that you created in six literal days, Earth Standard Time, how would you do it? For now forget about everything else and just try and answer the question, please.

Well, that is assuming that God is trying to tell us He created it in six days. If He was trying to tell us that, He might have done in a way that does not contain a poetic literary framework, for one thing.

Forgive me, but what is poetic about "evening passed, morning came - the 'nth' day"?

But the important thing is that if He DIDN'T create it six 24-hour periods, it is very likely that He would have used the language that He did.

If not, why then did He use the words 'evening' and 'morning' and a day number? This is just what I can't quite comprehend.

The language may sound clear to you, and I agree that the "day" being referred to is, indeed, a reference to a 24-hour period, but that does not mean God actually created in six 24-hour periods.

You'll have to reiterate this, if you wouldn't mind, because I'm not quite sure that I'm following. Either God was referring to a 24 hour day period, or He wasn't. God said that He created everything in six days though (e.g. Exodus 20:11) and if you are to assume that the day is refrring to a 24 hour day period then God must have created in six literal days. Saying that God created in 'six indefinite periods of time' (which is the only other meaning for the word 'yom') then thate makes even less sense! Basically, to accept evolutionary ages, you must totally ignore the clear and authorative words of the Scriptures.

If the entire passage is figurative for a greater process, then his choice to describe it in "days" would be like a poet describing a family using a "tree".

That takes skill to describe a family using a 'tree'. The only problem that I really have with this whole thing is that there is no evidence of any figurative verses in Genesis' description of our origin (if so, please list some).

But he does want you to realize that he is not actually talking about a literal tree.

It's interesting that Genesis isn't the only place in which the tree of life is mentioned. In Revelation 22:2 we also read about the tree of life. If it was just figurative in Genesis 2, is it figurative in Revelation 22? It's interesting that after Adam's sin, God blocked their access to the tree of life because He didn't want them to live forever. How can you block access to a figurative description? God clearly says:

Then the LORD God said, "Now the man has become like one of us and has knkowledge of what is good and what is bad. He must not be allowed to take fruit from the tree that gives life, eat it, and live forever." So the LORD God sent him out of the Garden of Eden and made him cultivate the soil from which he had been formed. Then at the east side of the garden He put living creatures and a flaming sword which turned in all directions. This was to keep anyone from coming near the tree that gives life. (Genesis 3:22-24).

I've got a question, if it's just figurative, i.e. never existed, why was God so worried about man getting to it and why did He take the liberty of preventing man from getting to it? To me, that just doesn't make sense.

In the new heaven and new earth we have been given access to this tree of life.

 

[Vance]

Delta:

I was not avoiding the question, I was pointing out why the question does not mean anything. If God was trying to tell us that He created the universe in six 24-hour periods, He could have done it hundreds of different ways, including the way the Genesis was written, I suppose. But that proves nothing because the way it WAS written is also the way He could have written it if He DIDN'T create it in six 24-hour periods. We have the text, and we have two possible interpretations. Our job is to determine, using all the evidence at our disposal, which of the two (or more) is the correct one.

The whole "evening and morning" motif is very poetic in its repetitive refrain, which was very common in oral stories, since it helped with memorization and dramatic effect. Moreover, the whole "days" motif fits the framework theory. Have you read up on that? That explains why He would write it exactly as He did even if He created over billions of years.

Remember, I do not advocate a "day-age" view in which "day" means some indefinite period of time. I think the word day is actually referring to a 24-hour period (or 12-hour as some Hebrew scholars have indicated). This does NOT mean that it must mean that God created in six 24-hour periods, though. I think the entire account is figurative for the entire process, which did not happen in six periods at all. The entire account is a figurative account, providing a framework for description, that is all.

I think you are confusing my reference to the "tree" analogy with the "tree of life" discussion elsewhere. I am simply pointing out how an author can describe something, an event, a process, a group of people, etc, using a symbol, using typology, etc. If a poet wanted to describe a family using a "tree", then they would use the actual word for "tree" in their account. This does not mean they are writing about a tree. The family is real, however, it is not just a fable or something made up. The author is just using a powerful and evocative method of telling about that family.

The creation over a period of days is just that: a powerful and evocative way of describing what His creative process. It need not have anything to do with the exact HOW and WHEN of creation.

As for figurative language, how about "breathing" for one?

 

[SBG]

So basically, if God was to tell mankind that He did create in six literal days, it would could have been written exactly how Genesis states it?

Interesting....

 

[LewisWildermuth]

So basically, if God was to tell mankind that He did create in six literal days, it would could have been written exactly how Genesis states it?

Interesting....

No one is arguing that God could not have done something, God could have created in six days, six seconds, instantly or whatever He chose to do. After all is it not written that with God all things are possible? We are arguing that it does not look like God created in six days. If God did create in six days I would be interested in what processes He used that made it look like He did not create in six days and why He would choose to use processes that would cause so much confusion about how He did create.



If someone baked you a cake and said it just came out of the oven, but it looked like that cake was a million years old would you not be curious if the cake was the age it looked or the age stated and why such a drastic difference between the two?

 

[Vance]

If God had actually created in six 24 hour periods, He could have written it any way He liked, including a literal historical narrative, since that IS a literary style of writing no matter how unlikely it is that God would have used that particular style. If he had used that literary genre, however, I would not expect to see the poetic styles, the language common to typology and symbology, etc. In short, if He had actually created in six 24 hour periods, He could have written it in many different literary styles, but if He had chosen strict literal historical narrative, it could look like what we have, but I would think that it would look a lot more LIKE A STRICT HISTORICAL NARRATIVE, and less like a figurative one in style.

The bottom line is that the style it is actually written in is that used when one is writing a figurative account with typology and symbology. And this, as I have shown, is exactly how people in the ANE cultures told stories about their past that they considered true and real.

So, why not read it that way. Why make any presumption of literalness at all? Why not just take the text the way it is written, the way it almost assuredly meant to be read, rather than imposing our modern preferences and assumptions of literalness?

 

[SBG]

The bottom line is that the style it is actually written in is that used when one is writing a figurative account with typology and symbology. And this, as I have shown, is exactly how people in the ANE cultures told stories about their past that they considered true and real.

So, why not read it that way. Why make any presumption of literalness at all? Why not just take the text the way it is written, the way it almost assuredly meant to be read, rather than imposing our modern preferences and assumptions of literalness?

Now I better understand you Vance! You don't take the presupposition of a literal historical narrative when reading Genesis. You take the presupposition of a figurative myth when reading Genesis.

So there it is, even in your own words above, you too have a presupposition, and that is a figurative myth.

 

[Delta One]

Hi Vance,

It is obvious that this is going nowhere so I'll try one last time.

I was not avoiding the question, I was pointing out why the question does not mean anything.

For one, I wasn't asking how else God could have written it, I asked that if you were God creating everything in six days, "How would you write it down such that no one can argue it's validity and question its meaning?".

If God was trying to tell us that He created the universe in six 24-hour periods, He could have done it hundreds of different ways, including the way the Genesis was written, I suppose. But that proves nothing because the way it WAS written is also the way He could have written it if He DIDN'T create it in six 24-hour periods. We have the text, and we have two possible interpretations. Our job is to determine, using all the evidence at our disposal, which of the two (or more) is the correct one.

It's pretty obvious that science can't tell us in how many days God made the Earth because to do so would require enormous amount of assumptions - which would probably go under the guise of 'circular reasoning', which proves nothing in this debate. For example, we can't observe the origin of the universe, we can't experiment on the circumstances back then (because we don't know what they were) and we finally cannot repeat history. That leaves us in a 'spot of bother'. We can try and do experiments that relate to the past, but since we don't know everything, assumptions would have to be made to fill in the unknowns. The evidence is also open to interpretation and makes just as much sense in the creationary interpretation as it does the evolutionary interpretation.

The most obvious way is to examine the theological consequences of the two interpretations and this is where we see that evolution is at heads with what the rest of the Bible says - not to mention the order of creation. There was another topic, I think it was in the 'Consequences of creation' thread where I commented further on this.

At least you're understanding the idea of duel interpretations as it relates to the Bible, what do you think about the interpretation idea as it relates to the creation/evolution debate??

The whole "evening and morning" motif is very poetic in its repetitive refrain, which was very common in oral stories, since it helped with memorization and dramatic effect.

It's only repeated because it marks the start and end of God's working day. When this is followed by a number it means that God worked from morning to evening for 'X' days -- we follow a similar pattern here. We go out and work at the morning and stop working in the afternoon.

Moreover, the whole "days" motif fits the framework theory. Have you read up on that? That explains why He would write it exactly as He did even if He created over billions of years.

I can't say that I've even heard of it. I know TE, OEC (day-age) and I've heard some pretty weird theories that really are just people's own individualistic religious beliefs. I'll have to check it out one time.

Remember, I do not advocate a "day-age" view in which "day" means some indefinite period of time. I think the word day is actually referring to a 24-hour period (or 12-hour as some Hebrew scholars have indicated). This does NOT mean that it must mean that God created in six 24-hour periods, though. I think the entire account is figurative for the entire process, which did not happen in six periods at all. The entire account is a figurative account, providing a framework for description, that is all.

What do you believe about the order of creation then? Is that figurative, if so, how so?

Also, the only reason why God took as long as six days to create everything and rest on the seventh was to set a working pattern for mankind to replicate and follow as Exodus 20:10-12 clearly shows. If God says "work for six days and rest on the seventh by following my example", but if He didn't actually create in six literal days and rest on the seventh, doesn't that make God out to be a liar? There are many such contradictions when one rejects a clear and literal reading of Genesis.

I think you are confusing my reference to the "tree" analogy with the "tree of life" discussion elsewhere. I am simply pointing out how an author can describe something, an event, a process, a group of people, etc, using a symbol, using typology, etc. If a poet wanted to describe a family using a "tree", then they would use the actual word for "tree" in their account. This does not mean they are writing about a tree. The family is real, however, it is not just a fable or something made up. The author is just using a powerful and evocative method of telling about that family.

I understood that, but why should God fear something that is just a metaphor? Firstly, what does the 'tree of life' refer to? Secondly, why didn't God want the man to get to it (I'd hate to go against a flaming sword)? Thirdly, is the flaming sword figurative? If so, what is it refering to? If not, why not? TE interpretations who claim figurative language actually create more questions then what they can answer.

The creation over a period of days is just that: a powerful and evocative way of describing what His creative process. It need not have anything to do with the exact HOW and WHEN of creation.

Actually, the creation account without the days would be 'just that': a powerful and evocative way of describing what His creative process[es were]. If that is all that God wanted to do, then he would not have included a 'day number' that indicates it took 'X' amount of days. God is supposedly logical, but to do as you suggest would be illogical!

As for figurative language, how about "breathing" for one?

God walked in the garden didn't He? Remember, that God is a triune being: God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit. I believe that the part of God who 'breathed' life into the man and who crafted him from the ground was God the Son, in other words, our Creator and Saviour Jesus Christ. It was also Jesus Christ who was literally walking through the Garden after Adam sinned. God is the life giving source so Him literally 'blowing life giving breath' into Adam's nostrils for the man to live is not hard to believe.

 

[Hedgehog]

The teachers of Israel taught that the Tree of Life is the Torah (Law):

If they taught that, it doesnt mean it was true.
Israel did not have the Comforter during the time they had Moses law, and its the Comforter/Holy Spirit who reveals Truth.

I believe quite the opposite, I believe the Tree of knowledge of good and evil respresents Moses Law. Paul reveals that the Law pointed out sin. Same thing eating of the Tree of knowldege of good and evil did right?Both make one wise to know what sin is, right?

but the point is why would they need the law pre-fall???

How can one have faith if there is nothing to have faith in?
How can one prove/act on faith( obey) if there is nothing to obey, and "believe" God about?
I believe the original sin had to do with the only thing that matters- having faith.
Had Adam and Eve had faith ( believed God) in what God said would happen- they would not have ate from the tree that they werent suppose to.


I believe the Tree of life and the Tree of knowledge of good and evil were literal.
I believe the earthly, physical things happen, and then later the spiritual matter of it is revealed.
God says He has used the elements of the earth to show people His truths.