Tree of Life and Adam & Eve

[SBG]

I would like to start off with gluady's post that was in another thread:

As I read Gen. 3:22 it would appear that this was not the case. Otherwise, it wouldn't matter if they ate the fruit of the tree of life after the fall, because God could still take away the effect. As written, Gen. 3:22 implies the gift of life from the tree of life is permanent and cannot be taken away. Hence the preventive measures.

Now what do you think happens if Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of Life?

Why do you feel Genesis is clear in showing Adam and Eve didn't eat of the Tree of Life?

Now, I would like to present bdfoster's post from another thread. First, I would like to say to anyone reading this that bdfoster didn't intend any disrespect to me in writing this nor did he mean this as being rude. Please don't read it that way, thanks!

could not be more clear without actually saying the exact words "they did not eat of it". What do you think, God was afraid Adam would eat from the tree AGAIN??? That is absurd! If there were no concequences to eating it the first time why would there be a second time??? The phrase "they did not eat of it" is not necessary to know with absolute certantity that they did not eat of it. If you can read that passage and still think that maybe Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life you might as well say black is white.

Why do you feel Genesis is clear in stating that Adam and Eve didn't eat of the Tree of Life? What would happen if they did eat of it?

I will answer your questions in the order of which you asked them, bdfoster:

• I don't think God was afraid of Adam in the slightest. Why would He be?
• I think you might be getting the Trees there confused with the question or I just don't understand what you are stating? I am not sure why there would be a consequence for Adam and Eve eating of the Tree of Life if God gave it to them to eat. I guess I am just not understanding what you are saying with this question.
• If the Bible doesn't say they didn't eat of the Tree of Life, how can you be so certain they did not eat of it?
• I think stating that it is absolutely certain of something that isn't written is making a speculative thought. Nothing wrong with that, but you cannot absolutely be certain it is truth.
  

Maybe some of you who do believe Adam and Eve didn't eat of the Tree of LIfe and are certain of it by what the Bible says, can explain to me why you can see this, but cannot believe it when the Bible actually says something, such as six day creation??

 

[gluadys]

I would like to start off with gluady's post that was in another thread:

As I read Gen. 3:22 it would appear that this was not the case. Otherwise, it wouldn't matter if they ate the fruit of the tree of life after the fall, because God could still take away the effect. As written, Gen. 3:22 implies the gift of life from the tree of life is permanent and cannot be taken away. Hence the preventive measures.

Now what do you think happens if Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of Life?

Why do you feel Genesis is clear in showing Adam and Eve didn't eat of the Tree of Life?

The Tree of Life is an image of eternal life, so when they ate of it they would have eternal life. This I take from Gen. 3:22 where God says "...he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever....

We can begin with the word "also" in the phrase above. If Adam had already eaten from the Tree of Life, he had already "also" eaten from it. But God seems to be indicating here that Adam had not yet "also" eaten from the Tree of Life, but might do so in the future.

Again, if the Tree of Life gives eternal life, then the fact that Adam did not have eternal life indicates he had not eaten from the Tree of Life.

Finally, we need to look at the first part of the verse. It is one of several in which God addresses the heavenly court and so speaks in the first person plural. In effect, he says to the council "We have a problem. The man has eaten from the tree of knowledge and become like one of us, knowing good and evil." And the problem is not only that the man has become like one of the heavenly beings. The problem is also that if he reaches out his hand and also eats from the Tree of Life, he will live forever---again like one of the heavenly beings.

It would seem as though God and the heavenly beings of his court (the bible sometimes calls them "gods" also, and sometimes calls them "angels") are distinguished from humans by two qualities: knowledge and eternal life. These are represented as being accessible by eating the fruit of their respective trees in the garden. And the implication, both from the story of the fall, and from this passage, is that once the fruit of the tree is tasted and its gift received--the gift cannot be taken away again.

Knowledge (apart from the tree of life) brings death, but the knowledge still remains.

And the gift of the tree of life seems also to be irrevocable. Doesn't it say something of like nature elsewhere in scripture? Yes, Romans 11:29

So the fact that Adam is not already gifted with eternal life is a pretty clear indication to me that he had not yet eaten from the tree of life.

Maybe some of you who do believe Adam and Eve didn't eat of the Tree of LIfe and are certain of it by what the Bible says, can explain to me why you can see this, but cannot believe it when the Bible actually says something, such as six day creation??

Ah, but I don't take this story literally either. I don't believe there was ever a real couple named Adam and Eve living in a garden with two magical trees who encountered a talking snake. No way. (with all due respect to my fellow TEs who do believe that Adam & Eve are literal.)

Now, I do believe the story is a very profound analysis of human psychology, and that its theology is equally profound. But for me, as a text, it is a piece of literature and it is as literature that I am interpreting it, just as I interpret Genesis 1.

 

[SBG]

Hey, can I ask why yec didn't get a with all due respect? And actually, that last quote you quoted of me was directed at bdfoster, since I know you don't take this Genesis account as literal.

You see, I have read that Vance believed that the Tree of Life was to be eaten daily to sustain an eternal life. Notice too the text doesn't tell us which that it is the assumption made of the reader that comes to this realization.

What fascinates me is that one can come to this realization without the text saying it and yet dismiss what the text actually says. And of course this is related to those who believe there was a real Adam and Eve.

Sometimes I wish there was some forgiveness on this forum because it seems almost like there is not 1 te who agrees with another on all aspects of Genesis. A yec is bound to misrepresent someone on here because of this and we are pounded constantly for doing so.

 

[gluadys]

Hey, can I ask why yec didn't get a with all due respect?

Sorry. It doesn't imply disrespect. I just didn't want to imply that my POV was necessarily shared by other TEs.

And actually, that last quote you quoted of me was directed at bdfoster, since I know you don't take this Genesis account as literal.

Ok.

You see, I have read that Vance believed that the Tree of Life was to be eaten daily to sustain an eternal life. Notice too the text doesn't tell us which that it is the assumption made of the reader that comes to this realization.

Yes, I have heard that interpretation too. Of course, it also assumes that Adam & Eve were in the garden for a minimum of 24 hours.

What fascinates me is that one can come to this realization without the text saying it and yet dismiss what the text actually says.

Are you saying that I am dismissing what the text actually says? If so, show me where.

Sometimes I wish there was some forgiveness on this forum because it seems almost like there is not 1 te who agrees with another on all aspects of Genesis. A yec is bound to misrepresent someone on here because of this and we are pounded constantly for doing so.

Good idea. Both ways. YECs are as variable in their beliefs as TEs are, and we cannot possibly make what we think is a general statement without someone saying "But that's not what I think/believe."

 

[Vance]

I am not sure where you got that idea, but I never said that the tree of life had to be eaten daily, and I certainly don't believe that.

What I have said is that IF there was a literal Adam and Eve, and IF there was a literal Garden, and IF the story is actually meant to be read as literal history (none of which I think is likely), then it is still not necessary to believe that Adam and Eve were created as immortal. God could have created them as mortal (as the rest of his creation), or could have chosen them from among Mankind, etc (noting the many possiblities here) and gave them the opportunity to eat of the Tree of Life as a means of gaining eternal life in the Garden. Once would be sufficient, I would think.

 

[theywhosowintears]

Gen 2:9
And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground-trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

and then

Revelation
7He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.

Rev 22
*1Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 3No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. 4They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 5There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.


14“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.

Does the tree of life have to be on earth? we see that it will be in heaven...

anyhow later days...I will think this idea over.

ciao