Tree of life

Originally posted by jaywill
For a long time I was not whether I should take Genesis chapter 3 as history. But the flow of history from that chapter clearly indicates that it was meant to be taken so.

Cain moved to the [b]east of Eden (Gen.4:16). You cannot move to the east of an existencial place. It must have been a geographic place.

In Genesis history to dispense the divine eternal Person of divine life into our lives.


"

[/b]Cain moved to the east of Eden (Gen.4:16). You cannot move to the east of an existential place. It must have been a geographic place.

You have assumed that “east” must refer to physical, geographical direction in order to show that Gan Eden “must have been” a geographical place? “East” cannot be taken as metaphorical/symbolical? (Note that the Garden was also planted “in the East”; Cain moved, in a sense, East of the East... )

“Must have been”—when did Eden then cease to be an existent geographical place? Is it not still physically there, guarded by the kerubim, who stands guard “at the east of the garden of Eden”? I can find no Biblical reference to the removal or destruction of the original Gan Eden.

And if we take all that physically/geographically, do we assume that God “walked in the garden at the time of the evening breeze”? Or that Adam and Eve could actually hide from God’s physical presence among the trees? (Genesis 3:8).

NOTE: If all of this is your midrash on the text, and the movement of human history—which midrash assumes for itself certain themes of space and time, geography and history—then I withdraw these critical questions. In order to engage it properly, I would have to do some midrash of my own (and it would be neither fun nor profitable if I didn’t come up with something new); and I just don’t want to right now.*

_________________________________

A lot of midrash can be done/has been done on this story. I offer just the following references to “garden” that might be used, in different ways...


NRS Song of Solomon 4:12 A garden locked is my sister, my bride, a garden locked, a fountain sealed. 13 Your channel is an orchard of pomegranates with all choicest fruits, henna with nard, 14 nard and saffron, calamus and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense, myrrh and aloes, with all chief spices-- 15 a garden fountain, a well of living water, and flowing streams from Lebanon. 16 Awake, O north wind, and come, O south wind! Blow upon my garden that its fragrance may be wafted abroad. Let my beloved come to his garden, and eat its choicest fruits.

NRS Isaiah 51:3 For YHVH will comfort Zion; he will comfort all her waste places, and will make her wilderness like Eden, her desert like the garden of YHVH; joy and gladness will be found in her, thanksgiving and the voice of song.

NRS Isaiah 61:11 For as the earth brings forth its shoots, and as a garden causes what is sown in it to spring up, so YHVH GOD will cause righteousness and praise to spring up before all the nations.

NRS Jeremiah 31:12 They shall come and sing aloud on the height of Zion, and they shall be radiant over the goodness of YHVH, over the grain, the wine, and the oil, and over the young of the flock and the herd; their life shall become like a watered garden, and they shall never languish again.

NRS Hosea 14:7 They shall again live beneath my shadow, they shall flourish as a garden; they shall blossom like the vine, their fragrance shall be like the wine of Lebanon.

______________________________________

* EDIT: Sorry, I was conflating your comments here a bit with your "ancient earth" thread...

Originally posted by whodey
I think you miss not having to defend the Biblical stories as literal. After all, on this site it is a full time job to say the least.

And then I might miss defending the sanctity of—story. :'(

You have assumed that “east” must refer to physical, geographical direction in order to show that Gan Eden “must have been” a geographical place? “East” cannot be taken as metaphorical/symbolical? (Note that the Garden was also planted “in the East”; Cain moved, in a sense, East of the East... )

I assure you that I can draw more allegorical significance from Genesis 1 through 3 then you probably can.

Though I account Eden as an actual garden I am not "hyper-literal".

Of COURSE there are many spiritual significances to Genesis 1 through 3 which are more important than us going out hunting in the desert as to where Eden was.

I really don't think I need to defend this view I have any more as a flow of practical history from early Genesis. I really don't think it needs to be argued over.

Only this I would mention - New Testament teaching calls for a FIRST man and a FIRST woman. Adam and Eve is of course suggested. Luke's geneology traces Christ's ancestry back to Adam.

Even in the Old Testament (I think one of the Chronicles) the geneology of man flows from Adam. In other words Adam, in the Bible, is history.

Now it is certain that ADam has allegorical significance as well. How could I miss that from reading the book of Romans?


Your other quotations mentioning Eden, I am happy to receive without any problems. But if you really want to see which of us can out allegoricallize or out symbolize Genesis, I assure you I can more than match you and give you more symbolism than you can probably handle.

Can there be a physical place which is historical which the Bible ALSO uses as symbolism ?

Egypt, Sodom, Canaan, Tyre, Eden, Assyria, Babylon, Jerusalem, ... etc. CLEARLY an actual historical place can ALSO be treated as SYMBOLIC in the Bible.


I want you to have the final word in this post.


NOTE: If all of this is your midrash on the text, and the movement of human history—which midrash assumes for itself certain themes of space and time, geography and history—then I withdraw these critical questions. In order to engage it properly, I would have to do some midrash of my own (and it would be neither fun nor profitable if I didn’t come up with something new); and I just don’t want to right now.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]You have assumed that “east” must refer to physical, geographical direction in order to show that Gan Eden “must have been” a geographical place? “East” cannot be taken as metaphorical/symbolical? (Note that the Garden was also planted “in the East”; Cain moved, in a sense, East of the East... )

I assure you that I can draw more allegorical sig ...[text shortened]... ofitable if I didn’t come up with something new); and I just don’t want to right now. [/b][/b]

Though I account Eden as an actual garden I am not "hyper-literal".

I never thought you were.

I don’t know why you seem to have felt personally attacked by my post. I don’t really know where you’re coming from with this “whose got the biggest allegory” stuff. We have argued before, but I don’t recall ever disrespecting you. If I have, I apologize.

I have done midrash on the Eden story on here before; and I have never claimed more for them than that. Well done or poorly done. Since you find me at fault, apparently, for making any comments without being willing to do another one at this time... Well, so be it.

You apparently think there ought to be conditions set on my making only occasional comments on here, rather than engaging in full-blown debate—or that there are conditions I ought to set for myself in that regard. I don’t recognize any such conditions; I have said that I am taking a bit of a break from here and will only be popping in occasionally. But perhaps even that is an error. In any event, I will refrain from popping in on your posts or topics.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Though I account Eden as an actual garden I am not "hyper-literal".

I never thought you were.

I don’t know why you seem to have felt personally attacked by my post. I don’t really know where you’re coming from with this “whose got the biggest allegory” stuff. We have argued before, but I don’t recall ever disrespecting you. If I have, I apolo ...[text shortened]... even that is an error. In any event, I will refrain from popping in on your posts or topics.[/b]

Quite the contrary to discouraging your posts, I think your submissions are very good topics for exchanges.

I was rushing off and sometimes I mix people up into one person.

Sorry if I sounded confrontational. I have no special criteria I'm expecting you to adhere to.

Originally posted by jaywill
Because God gives man a choice to excercise his will you criticize His omnipotence?

That's some random materialistic mythology you have there.

No. But if God is omnipotent, how can he lose anything, ever?

Unless he chose to lose, and well, then, he wouldn't have lost!

Originally posted by jaywill
I could get more from your posts if you could be careful to put periods after the sentences.

They seem interesting. But I need a few more syntax.

ok.... but i have opposite problem reading long drawn out posts.
and im looking up the word syntax....

Originally posted by jaywill
Of COURSE there are many spiritual significances to Genesis 1 through 3 which are more important than us going out hunting in the desert as to where Eden was.

But if you are going to look for Eden in the desert then you wont find it because eden was in New Zealand. You see Noahs Ark drifted from there to the present day Middle east during the flood.

Originally posted by stoker
ok.... but i have opposite problem reading long drawn out posts.
and im looking up the word syntax....

Yes, I do tend to be verbose.

I'll comment on what I think you were saying in that post soon.

Hi Stoker,

You wrote:

to jawill sorry you do not understand i have the same with paradise no one born sees the gate of heaven or hell.

My main interest in the tree of life is that it is not about a place per se. It is about a Person. That is a Divine Person who has the ability to impart His life and nature into man in order to unite with man.

For Adam to eat of the tree of life would be something very much akin to Adam being born again.



the tree is of knowledge not life.

Right. It actually was the source of death. It was a dynamic withdrawal from dependence on God. It was a thrust to be independent from God.

It appeared desireable. It appeared to make one wise. But it is full of complications and eventual death.

The two trees represented two sources. The tree of life stood for God as life. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil stood for Satan "who had the might of death" (Hebrews 2:14)

God desires to still impart Himself into us as eternal life. God still desires to dispense Himself into us as Christ and as the Holy Spirit.

At least my emphasis here is not on the place Eden. It is on the tremendous significance of the tree of life. We see it again in the closing pages of the Bible as you alluded:

"Blessed are those who wash their robes that they may have right to the tree of life ..." (Rev. 22:14)



that was Adams downfall, when he sampled it he and eve knew they were naked and hid themselves.

Yes. The human conscience was activated. Man moved from a state of direct rule under God to the rule of human conscience.

This seems not too bad. Shouldn't man have the knowledge of good and evil? What is wrong with being ruled by the human conscience?

The problem is that because man has rebelled and turned himself over to Satan's rebellion he has two problems:

1.) He will not be able to fully carry out the good that he knows.

2.) He will not be able to fully resist the evil that he knows.

Man therefore gained only the knowledge of good and evil. Man lost the power to perform the good fully. Man lost the power to resist the evil fully.

Adam and the race of human beings fell into Satanification and degradation. The result is death.


The tree of life is gods gift to everyone who has thier souls washed from scarlet to white and live with the father no tears no sickness no death for these things are for this life so we can enter going thro our trials and showing that the love of god we belived without seeing.

I like this last sentence of yours. I think that you have put it well. I just have to parse it into a few sentences.

Maybe I'm not Internet hip enough yet.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No. But if God is omnipotent, how can he lose anything, ever?

Unless he chose to lose, and well, then, he wouldn't have lost!

I don't know.

But apparently, we are not robots. And free willing choice was a part of the omnipotent God's eternal purpose.

Would you like a wife who said "I Love You" like a robot when you pushed a button?

He wants our love out of our freedom to choose or reject Him.

That's the best answer I can give. Maybe someone else has a better answer.

You wrote:


My main interest in the tree of life is that it is not about a place per se. It is about a Person. That is a Divine Person who has the ability to impart His life and nature into man in order to unite with man.

For Adam to eat of the tree of life would be something very much akin to Adam being born again.





The two trees represented two sources. The tree ...[text shortened]... an enter going thro our trials and showing that the love of god we belived without seeing.

Hi again i only get a limited time so have peace with me. I do not see god as a person, not shure how i would as no likeness or image is allowed. The son yes as he lived among us.
As for adam and eve born? if so then after this death will that be there 3rd time to rise.
reference to a tree x 2 think of only one at the begining. and i think its a easy to understand term rather than a tree. Not a apple as its a childrens sunday school.
The tree of life mentioned at the end is teaching us to partake in the glory of god be forgiven of our sins and enter the life he wants for everyone.
.You are correct man does what man thinks is good that again leads away from the love , but you cannot blame Adam but seek our own forgiveness.

Stoker,

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I do not see god as a person, not shure how i would as no likeness or image is allowed. The son yes as he lived among us.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Look at these two passages:

"Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness ..." (Gen 1:26)

"And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created he him ..." (v.27)

God said He would make man in "Our" image. But the next verse says He made man in "His own image".

The plural pronouns "Us" and "Our" in verse 26 become the single pronoun "His" in verse 27. It didn't say God created man in "Their" image, consistent with the plural pronouns "Us" and "Our".

This alone indicates that God in many-one. He is Triune. We could not see three "Persons" there. But we can see that God is multi-une in His nature.

So Who then is the image of God? Who represents the image of "Our image"? It is Jesus Christ. Christ is "the image of the invisible God" (Col.1:15)

Man was made according to Jesus Christ. The Model was Jesus Christ. Man was made according to that Model. This means that Christ actually pre-dates the creation of Adam. He was incarnated in time long after Adam's creation. But actually, Christ pre-exists before Adam. And Adam was made in Christ's image for He is "the image of the invisible God".

The Triune God is Father - Son - Holy Spirit. This is the Divine "Us". And the image of this Triune God is Christ. Man was made according to what Christ is.

This is what it means when it says "And God created man in His own image ..." (Gen. 1:27)

We borrow the word "Person" because of the limitation of human language to express such a mysterious being as the Triune God. For sure God has a personality.

ive read them and jesus said if you know the son then you know the father. But god allows no image of him as we are not to see him untill death is no more.
Mosses was only allowed to look at his back. yes man was in his own image but does that mean he walks talks has 2 arms 2 eyes 2 ears. so on.
If angels have by our concept wings what does god have?

Originally posted by stoker
ive read them and jesus said if you know the son then you know the father. But god allows no image of him as we are not to see him untill death is no more.
Mosses was only allowed to look at his back. yes man was in his own image but does that mean he walks talks has 2 arms 2 eyes 2 ears. so on.
If angels have by our concept wings what does god have?

How we interpret image may be discussion in itself.

However, Christ is said to be the image of the invisible God. (Colossians 1:15)

And man, God created in His own image. (Genesis 1:26,27)

So man was made according to Christ. That is unless you can prove that Genesis 1:26,27 is not true or that Colossians 1:15 is not true.