[I started a thread on this a few years ago but I can’t find it now as the forum search engine has been incapacitated]
So my threads about “is everything in the bible true” and “why shouldn’t we cherry pick the bible” don’t seem to be yielding robust defences of the bibles literal efficacy nor inerrancy so let’s try this specific example.
The tree of life in the bible:
“And the LORD God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”
Genesis 2:9
[After the fall of man]
…” lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever", cherubim and a flaming sword are placed at the east end of the Garden to guard the way to the tree of life.
Genesis 3:22
“Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city. On either side of the river is the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, producing its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.”
Rev 22:2
It is also mentioned in the book of proverbs and other extra biblical texts.
So people, this tree of life, is it a real tree with roots and leaves (says “leaves” in Revelation), or is it a metaphor?
Now although I can’t find the original tree of life thread, the likes of KellyJay, sonship and Josephw/SecondSon dug in like tics in a sheep’s ass that the tree was a literal tree. They did this because they HAD to, because they have nailed their intellectual and spiritual underpants to the flagpole the biblical literalism.
So in the light of those other two threads let’s revisit this topic. Is the Tree of life literal or not?
@divegeester saidWas the apple a gravenstein or a granny smith?
[I started a thread on this a few years ago but I can’t find it now as the forum search engine has been incapacitated]
So my threads about “is everything in the bible true” and “why shouldn’t we cherry pick the bible” don’t seem to be yielding robust defences of the bibles literal efficacy nor inerrancy so let’s try this specific example.
The tree of life in the bib ...[text shortened]... n the light of those other two threads let’s revisit this topic. Is the Tree of life literal or not?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
@divegeester saidThat part of Genesis (at the very least) is entirely metaphorical.
[I started a thread on this a few years ago but I can’t find it now as the forum search engine has been incapacitated]
So my threads about “is everything in the bible true” and “why shouldn’t we cherry pick the bible” don’t seem to be yielding robust defences of the bibles literal efficacy nor inerrancy so let’s try this specific example.
The tree of life in the bib ...[text shortened]... n the light of those other two threads let’s revisit this topic. Is the Tree of life literal or not?
@divegeester saidIt makes more sense to believe it was a real tree. If it were just metaphorical then God would have no need to chase them out and place security around the tree to protect it from unauthorized access. But either way it is irrelevant.
[I started a thread on this a few years ago but I can’t find it now as the forum search engine has been incapacitated]
So my threads about “is everything in the bible true” and “why shouldn’t we cherry pick the bible” don’t seem to be yielding robust defences of the bibles literal efficacy nor inerrancy so let’s try this specific example.
The tree of life in the bib ...[text shortened]... n the light of those other two threads let’s revisit this topic. Is the Tree of life literal or not?
What is useful to see is that those those insist it is a real tree also insist on believing much of the bible is literal. Christians who do that YECs who believe that the universe is 6000 yrs old.
@divegeester saidIs the Tree of life literal or not?
[I started a thread on this a few years ago but I can’t find it now as the forum search engine has been incapacitated]
So my threads about “is everything in the bible true” and “why shouldn’t we cherry pick the bible” don’t seem to be yielding robust defences of the bibles literal efficacy nor inerrancy so let’s try this specific example.
The tree of life in the bib ...[text shortened]... n the light of those other two threads let’s revisit this topic. Is the Tree of life literal or not?
I'm leaning in the direction of "No" it is not literal, and getting the answer is going to be pretty difficult since the geographical location of the garden of Eden as described in the bible is now under water. - Interesting question though
@mchill saidThe tree of life is a common enough symbol in many cultures, as are other archetypical symbols, such as the way, the mountain, the journey to the underworld, and the arduous task.
Is the Tree of life literal or not?
I'm leaning in the direction of "No" it is not literal, and getting the answer is going to be pretty difficult since the geographical location of the garden of Eden as described in the bible is now under water. - Interesting question though
Once one accepts a literalist interpretation that it was a real tree, then the question arises, what kind of tree it was. A pine, a cypress, or some other? This is the point of my rhetorical question above, what kind of apple was it? Mine was, of course, a trick question -- there wasn't any apple. Apples were unknown in the Middle East in Biblical times. The origin of the popular mis-identification of the forbidden fruit with apples is based on a silly mistranslation, a confusion between the Latin words mālum (an apple) and mălum (an evil), which are written malum in non-Latin languages.
Was it a real tree? If so, was it a cypress or a pine or some other? If you go down that road, you're missing the point of Genesis. Taking references in Genesis to a tree literally is the crudest, most materialistic, least spiritual way of understanding what is going on in that book. Neither would an archeological excavation which identified the species of the putative Tree Of Life answer any question pertinent to the spiritual quest (for salvation). The point is best understood if one takes the passage as an allegory with a moral message.
@mchill saidThe tree is described in Revelation as straddling a river, as I quoted in my OP.
Is the Tree of life literal or not?
I'm leaning in the direction of "No" it is not literal, and getting the answer is going to be pretty difficult since the geographical location of the garden of Eden as described in the bible is now under water. - Interesting question though
Edit, of course it’s metaphorical. The tree of life is Jesus Christ.
Once one (as a Christian) accepts that genesis and Revelation are replete with metaphors and symbolism then everything in those books is up for grabs.
In particular the visions of hell and death and eternal suffering.
@divegeester saidObviously metaphorical, not literally a tree. So too the tree of life.
It wasn’t an apple.
The Bible talks of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 27445
@divegeester saidAre we to believe that your post is literal?
Interesting to note that KellyJay, Josephw and sonship, those who claim that everything in the Bible is literal, are avoiding this thread.
@kevin-eleven removed their quoted postIt’s difficult for you to comment because as usual you have nothing to contribute.
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 27445
@divegeester saidDid England hurt you into RHP's Spirituality Forum?
It’s difficult for you to comment because as usual you have nothing to contribute.