The location of the Tree of Life

Why? actually don't think that the two options you claim are the relative ones.. it might be the two ones that are relavent only if you are a biblical literalist, which the writers of Genesis most certainly were not. That is evident if you understand some of the Hebrew and the puns/political commentary that is imbeded into it.

working on it. been busy lately. thus the reason for my slowness of replies. i thought i agreed that was highly plausible? doesn't follow.

quote:

---

Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

---

these are cherubims, in eden, who protect. neither was the king of tyre, originally. the poem is about someone designated by god to protect something turning against the thing he's supposed to protect, and god striking him down. the king of tyre was ordained by god to protect tyre. these cherubs were in eden to protect eden. see? except that's not a cherub, it's a snake. and it's not cursed above all life, it's cursed above all beasts of the field (possibly meaning domesticated animals). the tyre poem gives a very eloquent discription of something that's not a snake. king nebuchadnezzar is called "heylel" in isaiah, which is rendered "lucifer" in latin, since both seem to refer to the planet venus. it's possible that the name is an older mythological character. since it seems to be an astrological reference ("bringer of light", son of the dawn) it's likely a babylonian myth.so it's very possible that ezekiel was referencing a phoenician legend, and they just happen to share a myth of a place called eden. (there are similar myths around, no doubt) sort of. i agree that they might have common origins, and that the story is probably mocking fertility and snake cults, and that the serpent represents something that would in later traditions become satan -- but i don't agree that it IS satan, literally. except for the bits about god saying "I will harden pharoah's heart." i mean, god pretty clearly indicates that he's in full control of the situation.this is a very, very similar to point the samuel/chronicles point i brought up earlier. one text has god provoking sin, and the later text has satan. had the author of chronicles written exodus, it might be satan hardening pharoah's heart, not god. at some point, the idea came about that it wouldn't be fair for god to provoke sin, or tempt men into it. they seem to have decided that god would only be capable of good, and would use his various agents (satan, etc) to induce evil.but earlier texts still represent a god who is capable of, in control of, and created both good and evil. as referenced by all of those verses. this is a pretty solidly scriptural position. granted, your point does. however, free will vs. god's omnipotence doesn't seem to be an issue in the text, does it? the pharoah example is probably the toughest in the bible for thise debate, but let's look at another one: the one we're talking about already.god makes a garden for adam. in it, he puts two trees, knowledge and life. he's not supposed to eat from knowledge. he gives adam a wife, for company. and he puts a snake in the garden to tempt eve in to tricking adam into eating from the forbidden tree.kind of a rigged game, isn't? especially with the human frailties god created man with. there are any number of ways eve could have gotten adam eat -- he might not have even known what he was doing. so adam thinks he's right when he challenges god, it's not his fault: "the woman YOU put here made me do it."adam is still punished. and pharoah is still punished. it seems that even though god is clearly manipulating every step of the game, people are still treated as if they had a choice. because they usually do. god didn't make pharoah decline the let moses go, did he? he just took away pharoah's compassion. which was something he lacked already. as long as we're ok with striking several dozen chapter of the bible. but it does, at the very least, evidence that god can see evil, and knows evil. and if god can see and know evil, and also presumable sees and knows good... well that "unique one" would have to be god. otherwise, he wouldn't be unique.(besides, come to think of it, "unique one" sounds like a reference to god. it sounds like "most high" to me) no no, read it again. you have it reversed. their sins have caused them to not hear god, and so god has forsaken them. yes, and i cited a rather large number of them. just look again:

quote:

---

Amo 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done [it]?

---

evil in the city, and the lord has done it. the lord has done evil. see? bad example. i'm an art major, and negative space happens to be my forte. i figured that one out the second time i saw it, at about age 8. moving the goalposts a little here. but i'll play. [quote]Jer 17:9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Jer 17:10 I the LORD search the heart, [I] try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, [and] according to the fruit of his doings.[/quote]who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? the lord know. and this definition, as i've shown, is erroneous.do i need to go through the rest of this? it's pretty clearly refuted by the scriptures i've already cited. yes, one rabbi's opinion. the talmud is not the strongest source of definitive information. most of it's contradicted by something else: sometimes there's even debates. strictly speaking, "satan" is a title, as i said. technically, "satan" can be anything that tests or attempts to mislead people -- even peter, the rock of the christian church. and luke is a much later recording of the things christ would have said. so even if his words are accurate (and they are fine according to the traditional jewish view jesus would have had, btw), luke is still retelling the story with a decidedly christian bias and interpretation. and they view satan a much different way than the jews do, and jesus probably would have. that would be adam. you can sort of see how he's being read into the places i said he would be: including the test of abraham's faith. and yet he's not in the bible there, is he? these are all later opinions on the mater, and more subject to having him in the stories. it's pretty clearly referencing genesis, isn't it? it's not using something that's part of the language from another source, it's using the genesis legend. just like the king of tyre is not REALLY a cherub, and nebuchadnezzar is not REALLY the planet venus.(come on, seriously). liar = devil. just so we're keeping track. tempting and testing are really the same thing. tempting is testing men to break the laws of god. that's satan's job, and according the traditional interpretation (and the only way to rectify samuel and chronicles), he does this for god. lucifer, son of the dawn, is an astrological reference. it's the planet venus, and the ONLY time it appears in the bible it's talking about nebuchadnezzar. well, almost the only time. what's another name for the planet venus?

quote:

---

Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star.

---

jesus, apparently, is also lucifer. i'll leave you to figure that out, but the answer is suprisingly simple. no, i think it may be metaphorical of something, but in the literal storyline, it's literally a snake. uh, sure, go ahead. but my stance will not change because of one very simple fact: god created the snake.

---

אָרַח

sure, i totally agree. but there is an element of literalness to the stories, and i think we need to get THAT reading correct first, and then move on to the funnier stuff.

---

אָרַח

Missed point, and I have been telling what I am saying. But I don't want you to take my word for it, it's better if it comes from God. I would hope you have a relationship with him. Uh? Since when is a question judgemental?
Second of all, I am not beyond judging people, I am after all just a human. If I didn't judge people, then I would be Jesus himself probably. Well, I think I would have to quote half the bible, and there is no room for that here. Not to mention, as many times as I read parts of the bible, I did not understand it, even though it is cleary explained, until I went through it. So I don't expect to get it across to others, but I keep trying. Like I said, the best thing I can do for people to understand, is love them.
I will however continue with these awesome discussions about the bible, because I learn along the way. It helps me to love people better, when I can understand where they are coming from. The internet, this forum, really lends itself to helping me learn about it, because it is raw and uncensored, and people say whatever is on their minds wiothout any fear. I like that. Funny, I could say the same about you, with the limited knowledge I have about where you are. This is all part of freeing your spirit, understanding that.
It's like praying for justice. If God grants you justice, then be prepared to recieve justice as well.I cannot express to you how awesome it is to forgive people, and let God deal with them. I could write a book about it, and all the things that happened to me. There is no possibility that they are all coincidences.All part of becoming born again. I understand that perfectly. I am led by the spirit, not an understanding. This is how Jesus wanted us to be. The church should be led by the spirit also, and they are not, too many traditions.All in all, Genesis, to me, could mean many things. Maybe even it is supposed to be that way, to match our own individualisms. I didn't post the dictionary definition becaseu children can be all of those, I am trying to see which one you think it is.I am for the biblical definition of spirit, of which we are all a part of.There was a physical and mental change when I became born again. An evidence that something did indeed happen.

It's like the devil decieving us all over again.
I mean are they really understanding what they are saying?That would make the moral of the story very good for the devil.

A deseption of the devil would make you think that.If we relly felt we had no power over our decsions, and everything was predetermined, then what purpose does life serve, and what purpose to we have for living? Why even bother?If I felt that was true, I would be an entirly different person.

No, thats not what I meant. I said that, that alone can give it it's greatness, but in saying that alone, that means it is part of so much more.If I had to pick one attribute that it's ambiguity would rest on, is that it is a book of truths.Of course everyone will debate that though.

I had a teacher who used to say, "If you can't explain it to an eight-year-old, you don't understand it."From your posts on this thread, it seems clear that you do not have an understanding of the Bible beyond fundamentalist dogma. As I said, I used to be where you are. All I can tell you is that there is much, much more than what you see now.But you have to start by reading the Bible as it is, not as how you want it to be. (As an exercise, why don't you try to back up what you've said here using only the Torah? If you can't do that, you don't really understand what it says.)I have asked you a simple question: How can you claim - by any definition - that children have no spirit? You haven't answered that question with anything but obfuscation.I would like a real answer to that question, not just voodoo mumbo-jumbo.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Well, that, or a revelation from God, or analysis. What purpose does life serve? What purpose do we have for living? If we really felt that we had no power over our decisions then we wouldn't have the choice to be bothered or not. Do we? You already are an entirely different person but NOT the person who believes that to be true, at least at the time you were the person who wrote that.lfen

No offense arachnophilia, but it's hard to understand exactly which position you're taking.On the one hand you're saying that it's highly plausible that the snake was symbolic of other things -- but then you turn around and insist that the snake is still a literal snake. That's because basically you don't want to follow it. You want to be able to insist on a literal reading of the Genesis text, something which many fundamentalist Christians do, and draw the conclusion that you've already agreed that the text is saying.Don't get me wrong. Like you, I too started with the intial assumption that the snake in the garden was a reference to the devil based on what other people had said. However, unlike you, after having investigated this more thoroughly, I've basically come to agree with what the other people have already concluded -- that the snake is a reference to the devil (and this was achieved without recourse to the Christian revelation).You seem to have been deeply inspired by the early Talmudic writings which concluded that the snake was a snake -- and that's fine if that's what you adhere too. However, if you're using this as a basis to conclude that this is the only validly possible interpretation, then I disagree.I tend to think that it's pretty clear that the snake is more than a literal snake -- but rather was something in disguise that was originally assigned to protect, but instead deceived others and led them astray. Yes. Yes, and the Genesis account is about someone designated by God to protect something turning against the thing he's supposed to protect, and God striking him down. The King of Tyre was ordained by God to protect Tyre. The serpent was in Eden to protect Eden. See? Yes, except the people who Micah is describing in these passages are not snakes either, but it doesn't stop Micah from drawing an analogy: Furthermore, if this is indeed referencing back to the incident in the garden, then it is also indicating that the serpent was not simply doing his job -- rather it indicates that the serpent did something worthy of shame, punishment, and the deprivation of his power. So now you're saying that the reference to Eden in Ezekial may not be a reference to Eden in Genesis, but rather a reference to Eden from another Phonecian culture which apparently had nothing to do with the Genesis account -- even though it bears some amazing similarities to the idea of the serpent being punished for reasons similar to Nebuchadnezzar -- even though the serpent is punished in almost the same exact way that Micah describes the nations that rebel against God being punished?Besides your insistence that the snake is literally a snake, what exactly are you saying here? Before I go any further, do you actually personally believe in a literal satan?Just curious.

is this hard to comprehend?"no passage loses its p'shat [simple meaning]." the literal meaning must always stand, and make sense. and literally, it's a snake. it might be symbolic of satan, or fertility or snake cults, but literally, it's a snake. not ha-satan, not cherub, not a fallen angel, not a demon or demi-god. it's still a snake. the symbolic does not override the literal. yes, because at the heart of it, there IS a literal story. unlike fundamentalist christians, i'm not asserting this stuff actually happened. i'm rather certain it did not.it's like reading swift's "gulliver's travels." to fully understand it, you do have to look at the metaphors, and themes, and where they came from in swift's context. you have to know what it's about to REALLY get the jokes. and yes, genesis is full of very, very similar jokes, it might even be viewed as a satire by some.but at the heart of "gulliver" is a story that still has to make sense if you read it as just a fantastic tale. so we can read it, and understand that the lilliputian court is a mockery of king george 1, without thinking that king george 1 actually did these things, or was six inches tall. a reference -- maybe. but not literally.what christian readers tend to do is mix up which bits are which. the symbolic gets entangled with the literal, and we end up with the devil eating dirt. and anyways, i'm not entirely convinced that satan, the devil, and the serpent were equated at the time of genesis's writing. these stories are older than final publication date, so integral parts of the story are likely to be very old. and satan is relatively young in judaism. no, i'm using the assumption that genesis makes sense if you read it literally, to a child who has no understanding of theology. because it does. the talmud had very little to do with, actually, other than the fact that i had heard not everyone read "serpent" as "satan."but for genesis to make sense literally, the story is partly ad explanation about snakes. no. there is no indication of that in the text. it may be symbolic of something else, but it is NOT something else. there is no aspect of disguise. the bible calls the serpent a "beast of the field." it's an animal, not a spirit. when god curses him, he is forced to do things snakes do. and he's called a snake. you're essentially asserting that i can call something by name, and describe it in depth, and still mean something else. which basically makes the bible out to be deceptive -- a devil -- itself.the bible is not misleading. oh really? book, chaper, and verse, please?look, ezekiel describes a cherub designated to protect eden. genesis describes a snake to tricks some newborns. when the snake is punished, then genesis describes some cherubim designated to protect eden.you're looking for something that IS there, but in the wrong place. there's nothing about the serpent protecting eden. he's an animal, the smartest animal in eden. he leads adam and eve astray. he's not an angel, a seraph, or a cherub. he's a snake. if it had meant "cherub" it would have said "cherub" like it does a few verses later.i'm sorry, you can't just change what's there in black and white to suit your needs. and simplest conclusion is that ezekiel is talking about the cherubs that genesis actually describes, not the one it calls something else. yes. let's look at the important word in this sentance:analogy.micah is comparing the people to the serpent in garden. it's really that simple. which would indicate that he's NOT satan, in the traditional jewish sense. but we didn't need micah to draw that conclusion -- the snake is punished in genesis. so either god punishes things for the way he made them, or the snake is not satan, or satan was not created by god (so god didn't create everything).i'm fine with either of the last two, but most christians essentially assert that god punishes people for their nature, the very way god himself made them. which i do not feel is the case. i said it was a possibility. cultures in the area tended to share a lot of the same mythology. for instance, the ugarits had a lot of characters from hebrew mythos in their religion, including el, yahweh, leviathan (lothan), etc. in fact, i'll go out on a limb here for a second, and assert that it's very probable that the phoenicians did have an eden myth:this was a taunt against the king of tyre. doing so in a mythology unfamiliar to him wouldn't have been very effective. for instance, if i were to taunt you, and called you apasmara, and told you that i am dancing on your back, would you have the slightest clue what i mean? (without google, i mean) yeah try again. it bears amazingly similarity to the cherubim that genesis actually talks about protecting eden. the only similarity is that both are punished. want me to find a few thousand bible verses about things being punished? heck, i can even find you another serpent being punished.

quote:

---

Isa 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that [is] in the sea.

---

see? god punishes lots of things. the aspect of the serpent protecting eden is something you're reading into it. it's not there. but there is something else in the story that protects eden. and, suprise, it's cherubim. what are the chances, do you think, that ezekiel is talking about those cherubim? you're really good at getting things backwards, aren't you?the nations micah describes are punished in a way similar to the serpent. it doesn't make them serpents, or the word "serpent" debatable. it's a metaphor. that the bible is actually a pretty easy, uncomplicated read. and this infusion of external ideas, theologies, and ad-hoc mental gymnastics doesn't really help it. it just confuses the stories, so they can mean whatever people want them to. not totally sure. i believe that there are temptations and tests, things that hold the office of satan, if not the name. but i think that these are essentially from god, neccessary to human growth, and that he only gives us what we can handle.as for the demon bit, i think i mentioned before that i do not believe in demons.

---

אָרַח

let's look at adam's statement, when god asks him to explain himself."the woman you put here made me do it."is adam lying? no, he's not. he's telling the truth. the woman god put there really did make him do it. in fact, it's quite probable that he had no idea what he was doing. you have to be stupid to accuse god of your own sins.eve was tricked. but she was tricked with the truth. we are to follow god, even if his words sound like lies, and the things someone else says sound like the truth. god knows what's best for us, but he doesn't always tell us everything. so god may have told an untruth, or he may have exagerated punishment. if he did, it he did it for a reason, and that reason we are not to question.i'm just merely pointing out that god's words were not the strictest sense of truth in the story, nor did he follow through on his word. but it's also possible he didn't follow through out of compassion. which doesn't make him a liar, it makes him a loving and forgiving god.and i, personally, like that option. and these are different how?the closest in the torah to a spirit, or soul, is the breath of god in life. all life is described as breath. that breath is not of us, but of god. it's not -our- soul. i'm pretty certain my cats have souls/spirits.that breath of life, conciousness, is not something adam and eve developed, or even stole with the tree, it's something they had before, when god made them. and it's something i think we all have.

---

אָרַח

I never said he wasn't in control of it. I said that he wasn't directly doing it. I think that that God employs good to corral evil into certain predetermined paths.In others words, in my opinion, while God is not directly causing it to happen, it seems more appropriate to say that he is restraining it so that it doesn't get out of control -- or, when it does get out of control, he redirects it so as to do the least possible damage possible. Yes, but I don't think it's just as simple as saying it's unfair. It seems more likely to me that many concluded that a God who is all-good would never employ these methods directly.Instead, whenever there is a passage that implies that both God and satan (or man in the case of Pharaoh) are doing the exact same thing, people tend to read this as representing a tremendous struggle of wills between good and evil.As such, if this is accurate, when evil flares up an immediate struggle ensues on a spiritual level. Both sides may take losses, including God's side. However, God will be able to either stop, transform, or else redirect the evil so as to bring about the maximum potential for good possible.Look at the passages of I Chronicles that you mentioned before... Now let's look at it from the perspective of Samuel's second book... First of all, it appears that the only difference between to two accounts is that Joab did not include Levi and Benjamin in the numbering -- even though he did include many others including the Hivites and the Canaanites.I'm not sure if this is the reason or not, but it appears that the census excluded some parts of Israel while perhaps including those that did not belong to Israel -- which actually would be a very bad thing in the eyes of God.If this is correct, then we see that David may have been indeed inspired by God's anger to take a census for whatever reason, but that David was also moved by satan to abuse the census that God ordered him to partake in. In addition to this, God's initial anger may have even been the result of the temptation that David was undergoing in the first place.Whatever the case, the LORD sent a plague on Israel from that morning until the end of the time designated, and seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beersheba died.Perhaps these people were slain because they were not supposed to be included.Or perhaps these people were slain because the census did not include Levi and Benjamin in the numbering.Or maybe these people were slain because David included the Hivites and the Canaanites.Regardless of the reason why these people were slain, David was to blame -- and he felt the full weight of thier lost lives on his shoulders, which lead to his repentence.Like I said above, whenever there is a passage that implies that both God and satan (or man in the case of Pharaoh) are doing the exact same thing, people tend to read this as representing a tremendous struggle of wills between good and evil.As such, if this is accurate, when evil flares up an immediate struggle ensues on a spiritual level. Both sides may take losses, including God's side. However, God will be able to either stop, transform, or else redirect the evil so as to bring about the maximum potential for good possible.It may not seem all that good at the time, but God will still find a way to bring it about. Well...I disagree with God creating evil and being capable of evil -- although I do agree that he is in control of evil and he created all things good.Solid scriptural position or not, do you honeslty think this is how God operates?Like I said before, which of these two situations above sounds more like what one would expect from a God who has given us the capacity to freely choose? In my opinion, no.Let me run through the list... Well...God may have made the garden for himself -- but allowed Adam to be a steward. Well..there's a few more trees than these two -- but these two seem to be the important ones. True, but he calls it both good and evil. The tree still probably had a good purpose for man, but only after they were mature enough to eat from the tree of life. Yes, because God saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone. Despite opinions to the contrary, woman is the final crowning glory of God's creation. Uh...well...no.I think God places a cherub in the garden to protect Adam and Eve in Eden when God is away. I think the cherub then desires Eve and tries to get close to her by assuming the form of a snake (and it's not a normal literalsnake, unless you're suggesting that snakes literally talk). The cherub realizes that he won't be able to get to Eve without Adam being nearby, so he includes Adam in his scheme to get closer to Eve. Yes, but this all assumes that your previous assumptions are correct. I don't think they are. Adam is not punished by being driven out of the garden. Adam is protected by being driven out of the garden.Pharaoh, on the other hand, is utterly decimated for challenging God. Or perhaps you're clearly manipulating every step of the translation process so as to conclude that Adam and Eve didn't have a choice. Or maybe they are depicted as having a choice because they had a choice. Yes. People usually do have a choice. Yes, that's exactly what God was trying to do -- allow Pharaoh and his kingdom to become so full of pain and suffering (which is less then what Pharaoh and Egypt were doing to the Hebrews) that any sane person would have let them go in round one.But nooooooooooooooooooo...Pharaoh had to make things difficult because his pride and vanity wouldn't allow him to give up the Israelites. In the Egyptian scheme of things, Pharaoh was the son of a divinity. To let the Israelites go would mean him having to admit that he wasn't a god -- certainly not a Supreme God -- or at least a weaker god than the Israelites' God. buh? meh...I might as well just skip ahead...I think by now most people grasp that this isn't just a snake. I also think that most people by now grasp that the cherub in the garden (who fell and became satan) was actually the snake, and that the cherub was created good before he choose to become evil.Whenever there is a passage that implies that both God and satan (or man in the case of Pharaoh) are doing the exact same thing, people tend to read this as representing a tremendous struggle of wills between good and evil.But see, I'm not trying to change your stance arachnophilia. I'm just making sure an alternative explanation is presented so that others that read through this thread won't read your thoughts unchallenged. That's what most of these dicourses all all about, a fair emotionally detached presentation from two different perspectives whereby others who peruse them can make up their own mind.Clearly, we've already made up our own minds. It's others who may be in doubt that I'm concerned about. This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-19-2005 11:08 PM

E=MC2
Explain that to an eight year old.Eight year olds, for the most part are incapable of understanding the bible. We spend years studying it, and learning from it. It is a book that gives what we need, when we need it.How can I explain to you what took me 38 years of life, in a single forum thread? Or, possibly, I just get it. I told you, I live by the spirit now.
Or, I am crazy and should be on medication. There's always more. But I have not learned more from you yet. I spent 13 years trying to understand the bible based on what it is. I didn't understand it, until I learned what God is (still have more to learn about him too).If I were to use only the torah, then I might as well become Jewish. This is another reason Jesus had to come, so that we could get it.
To keep your spirit alive in the OT, you have to be performing all sorts of sacrafices, and rituals. It is very clear to me that is not necessary anymore. The Jewish people have even stop most of that, probably without even knowing why. I did, but you chose not to accept it.
1 Peter 1:23
For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.When you are born the first time, it is of perishable seed. Until you learn the word of God, you cannot experience the second birth.You are using the word spirit to define "innocent soul" which is cute, but not accurate. There are many meanings to the word spirit, we need to narrow down the one we are talking about in this thread.Do you understand the differences between soul and spirit?

Do you think we have power over our decsions, yes or no?