The location of the Tree of Life

If "we Christian people" are still dying, maybe they aren't as Christian as they think they are.
But God was speaking to Adam and Eve. Why would He refer to His time-frame instead of theirs? If I tell you to call me at 10 PM, I mean in your time zone, don't I? After all, you don't even know what time zone I'm in.

---

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

Suppose I agreed with you that there were other people "outside the garden" and that that's where Cain's wife came from.God couldn't have been refering to them in Genesis 3:22 when He used the word "us". "Like one of us" would suggest that the people "outside the garden" had already eaten of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. So, why would God single out Adam and Eve?Since Adam and Eve were singled out to bear the burden of their sin, I think they have to be taken as a metaphor for all mankind. (Please note that this has nothing to do with whether or not Adam and Eve literally existed. I am only saying that the story of the tree is a metaphor in which they appear.)So, if the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a metaphor for mankind's arising consciousness, then the Tree of Life would also be a metaphor.

---

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

Actually, the moral of the story is that God wouldn't let Adam and Eve be like Him. In His own words, they would have been like Him if He hadn't cut off access to the Tree of Life.If you take Genesis as written, God certainly did seem to be a "kooky mind changer":1. He planted the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and told them they shouldn't eat of it or they would die, the same day. When they did eat of it, He changed his mind and didn't kill them for hundreds of years.2. He planted the Tree of Life, with no warnings at all about the consequences. Then, when they ate of the other Tree, He got worried and overreacted, putting security guards around the Tree and kicking Adam and Eve out of the garden.Unless you make up a lot of stuff that isn't there, Genesis clearly pictures a God who couldn't make up His mind.

---

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

That's a rationalization. You reason, "God is X. X wouldn't do Y. Therefore God didn't do Y." Yet the Bible is pretty clear that God did did do Y - i.e. He lied, or changed his mind about Adam and Eve dying that same day.Your error in logic is the premise "God is X". You're assuming that God can't lie or change His mind. The Bible is pretty clear that He can and does.You are thinking of God as you wish He was, not as He was described in Genesis. Where did God warn Adam and Eve that they would be kicked out of the garden and denied acces to the Tree of Life? Chapter and Verse? So which is it? Does the Bible include that detail or doesn't it?It is important to include a detail like a warning, if you don't want the reader to think that God changed His mind. From the details that we have, the conclusion is that God changed His mind (or wasn't being honest in the first place). To come to any other conclusion, you have to make up your own details. I don't follow that. Was the story written to make me believe in God? Or do I have to believe first to find His word?

---

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

All I'm assuming is that Genesis means what it says.God told Adam and Eve that they would die "the same day". They didn't. (I'm not going to get into the whole business of "spiritual death". That's another topic.)If He "did it that way on purpose", He was lying.Now, I have no problem with God lying in the story. I have no problem with Him changing His mind either. If you have a problem with it, you can speculate all you want about what Genesis means, but don't pretend that your speculations are what Genesis actually says. You claimed that God warned Adam and Eve about the Tree of Life. I asked you where that warning is. Genesis 2 and 3 are not such long chapters. If there is a warning in there, you should be able to point it out instead of beating around the bush.Telling them that they will die if they eat of one tree is not the same as warning them about the other tree, especially if they were only going to die a spiritual death. Or was it really the Tree of Spiritual Life?Why would God talk about it to them at all if He wasn't going to make it clear to them what He meant? I asked you a simple question, and all you did was beat around the bush again. Let me try again, in multiple choice form:What did you mean by that quote?1. Was the story written so that I would believe in God?or2. Do I have to believe in God before I can understand the story?Never mind speculating about whether or not the Holy Spirit has explained Genesis to me. If you really understand Genesis, your answers should be clear.

---

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

I like that idea. Genesis (the early part, at least) portrays God in very human terms. We were created in His image, after all. The idea that He shares some of our flaws brings us closer to Him.As the Bible progresses we seem to get farther and farther from God. In fact, it takes God's incarnation as a man to bring us together again.But did we "Fall" or did God rise in our estimation? To me, a God who grows, who "improves with age", is a more uplifting idea than a static God.(We now return you to your regularly scheduled program....)

---

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

Okaayyy... I'm just going by this: What part of that am I not taking literally enough? I'll leave out the "spiritual death", since it's off-topic and unscriptural.But what was the point of the Tree of Life being there in the first place? You claim it was needed to get back their spiritual and/or physical life. But God wouldn't let them do that. He had the tree gaurded to prevent that. So why was the tree there at all? That's what the self-styled "literalists" always say, yet I am the one quoting the Bible.For the benefit of our friends who don't read the Bible, how about giving us those references? You don't know anything about my spiritual life, so that comment is uncalled for. If your understanding is greater than mine, then show it in this debate.

---

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

I don't follow. Can you be more literal? Idle speculation. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

---

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

First, anything I have said in this thread is in the context of the first few chapters of Genesis. In that context, I believe "spiritual death" is unscriptural. I have not refered to "spiritual death" elsewhere in the Bible.Second, I think I'm far enough from the topic already but if you want to discuss "spiritual death", here or elsewhere, feel free. I may or may not participate.Third, if you do want to discuss anything with me, be warned that I have a very short attention span and I do not read long posts. If you have "detailed responses", you'd be well advised to break them up into small bites. If you would listen, you would know that I am not alone in my thoughts.I have not dismissed anybody's thoughts. I have only questioned them. Is that permissible?You don't know anything about my "preconceived notions", so keep that kind of comment to yourself.I have not said much about how I view the scriptures, nor about how they "absolutely" must be interpreted. You are the one who seems to have preconceived notions, about me at least.If you do want to discuss anything with me, you are definitely getting off on the wrong foot.

---

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

I am a fan of Johnny Cash and Marilyn Manson (though not at the same time) and I'm still lost.

---

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

Something like that came up in another thread - I don't remember which one. The "fundamentalists" are the ones who actually feel far from God and they project their frustration onto humanity as a whole.Personally, if I want to feel close to God, I go down to the lake and watch the ducks.

---

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

If you say so. I wash my hands of all responsibility. Mr. Ex Nihilo: Fire your guns.

---

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

Short answer: nothing changed that day.Since eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam and Eve were able to see their situation more realistically, but I don't see a change in their situation. Exactly. First and foremost, both trees are symbolic.Their historicity is of secondary importance. I don't think I've said anywhere that Genesis is "not true". Sometimes fiction contains more "truth" - or meaning - than history does. Again you misjudge me, but I've already taken you to task for that. Exactly what I would say about you. You seem to think that I misunderstand something just because I disagree with you. No, I don't "refuse" to believe it. I see no reason to believe it, nor has any reason been presented here. If everybody thinks it is on topic, why doesn't somebody explain it? For the life of me, I can't even imagine how you got that from anything I said.(Seriously, I really, really want to know what I said that could have given you that idea.)Exactly the opposite.I have said, rather consistently, I thought, that the literal meaning of Genesis is fairly easy to understand. I have not speculated about "spiritual death" because it is fairly clear that a literal, physical death was meant.I have said that the two trees are not intended to be taken literally and that their symbolic meaning is fairly easy to understand. I have not speculated about God's reasons for planting the trees because their significance is symbolic rather than historic. Accepted. No harm done

---

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

There is nothing in the first few chapters of Genesis to suggest any time frame other than an ordinary human time frame.When God spoke to Adam and Eve, He would have used a time frame that they could understand. Thus, speculating about what time frames God might understand is idle.

---

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

I have already "stepped back" from the subject of "spiritual death", for this topic anyway. If others bring it up, since they think it is on topic, I may "step forward" again. Don't get me wrong - in a general sense, I do dismiss the idea of "spiritual death".But in this topic I have only said that "spiritual death" is unscriptural in the context of the Tree of Life. I think it is just a cop-out on the part of those who want to excuse God's change-of-heart/change-of-mind (or whatever you want to call it).I have no problem with God saying one thing and doing another. I was under the impression that arachnophilia and I are pretty much on the same page (though he frequently corrects me on minor matters). It takes a lot to cause me any "consternation". If people "call me" on it, they're going to have to put up some substance.

---

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