The location of the Tree of Life

I tend to think that the "Tree of Life" was a metaphor for Christ (and the church itself in some regards) in some way.Edit -- Note the Scriptural references: This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-07-2005 10:11 PM

Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. I dunno.The Scriptures in the beginning passages of Genesis certainly seem to indicate that it was something real. I tend to see it as a metaphor for something real -- and that could include a physical tree (but I'm not about to make any definitive statement regarding its physical nature). From my own point of view this is symbolic of someone becoming a believer in order to inheret its social benefits -- but not actually believing in God at all.In other words, I think God protects people from becoming too aware of their responsibility before they can actually handle it. The Scriptures also say that one will live forever if we believe in Christ -- yet we Christian people are still dying physically. Do you mean that they didn't physically die on that "exact" day that they ate from the fruit?In God's time-frame they did physically die on that "exact" day -- according to the thinking, "A day with the Lord is as a thousand years". Well...if we're going to seriously conjecture about what kind of tree the tree of life might have been, I tend to think your above description more precisely mirrors some of the attributes of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Their eyes were certainly "openned" after having partaken in it.Are you seriously asking what these trees might have been if they were real?

Or maybe the passages in question are referring more importantly to a "spiritual death" -- even though physical death certainly still occured. It seems as though that "in the beginning" Adam and Eve were most likely in God's "time zone" -- but that after "the fall" they were by default trapped in their own "time zone".This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-08-2005 11:18 AM

Actually, the Scriptures do seem to indicate that he does in fact have one weakness: lack of sin.Some have even suggested that sin causes pain to God. Some have suggested that (in God's timeless nature manifested through Christ) everytime we sin we all participate in nailing the spikes into the Lord's wrists and feet. In my opinion, no and no.He apparently can't sin -- which is a limitation however strange it might seem. In otherwords, if omnipotence means being able to "do anything", then God is not omnipotent because there are apparently some things that he cannot do.The Scriptures even go to the point to say that he can't even look upon the face of sin. While I'm not sure if its because he is "incapable" or if he's "unwilling" to do this, I'm persuaded that it's the former instead of the latter -- because it seems more consistent with my idea of a loving God.Even in the case of omnipresense, many Christians will acknowledge that some people will be eternally separated from God in some kind of hellish afterlife. Certainly, if this is true, God would not be present with these people. Neither would he be aware anymore of what they were doing -- since all the former things will be forgotten (including sin).So, in at least a few ways from the Scriptures, I can think of things that demonstrate that God is neither omnipresent nor omnipotent.edit: correct former and latter.In my opinion, if God refuses to look upon the face of sin simply because he's unwilling to do so, then he seems to be more of a vengeful God than a merciful one. So, in my opinion anyway, it seems as though it would be more accurate to say that God is incapable of doing so -- which seems to indicate more mercy than judgement (and actually jives well with the Scriptural accounts as far as I can tell).This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-08-2005 07:38 PM

You called? Well, my thoughts could very well be wrong. I've just read a lot regarding the early church fathers, church history and the Scriptures themselves. It seems to jive with many aspects of the Catholic faith I belong to. Honestly, I really don't know. I tend to think that there are metaphorical literary devices being used to convey a deeper message. But, even then, these metaphorical literary devices seem to be describing something real and tangible. I've never discounted the possibility that there might be a real location.If I'm to give some input that jives with the thoughts on this thread, I'll interject the thought that some have expressed: they tend to think that the tree of life is buried under the miles of ice of antarctica.I realize that this sounds very similar to H.P. Lovecraft's Mountains of Madness. But, in their opinion, they tend to believe that the ice caps formed in one single catastrophic event (when all the continents are theorized to have "split apart" during the great deluge). They tend to think that antarctica fits in nicely in around the arabian sea.In this sense, the "sword which points all ways" is symbolic of a compass pointing in all directions. The ice is the barrier that holds people back. And the tree (as well as the garden itself) sits perfectly preseved waiting to thaw when Christ returns at his second coming.I'm not a young earth creationist, so I don't actually hold this view. I've always though it would be good for a science-fiction Christian book though. The creativity impressed me enough so that I remembered it. oh well...sorry about that. Well...I think it is relevant to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so it wasn't a bad stab at it in my opinion. But, if you're not interested (or you feel that it will side-track the thread), I'll withdraw from explaining further if you wish. I think it's a blurry line at best (for me personally). The Scriptures often use real things to describe symbollically deeper spiritual issues. The best I can say is that it's probably a bit of both to varying degrees. I tend to think, however, that Adam and Eve were real people from which humanity contracted original sin. Likewise, even if the trees are real, they still seem to have a deeper theme -- with the tree of life pointing toward Christ while the tree of the knowledge of good and evil points toward the adversary.

Do I really have to quote it, or should I just make short reference to the "4 score virgins between the ages of sixteen and twenty" in Monty Python and the Holy Grail?

Ringo, I'm really trying hard to respect your opinions in regards to the concept of "spiritual death". I'm also trying very hard to respect your wishes about not side-tracking this thread to discuss this concept further. However, if you keep making claims like this, you can expect a detailed response from myself as to why this can very likely be "on-topic" and "very scriptural".Listen to what others are saying in regards to this thought and please stop dismissing their thoughts about it simply because it doesn't fit into your own pre-conceived notions as to how the Scriptures absolutely must be interpreted trhe way you view them.

Ringo316, I'm going to generally step back here. However, there is one issue that I wanted to address as quickly as I could without overkill.You said: Questioning them (in my opinion) is excellent for debate and discussion. However, when you make a statment like this... ...to a response like this... ...then I personally feel that you are not simply "questioning them" -- you are actually "dismissing" them. That's how I see it anyway.Consequently, arachnophilia seems to agree with riVeRraT and me to some extent.I actually brought up this same subject with zephyr to some extent. He didn't want this topic to cause a large tangent from the OP -- and I respected it.However, if you are simply dismissing it because it causes some consternation regarding your own arguments, then don't be surprised when people call you on it.I'm going to step back now. But I suspect that others in this thread are going to pick up on this same "supposed" tangent in order to wittle away at some of your assertions -- because it does seem to directly apply to the OP. *Mr. Ex Nihilo throws a flash bomb to the ground and disappears from the thread* This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-11-2005 08:10 PM

If the tree of life and the true of the knowledge of good and evil are assumed to be literal, then what exactly was going on in the garden?*sigh* I apologize in advance becuase this will be long post. It's not really directed toward anyone in general -- it's just my thoughts on the matter.I do believe that the garden was a literal place. I also believe that Adam and Eve were literal people. What I'm not so sure about was what whether the trees were literal or not -- and what exactly there effects were if they were literal.I think they could be literal. But, even then, they apparently had a spirutal meaning behind them as well.I'm going to interject some thoughts into the mix in regards to how I view the garden of eden.Since I'm not a young earth creationist, I tend to view the garden as being some type of hedged off area protected by God's grace. In saying this, I'm suggesting that death was already a natural process for all life on earth -- except for humanity since God was keeping them sustained by his grace within the garden.The reason why I feel that death was already in the world "outside" the garden is because of God's commands to Adam and Eve... When I look to the usage of the word "subdue" elsewhere in the Scriptures, it doesn't seem to have a friendly or peaceful connotation to it at all. In fact, in every other instance, it seems to be linked with the behavior of people and displayes it in a very violent manner (with the most extreme examples sometimes indicating annihilation and other times being like a consuming flame): In response to anyone who would suggest that Adam and Eve subduing the "earth" only applied to "tilling the soil", I would also note that nowhere else in the Scriptures is it used in this way -- every other time it's used it seems to be applied to the violent behavior of people. I'm not saying it's impossible for Adam and Eve subduing the "earth" to be applied to their duty to "till the soil". However, I am suggesting it's highly unlikely given the context it is used everywhere else in the Scriptures.If my observation is correct, then I think it's fair to say that "death" was a natural part of the world outside the garden.Now speaking of the garden itself, let's take a took at how the word "Eden" is employed.In the Septuagint the word Eden (pleasure) is called Paradise. This word is of Persian origin -- and it describes an extensive tract of pleasure land (somewhat like and English park). The usage seems to indicate a wider view of man's first abode than a simple "garden".If this is accurate to say (and I admit I could be wrong) then let's take a look at the trees themselves and the interaction between God and humanity within its confines.First of all we read the Scriptures saying, One part is that God never actually forbids humanity from eating from the tree of life -- until after they partake in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This may not necessarilly be God "changing his mind". Rather, it seems more appropriate to say that God observed some danger to humanity after they partook in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil -- one that didn't exist before they partook in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.Another part of this passage that I've had trouble with is the whole concept of God creating a tree which contained evil in it in the first place. More specifically, if God cannot look upon the face of evil (and cannot even think evil thoughts for that matter), then how can he even be "aware" of the evil or "make" something which contains evil in it.In praying about this more carefully, it seems more appropriate to say that God intended the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to be used for good after Adam and Eve partook in the tree of life.In other words, I think that if humanity had simply partaken in the tree of life first, then God would have stepped forward and then shown them how to employ the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for good.Now one might wonder how can something be used for both good and evil. Well, take a look at dynamite -- it was orginally emploed for a very useful and utilitarian purpose: mining. After it was developed though, people used it for lethal purposes that it was not originally intended to be employed.Similarly, I think the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had a good purpose -- but that God was waiting for humanity to be mature enough to use it appropriately.Let's pretend for a minute that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was real and literal, some type of seed similar to two species of Mexican morning glory vines. Let's go one step further and pretend that the fruit of this vine actually had something called ergot on it as well. When we look to ergot, we see a parasitic fungus that attacks wheat, barley, rye and many wild and cultiavted grasses. Ergot attacks the grain of the plant -- long purple structures of the fungus called sclerotia form in place of the seeds of the host plant.If eaten unprocessed, we see that it can inflict people with ergotism, a malady characterized by gangrenous extremities, convulsions, madness and death. During the Middle Ages, many ate rye bread infested with ergot fungus containing several peptide alkaloids of the ergotamine group (including ergotamine, ergosine and ergocristine) that affect blood vessels. Since they are potent vasoconstrictors, these alkaloids can cause gangrene if ingested in sufficient dosages. Known as "St. Anthony's Fire," ergotism was a dreaded disease in Europe. Another form of ergot poisoning involves severe hallucinations and madness, caused by pschoactive alkaloids in the sclerotia.Now, when we look at all this, we can easilly see a good reason not to eat this. However, does this mean that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was totally corrupt? If I'm correct with using the ergot analogy, I don't think it is.Continuing with the ergot analogy we see that a number of important medical discoveries have come from the study of ergot fungus and ergotism.For example, in 1935 the alkaloid ergonovine was isolated from ergot. Since it causes strong muscular contractions, it has been used to induce labor and to control hemmorrhaging. As another example, the alkaloid ergotamine has been used extensively to relieve migraine headaches through the constriction of blood vessels. In fact, thousands of pounds of ergot sclerotia are harvested each year from midwestern rye farms, and are used for various prescription drugs.It is fascintating to note that in 1943 chemist Albert Hofmann was studying ergot fungus, whose nuclei contain lysergic acid. When he added diethylamide he produced lysergic acid diethylamide, better known as LSD. While working on this new compound, Hoffman discovered that its strong hallucinogenic effects were similar to that of natural lysergic acid alkaloids in the seeds of "ololiuqui," morning glories used by the Aztecs in their religious ceremonies.Hoffman's diary notes some interesting comments concerning his "self-experiment": One might again note a possible similarity to the Scriptureal announcment: Apparently Adam and Eve had a very bad trip. Or, more specifically, they seemed to have their eyes openned to some type of horrifying thoughts, thoughts so bad that they felt they had to hide from God.It is interesting to note that the word for sorcery in the Scriptures is sometime distinguished by the word pharmicia... Another question that comes up is what about the fallen angels? When did they fall? Were they involved in this at all?I tend to think that the eyes of Adam and Eve being "oppened" ripped open their spiritual defenses to the point that the adversary could then infiltrate their thoughts and slay their trust in God.Keeping this within the specific context of the garden of eden, we do see that (according to the Scriptures) the adversary was very much present within the garden of eden. The Scriptures testify to this as follows (by comparing the King of Tyre to qualities that are clearly associated with the fall of the adversary): Interestingly, some have often commented as to why God left Adam and Eve alone. My personal answer is that he most likely did not. I think that the adversary himself was the guardian angel set there in the garden to make sure that Adam and Eve did not partake in the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil prematurely.Remember too this: If God cannot look upon the face of evil, and if he can't even think an evil thought, then it may very well be likely did God did NOT know what the adversary was up to -- he may have only been aware of some kind of danger of death but not sure exactly how it would come about.In God's mind he might have said, "Hmmmm...There's something not right about this tree. It has has the potential to cause death. I don't know exactly what's going on but I better warn them not to eat from it until they're ready for it."Consequently, if this is true, then the adversary totally went against his assigned duty and did the exact opposite of what he was supposed to do: he led them into temptation instead of leading them away from it.One might note the Scriptural announcement regarding God's words to the adversary: One might note that the adversary having to "eat dust" could apparently be in someway symbolic of him having to feed off the life-force of humanity in order to live -- because, as God himself said about man, "for dust you are and to dust you will return."In other words, apparently demons cannot live without God's grace -- however, since they are now cut off from God's grace, their only access to God's grace is through humanity. Plants live by photosynthesis -- and maybe demons live by hamartanosynthesis (the sins commited by humanity)?I'll comment on the tree of life later if anyone is interested. Sources:http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/lsd/lsd1_text.htm
http://www.entheology.org/edoto/anmviewer.asp?a=37&z=5This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-12-2005 01:39 PM

I'm not sure if the phrase "will surely die" necessarilly means "immediate death".Here's where the phrases in the NIV show it anyway: Note: If God was implying immediate death, then the adversary is actually correct in saying that they will not die immediately. It seems as though, reading the statement within the context of its own end-results, that the phrase "will surely die" doesn't necessarilly have to mean "immediately die".But let's take a look at the usage of this term everywhere else it occurs in the Scriptures just to check. Sometimes people do immediately die, such as in the case of Ahimelech and company -- and even then Abiathar escaped and fled to join David. and company (and it doesn't say how long it took Doeg to slay the town of Nob though). Yet Ezekial seems to say that God provides an allowance as to when someone turns away from his sin so as to allow someone to live. The case of the Israelites "surely dying" in the wilderness did not happen immediately -- it was transpiring over a process of some 40 years and Joshua and Caleb actually made it through the generation and didn't die until later.Edit: added information to clarify points regarding the apparent dichotomy between God's recorded words and the adversary's responses.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-12-2005 03:59 PM

Which translation are you using?I'd like to do a search for "in that day" in it and see what comes up.Edit: Don't get me wrong, I think you have a point. However, I think it's more appropriate to think along the lines of contingency then it being an immediate event.Even if event B follows event A, there could still be much time between the two events -- and it's immediate nature may not be necessarilly implied by the usage of "day" -- especially since the word "Yom" has been used to imply both a literal 24 hour day and longer periods of times, such as the life-cycle of grass for example.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-12-2005 04:38 PM

Faith and me may sharply and heatedly disagree on whether non-believers can be saved or not, but I have to agree with Faith here.Since they didn't immediately die physically, it seems quite reasonable that God never intended for them to immediately die physically due to their transgression. In fact, reading these passages strictly within their own context appears to clearly state that "the snake" was lying and that God was telling the truth. Well...just because someone questions what the Scriptures means doesn't mean they they're imposing their own definition on it. They're just asking questions. Jeesh Faith, why do you do this? I thought you were making good points until you said "your literal narrow definition". Even if arachnophilia was willing to listen before, he probably will take offense to this statement -- effectively closing the greater potential for dialogue.

thanks...ok, I'll give it a shot to see what pops up... Hmmm...ok...this is definitely not talking about an immediate sequence from A to B. This, as far as I can tell, is talking about a very gradual process of a very long peiod of time...unless the Scriptures are indicating that God made the heavens and the earth all in one literal day? I find the KJV difficult to understand to be honest. But this appears to be connecting the phrase "in the day that" with the generations of Aaron and Moses...it goes on to say, "And these are the names of the sons of Aaron; Nadab the firstborn, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar." Again, maybe I'm misreading this, but this seems to cover a very long period covering the births of several sons. I don't understand what this passage is saying. But it again seems to be implying a period of time before the vows are finally recognized (although the recognition may be immediate I suppose)Maybe the same thing can be said here: and here... Again, these statments seem to indicate an indefinite period of time prior to the recognition of vows. And even then, when one gives their vows, this is but only the beginning of their marriage I think. In other words (if I'm reading this correctly), even though some kind of vows are exchanged and marriage begins, it seems as though this is only the beginning stages (because one's marriage goes well beyond the day they are married -- often for many years in the Hebrew Scriptures). Certainly "on that day" certain rights are granted, but it takes many years to bring these rights to their fulness -- I think?Again , just to be clear, maybe I'm really misunderstanding this -- but I don't think these examples are lending support to an "immediate effect". Certainly a contingency is implied, but many of these examples could very likely be applied over longer time-scales than 24 hour periods.Here's the other examples that I could find... http://bible.gospelcom.net/...I would have to do a detailed analysis of each passage, but some others here (just off the top of my head) do not seem to lend themselves easilly to the "immediate" translation, although contingency (as causality as in A leading to B for example) is certainly implied in all these passages. Edited URL length to fix page width...you too can do this, just hit PEEK to see how it was done - The QueenThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 06-12-2005 08:03 PM

Just as a cursory note, I'm going to chime in with Faith once again. It seems odd to so strenuously enforce the interpretation that God implied an immediate death so as to conclude that God lied to Adam and Eve.I'm not really sure what else to say in this regard. I respect your thoughts on this -- and I can see that you've put a lot of thought into it. But I guess I just don't see it that way. Like Faith said, if Adam and Eve did eventually physically die (and they did eventually physically die), it seems much easier to conclude that God did not intend an immediate death.After reviewing your thoughts in regards to the usage of "in the day that...", it still seems very possible to me that God was speaking of Adam and Eve's physical death in a way similar to Genesis 2:4. Or in other words, it seems as if it could also likely mean an indefinite "when" -- when God allowed the Adam and Eve to begin to die, he also did this. Like Genesis 2:4, it seems as though death could also be at the same time, but the time is simply lengthy until the process comes to its final end. I guess I don't see it as being entirely outside the scope of possible translations anyway.

I thought this was partially based on the struggles between Tiamat and Marduk as expressed within the older Babylonian mythology? Maybe I'm making a mistake: is the Babylonian myths derived from the ugarits record? I'm not that familiar with these stories -- are they the same source of information?