The location of the Tree of Life

haha yeah i have that problem too.

It doesn't matter if it was a figure of speech or not. That's entirely irrelevant to my point. I am entirely happy with your assertion that it is a figure of speech and am not arguing with it at all. It is clear that the word Yom appears in the text. That Yom refers to time. I am not saying it has to be a set, specific time, or time in a causality type of manner...RiverRat said there was no time indicator at all in his translation. The only word he could find that might be interpreted thus was 'surely'. That means, that in his translation it does not say 'for in the day'...I found that odd.Look what he says:

quote:

---

Now where does it say, that Adam and Eve will die the very moment they ate of the tree. My translation says "Surely die". The word surely doesn refer to any specific time.

---

Naturally the words 'surely die' weren't what was being discussed but the words 'for in the day'. Whatever they really mean, or imply, that phrase exists, in some form or another in the Bible. I just know you don't dispute that the phrase 'for in the day' is in there. That was what I was pointing out to RiverRat. I wanted to know what translation he was using, since the word 'Yom' is definitely in the Hebrew, so not including some wording that includes some reference to some time related phraseology (be it an figure of speech or otherwise), would be odd.And given that the discussion was about the potential meaning of the phrase 'for in the day' it might be a good idea for RiverRat to look at a different translation. The NLT misses out the phrase entirely: 'Yom' is simply not translated.

Well it either is, is not. Is there someone here who can go back to a translation closer to the original, and maybe there is an indication there, that might help us. Because I really feel, that is exactly what it is talking about, as do many concordances. That makes the literal translation wrong on another point. Ok, your going to have to clear this statement up, it is very....hypocritical? If something happened, what was it. Was it a change? because your saying there wasn't a change, but something happened.In your own words, tell us why they happened.
I also want you to know, that I enjoy these conversations, as it not only tests my faith, but helps to learn the bible better, and hopefully share a little of what happened to me along the way.
If I come across as rude, it's because I grew up in NYC, and thats how we treat each other sometimes. I used to be 1000 times worse. I don't mean anything by it. If you met me in person you would understand. Well it says they would die, if they ate it. What happens if they don't? This will bring about death, according to God. Their fall was in their disobiediance to God, before that they were not disobiediant, and walked with God. That is literal. Well the bible doesn't describe it like that, so I guess that is a speculation also. Ever read the warning label on uranium 238?
Pretty soon is a relative term. So if you were intended to live forever, then 900 yeas would be pretty soon on the grand scale of things. So then you agree that they did not have to die immediatly, inorder for the storyto be correct?

What GOD actually said to Adam was "dying, you shall die." And when Adam ate whatever it was Eve handed him, that is exactly what happened. The moment he ate, he died spiritually. Over 900 years later, he died physically.

---

Val

Genesis 2: 17 "But the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." This is how it is rendered in the King James Version of the Bible. But a study of the text in the original languages renders the idea "dying, you shall die." Adam and Eve immediately died spiritually, and only later physically.
No, the King James translators didn't get it wrong, this is no contradition. We know more about the languages now than they did in 1611.

---

Val

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
If that ain't the truth, I don't know what is!

---

Val

Its a great statement, but it begs the question, how can we tell the wise, from those that profess to be wise?I would say those that remain tentative in their conclusions are wiser than those who make absolute statements.I would also say this is not really on topic, so perhaps discussion of it should be in another thread, or a new thread?

Okay. It's a simple enough idea, really. Maybe I haven't expressed it well before.God created us imperfect. He gave us "free will" - i.e. the ability to screw up. Although we are created in His image, an image is not the real thing. We are imperfect versions of God.In the garden, God planted two special trees, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life. Adam and Eve had a choice:1. Eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and become conscious of their limitations - i.e. become "human", or2. Eat from the Tree of Life and be God's everlasting companions - innocent but boring.God advised them to choose #2, even to the point of "misrepresenting" the consequences. The snake advised then to choose #1.Adam and Eve chose option #1 and God promptly removed option #2 - lest they become too perfect copies of Him. (His motivation for hoarding His "godness" is unknown.)If they had chosen option #2, maybe option #1 would have been removed. We don't know. All we know is that God didn't want Adam and Eve to be exactly like Him.Now, when they ate the fruit and their eyes were opened, they could see:1. Food doesn't just magically appear. We have to work for it.
2. Having children is painful, both physically and emotionally.
3. We all have to die to make room for the next generation.
4. You can't trust a snake.
5. Etc.Those things had all been true since the creation, but Adam and Eve couldn't see it. Only when they ate the fruit and became more god-like could they understand the situation.So there was no change in the way the world works. There was a change in the way human beings understand the world.(Well, that's a long enough sermon, even for Sunday morning. If you have any questions, I'll be in my study after Communion. ) I'm Canadian. We tend to be polite, but some of us have little patience with rudeness.By all means, be yourself, but don't be surprized if you get your head bitten off for it. That's just my point. Why speculate?If they hadn't eaten the fruit, would they have been God's obedient slaves forever? Would there have been a Bible for us to argue about? Would we even be here?Let's stick to what we do know. But the "fall" made them more like God. Is that not a good thing? Is that not what we are striving for ourselves?Why do you think God gave us free will in the first place? Why do you think He gave Adam and Eve a choice between Knowledge and Life?Do you think He didn't know which choice they would make?If He gave them the choice and knew which choice they would make, don't you think He approved of their choice?The reason I don't like the concept of "spiritual death" is because it is so utterly, utterly depressing. One of my favourite hymns starts out "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me...."A "wretch" like me?How does debasing myself elevate God, Who created me? I prefer to think that He did a pretty good job.My spirit is not dead, nor has it ever been.When I die a physical death, my spirit will live on in the hearts of those who knew me. My spirit can never die as long as there are others who care about me.

---

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

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

repetition is the way you say "very" in hebrew. so in this case, it's an idiom meaning "surely die" or "certainly die." which is the way i think you will find most translations render it. hi. welcome to the thread. please read any of my other posts here. the statement that god says is very, very simple. when adam eats of the tree, adam will die. not in 900 years. not "that day." pretty much immediately. see the "in the day" posts i've made.

---

אָרַח

no, this is entirely relevent. "yom" here is part of a phrase, and idiom. it's not refering to the literal time. it doesn't refer to time at all. it refers to one event causing the other to come about. my translation does not either. like i said, it's a figure of speech. my translation is idiomatic. it makes sure to render the ideas correctly. mine says "as soon as you eat from it, you shall die." yes, and this verse:

quote:

---

1Samuel 24:3

​

...There was a cave there, and Saul went in to relieve himself

---

contains the word "feet." it does, look up the kjv. is it really saying anything about feet? it's just an expression. the only time in in the genesis 2 verse is the sense of immediacy.the word "day" has nothing to do with it. yes, but we can't ignore context. according to the context, yom can mean year, as well. for instance "the days of his life were ___" really means "he lived for ___ years" yes, that's actually a fine rendering. if, when, same concept. and it retains the sense of immediacy.

---

אָרַח

not in the context of genesis, no. the authors make god like us, but if we try to out-do god, we get in trouble. see bab-el.

---

אָרַח

quote:

---

Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

---

---

אָרַח

no, they got it right. they just rendered the idioms literally. i think you'll find most modern bible translations say the same thing. however, you are NOT showing more knowledge of the language than they are, you're showing less."dying you shall die" is an improper english rendering. it might be literally what the hebrew says, and it is, but it doesn't work in english. look:"for in the day that thou eatest thereof dying you shall die."does that work? it doesn't work for me. repitition is emphasis in hebrew. notice lots of stuff in the bible comes in pairs? so this really says "you will really die"which implies very, very strongly that god means a physical death. there is absolutely nothing in the story that says this. god doles out punishments, and not ONE of them is spiritual death. he condemns them to eventual physical death, sure. but god never mentions anything about their spirits dying. in fact, i think you will find genesis totally devoid of any references human spirits or souls.

---

אָרַח

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