Who made God?

[Jim Parker]

Here the tree of life is presented once again as literal...

Literal??
Really??
(sigh)
Revelation is theological literature containing the ecstatic, apocalyptic, visions of John who has rendered them into human language as best as possible.
That part of the vision can hardly be deemed "literal."

iakov the fool

 

[Cygnus]

Literal??
Really??
(sigh)
Revelation is theological literature containing the ecstatic, apocalyptic, visions of John who has rendered them into human language as best as possible.
That part of the vision can hardly be deemed "literal."

iakov the fool

Why not?

 

[Jim Parker]

Why not?

What? I just told you why not.

 

[OzSpen]

I read your linked post...literal, literalistic.
I consider it literal when the natural reading of the text portrays it that way.
Some parts of Revelation are not literal.

Cygnus,

When I was in seminary way back when, we used A Berkeley Mickelsen’s text on hermeneutics, Interpreting the Bible. There he stated that for the School of Antioch, it used historical interpretation as not referring to wooden literalism as this included the full use of typology:

“Literal” here means the customarily acknowledged meaning of an expression in its particular context. For example, when Christ declared that he was the door, the metaphorical meaning of “door” in that context would be obvious. Although metaphorical, this obvious meaning is included in the literal meaning (Mickelsen 1963:33).​

I learned this view of literal interpretation as far back as my high school days. Therefore, 'the tree of live' and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil' are metaphors and are included in literal interpretation.

This is in opposition to a literalistic view that would insist on the 'tree of life' as an actual tree that is called 'the tree of life' and not like a euchalyptus tree whose leaves are eaten by cuddly koalas.

Oz

Works consulted

Mickelsen, A B 1963. Interpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

 

[OzSpen]

"Do you believe Gen 2:9 (NIV) should be interpreted literally?".....YES. Do you?

Here you are avoiding again. Your response to the false claim you made about my view, please!

 

[OzSpen]

Yes.

What does the tree of life look like? Which kind of actual tree would parallel the look of this tree of life? Pine, bunya, eucalyptus, silky oak, tea tree, golden wattle, banksia, Moreton Bay fig, white ash, beech, etc?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

calvin here.
No it did not.
What I mean by literal is every word that issues forth from the Lord God, because, as it is written in 2 Tim 3:16, All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, Esv and I believe that God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? Num 23:19 Esv.
And of course I consider the Book of Genesis part of Scripture, therefore I believe it is literal and I'll just leave it to the Lord to work out the details where I lack understanding.
Or another way of putting it is I don't get to decide when the Lord is joking and when He is fair dinkum......do you?

calvin,

I'm not asking you about the content of the authority of Scripture. I'm asking you to tell us how to interpret any document literally. Please provide a definition of 'literal interpretation'. Is that too difficult to do?

Oz

 

[Cygnus]

Cygnus,

When I was in seminary way back when, we used A Berkeley Mickelsen’s text on hermeneutics, Interpreting the Bible. There he stated that for the School of Antioch, it used historical interpretation as not referring to wooden literalism as this included the full use of typology:

“Literal” here means the customarily acknowledged meaning of an expression in its particular context. For example, when Christ declared that he was the door, the metaphorical meaning of “door” in that context would be obvious. Although metaphorical, this obvious meaning is included in the literal meaning (Mickelsen 1963:33).​

I learned this view of literal interpretation as far back as my high school days. Therefore, 'the tree of live' and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil' are metaphors and are included in literal interpretation.

This is in opposition to a literalistic view that would insist on the 'tree of life' as an actual tree that is called 'the tree of life' and not like a euchalyptus tree whose leaves are eaten by cuddly koalas.



Oz

Works consulted

Mickelsen, A B 1963. Interpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

The tree of life was a literal historical tree growing in the literal Garden of Eden. A literal Adam literally disobeyed and ate from the literal tree of knowledge of Good and evil and literally fell.
Yes, some verses can be interpreted using your Mickelsen technique...and the creation account isn't one of them.

One way we can know that the Genesis account is very much literal is because Paul wrote a letter to Timothy telling them how women should act in church.....Now, what did Paul base the rule upon? A literal reading of Genesis:
1 Tim 2:13For Adam was formed first, and thenEve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression.
Why would Paul base this particular rule upon something that really never happened?

 

[OzSpen]

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

BY "looks a lot like Jesus" I mean, of course, that the tree of life could be a metaphor for Jesus based on scriptures like:
Jhn 1:4a In Him was life,

Jhn 20:31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

Rom 5:17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

Rom 5:21... as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Rom 6:23b ... the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.

Col 3:4 When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory.

2Ti 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,

iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)


DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

Jim,

That's an association that you think could have some validity. So it seems to me that there is some basis in scripture to support the idea of the tree of life being understood as a metaphor for Christ.

However, eminent evangelical commentator of Genesis , H C Leupold, takes a different view and provided this explanation:

The whole issue is really very simple. Both trees are mentioned because both were there and both were destined for a very definite purpose. The tree of life, as appears from 3:22, would have served its purpose in the event of the victory of man in the first temptation. Its existence shows that God had made ample provision for man's good. Since, however, it never came to be used, it at once very properly recedes into the background after the first mention of it and is alluded to only after the Fall in 3:22. Its purpose apparently was to confirm man in the possession of physical life and to render physical death an impossibility (Leupold 1942:119).​

So he considers that Gen 2:9 pointed to man's physical life and that physical death would have been impossible if man had eaten of that tree.

Oz

Works consulted

Leupold, H C 1942. Exposition of Genesis, vol 1 (chapters 1-19). London: Evangelical Press.

 

[OzSpen]

The tree of life was a literal historical tree growing in the literal Garden of Eden. A literal Adam literally disobeyed and ate from the literal tree of knowledge of Good and evil and literally fell.
Yes, some verses can be interpreted using your Mickelsen technique...and the creation account isn't one of them.

One way we can know that the Genesis account is very much literal is because Paul wrote a letter to Timothy telling them how women should act in church.....Now, what did Paul base the rule upon? A literal reading of Genesis:
1 Tim 2:13For Adam was formed first, and thenEve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression.
Why would Paul base this particular rule upon something that really never happened?

Cygnus,

I have never ever stated that what happened in Genesis did not happen. I'm trying to get you to provide a definition of what you mean by 'literal'. That's all.

As for the 1 Tim 2 passage, Paul is referring to an application of the Adam and Eve story to the first century church and some of the problems being experienced in the Ephesian Church where Timothy was located.

Why would Paul use his rule on women in ministry by referring back to Adam and Eve? That is dealing with the historical, which is true, but you are not providing us with your understanding of the meaning of literal interpretation.

The 'tree of life' is a metaphorical label that refers to an actual tree. The same with the 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil'. We are not given the names of these trees but are told, using symbolism, what would happen when Adam and Eve ate from them. All of this symbolism, metaphor, figures of speech, etc are covered by literal interpretation.

Berkeley Mickelsen's definition of 'literal interpretation', that includes all figures of speech and symbolism, is a definition that applies to all literature from the local newspaper, reading what I'm writing here, reading Shakespeare, and reading the Bible.

You seem to be confusing historical figures with literal interpretation.

Oz

 

[Cygnus]

Cygnus,

I have never ever stated that what happened in Genesis did not happen. I'm trying to get you to provide a definition of what you mean by 'literal'. That's all.

As for the 1 Tim 2 passage, Paul is referring to an application of the Adam and Eve story to the first century church and some of the problems being experienced in the Ephesian Church where Timothy was located.

Oz

Literal would be....if you had a time machine and could go back in time...and witness an event happening, that would be literal. You could literally watch Jesus hang on the cross. You could literally watch Moses part the Red Sea. You could literally watch Noah build the ark. You could literally see Adam biting the fruit. You could literally see God making Eve from Adams rib.

Now, could you literally see God using the earth as a footstool? Isaiah 66:1 You know, sitting back in His heaven throne with His feet propped up on earth? I don't think so.

 

[Jim Parker]

So he considers that Gen 2:9 pointed to man's physical life and that physical death would have been impossible if man had eaten of that tree.

Hmmm
I don't think that there is reason to believe that eating of the fruit of the tree of life would prevent physical death other than the tree and eating its fruit being understood a metaphor.

From the passage you posted, I cannot tell what Leupold's view on that view might be.

jim

 

[OzSpen]

Literal would be....if you had a time machine and could go back in time...and witness an event happening, that would be literal. You could literally watch Jesus hang on the cross. You could literally watch Moses part the Red Sea. You could literally watch Noah build the ark. You could literally see Adam biting the fruit. You could literally see God making Eve from Adams rib.

That's historical and you not differentiating the meaning of literal interpretation.

Now, could you literally see God using the earth as a footstool? Isaiah 66:1 You know, sitting back in His heaven throne with His feet propped up on earth? I don't think so.

That's metaphorical language and is included in the meaning of literal interpretation.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Hmmm
I don't think that there is reason to believe that eating of the fruit of the tree of life would prevent physical death other than the tree and eating its fruit being understood a metaphor.

From the passage you posted, I cannot tell what Leupold's view on that view might be.

jim

Jim,

If I eat of the tree of life that does not include the tree of death, I would live forever as death would not have entered the human race.

Leupold's 2 vols are available online: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/leupold/genesis.html

I quoted from p. 119 of vol 1. I'll leave it up to you to pursue it.

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

The tree of life was a literal historical tree growing in the literal Garden of Eden. A literal Adam literally disobeyed and ate from the literal tree of knowledge of Good and evil and literally fell.

That's one way to see it.

 

[Jim Parker]

One way we can know that the Genesis account is very much literal is because Paul wrote a letter to Timothy telling them how women should act in church.....Now, what did Paul base the rule upon? A literal reading of Genesis:

Or from the God-given teaching presented in the metaphors of the story of Adam and Eve.

 

[Jim Parker]

If I eat of the tree of life that does not include the tree of death, I would live forever as death would not have entered the human race.

According to Eastern Orthodox tradition, that was the opportunity given to Adam and Eve but was not accomplished for mankind until Christ rose from the grave conquering death (the wages of sin) and establishing the resurrection of mankind in immortality and incorruption. (1 Cor 15: 52ff)

I quoted from p. 119 of vol 1. I'll leave it up to you to pursue it.

From what little I read, he seems to take a literal view of the A&E story. I don't think it was meant to be taken in that manner.

jim

 

[Cygnus]

That's one way to see it.

That would be the correct way to see it.

 

[Jim Parker]

That would be the correct way to see it.

Correct for you, yes.

 

[Cygnus]

Or from the God-given teaching presented in the metaphors of the story of Adam and Eve.

I'm not buying that. Paul wouldn't base a rule upon a metaphor. Makes no sense to do that.

The problem is when you metaphor up the bible....no one really understands it, unless the meaning of the metaphor is explained elewhere in the bible.