Dennis1209 Posted October 13, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 18 Topic Count: 348 Topics Per Day: 0.13 Content Count: 7,501 Content Per Day: 2.70 Reputation: 5,398 Days Won: 1 Joined: 09/27/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted October 13, 2017 I find the topic of the Tree of Life very interesting. In my understanding where the Tree of Life is mentioned in scripture, it can be difficult to determine if it is literal or symbolic. For instance: Adam was created an eternal being until he ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. (By the way, it wasn't an apple for many reasons. Doing some study I suggest the fruit could have been the pomegranate.) It appears from scripture that Adam never ate from the Tree of Life. I believe both trees were and are literal fruit trees, but may be used symbolically in some places. (1) If Adam was created an eternal being, what is a literal Tree of Life doing in the Garden of Eden? During the rapture / resurrection, we are going to be transformed and raised incorruptible and eternal beings, forever to be with the Lord. In Revelation during the millennium, the Tree of Life is there for us to freely partake of. (2) Is partaking of the Tree of Life during the millennium necessary for eternal life of those resurrected? My current thoughts of the Tree of Life in the millennium might be for those who survive the tribulation and are saved and enter the millennium as humans? Could this be the reason most of humankind will live to be almost a thousand years old, since 100 year old's will still be babes? What's your Biblical thoughts? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 9 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said: I find the topic of the Tree of Life very interesting. In my understanding where the Tree of Life is mentioned in scripture, it can be difficult to determine if it is literal or symbolic. For instance: Adam was created an eternal being until he ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. (By the way, it wasn't an apple for many reasons. Doing some study I suggest the fruit could have been the pomegranate.) It appears from scripture that Adam never ate from the Tree of Life. I believe both trees were and are literal fruit trees, but may be used symbolically in some places. (1) If Adam was created an eternal being, what is a literal Tree of Life doing in the Garden of Eden? Adam's source of life was God himself. So the Tree of Life served a purpose in the Garden that the Bible doesn't explicitly detail for us. Quote During the rapture / resurrection, we are going to be transformed and raised incorruptible and eternal beings, forever to be with the Lord. In Revelation during the millennium, the Tree of Life is there for us to freely partake of. (2) Is partaking of the Tree of Life during the millennium necessary for eternal life of those resurrected? No, because like Adam, God is our source of life. He IS eternal life. Jesus said claimed to be eternal life (John 11:25-26; 14:6). He is the Life and the giver of Life. Quote My current thoughts of the Tree of Life in the millennium might be for those who survive the tribulation and are saved and enter the millennium as humans? Could this be the reason most of humankind will live to be almost a thousand years old, since 100 year old's will still be babes? What's your Biblical thoughts? During the Millennium, the curse that currently hangs over the collective head of humanity will be partially removed. And those who were saved during the Tribulation will live much, much longer than we live now and will thus have many children who will live longer and have children also. The Tree of Life isn't mentioned as being part of the Millennium, only the New Heavens and New Earth (Rev. 22: 2, 14). The Tree of Life is NEVER a source for eternal life for mankind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMatrixHasU71 Posted October 13, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,573 Content Per Day: 0.51 Reputation: 723 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted October 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Dennis1209 said: (By the way, it wasn't an apple for many reasons. I believe it was apples but its not literal Song of Solomon 2:5 Stay me with flagons, comfort me with apples: for I am sick of love. Apples here, as in Genesis were not meant to be taken literally, but were symbols of sex. Adam and Eve's first sin was not literally eating an apple, but the knowledge of sex and procreation. Adam and Eve wanted to be like God, to be able to create human beings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted October 13, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,276 Content Per Day: 7.99 Reputation: 21,501 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Online Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted October 13, 2017 I'm again with Shiloh's take... it is undescribed as to purpose and I believe it to be an obedience marker in the Biblical content to be just that undefined and left for God to reveal in His time and purpose... However God's keeping it from fallen man speaks volumes of it's possible sealing nature to eternal things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 1 hour ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said: I believe it was apples but its not literal Song of Solomon 2:5 Stay me with flagons, comfort me with apples: for I am sick of love. Apples here, as in Genesis were not meant to be taken literally, but were symbols of sex. Adam and Eve's first sin was not literally eating an apple, but the knowledge of sex and procreation. Adam and Eve wanted to be like God, to be able to create human beings. That is complete nonsense. Their sin was eating of a particular and unique fruit that didn't grow on any other tree, so it wasn't an apple, so your premise is unsound. God had already commanded them to procreate BEFORE their fall. You have no data to suggest that they never had intercourse prior to the fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Adams Posted October 13, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 25 Topic Count: 61 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 9,606 Content Per Day: 3.95 Reputation: 7,797 Days Won: 21 Joined: 09/11/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted October 13, 2017 I know it is not popular to take the scripture, in this case, literally. I tend to like 'plain-speak' wherever possible. If you think about it, Adam named all the animals and must have seen them procreate. Since he had a perfect memory and walked with the Lord, he would have had had many answers as to how things worked as well. Imagine being able to call all animals by name! I am sure he knew not to take of the tree of good and evil. It could have been any tree, but it was distinctive because Eve mentioned it also in her conversation with Satan. Since Adam was most likely enamored of Eve, he may even have reluctantly joined her in her bad choice. It seems to be worded such that Adam knew full well what he was doing, but Eve was deceived. He may have wanted to just stand by her, not fully realizing until later the implications. (This might be seen later in that Solomon also strayed and was enticed by women with pagan ways.) That the tree of life was also there and figured in God's commentary, it may be assumed that it was possible, until banishment, that Adam and eve could have partaken and 'lived forever'. That is God's inference here. They may have 'lived forever' in the sense of physical life, but spiritually I am not so sure. It seems the act of sin brought on a spiritual death. It is also very clear to me that none of this took the Lord God by surprise. He does see the end unto the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coheir Posted October 13, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 104 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,458 Content Per Day: 0.55 Reputation: 729 Days Won: 5 Joined: 02/09/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/31/1950 Share Posted October 13, 2017 3 hours ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said: I believe it was apples but its not literal Song of Solomon 2:5 Stay me with flagons, comfort me with apples: for I am sick of love. Apples here, as in Genesis were not meant to be taken literally, but were symbols of sex. Adam and Eve's first sin was not literally eating an apple, but the knowledge of sex and procreation. Adam and Eve wanted to be like God, to be able to create human beings. the grape has more of a chance of being forbidden fruit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmuffet Posted October 13, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 34 Topic Count: 1,992 Topics Per Day: 0.48 Content Count: 48,690 Content Per Day: 11.78 Reputation: 30,343 Days Won: 226 Joined: 01/11/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted October 13, 2017 If we read the Bible literally the way God has intended you will find that the tree of life is a literal tree. It is a life giving tree which first shows up in the book of Genesis. God took it out of the garden because of Adam and Eve's sin. It also is mentioned in the book of Revelation. The tree of life will be permanent in the New Jerusalem. The apple that is spoken of in Genesis is not a literal "apple" that we know of on this earth but a fruit we have never seen or experienced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts