just thinking

[Ovedya]

Was it the species of the tree in the garden, or was it the particular tree in the garden? If the species of the tree, or the fig or that manner any particular fruit, was the problem, then we would have told that any tree of that species was sinfull. Yet that was not the case. That one particular tree which we have no other direct knowledge of otherwise, was the forbidden tree.

Exactly. That one tree was forbidden. I was mistaken when I used the term "species," but it nevertheless is perfectly logical that not only was there one tree without the capacity for reproduction, but there was no other tree in it's species.

Point Two. I have read my Bible too and I stumbled across this interesting thing in Chapters 7 and 8, we effectionately call "The Flood". What is particularly relevant about this event to our discussion, is that it completely and totally wiped out the earth and changed the landscape so that it was unrecognizable (think: Pangaea). As a simple exercise, ignore the names that English translators have given to the rivers in Ge 2:10-14 and identify that formation where one river feeds into and breaks into four rivers. (The Hebrew names have no correlation with the English names)

So......? How is that relevent? If the flood wiped out all life save that of Noah and his family, and perhaps some of the marine life that would have survived in the flood waters, then it also would have wiped out the garden. Therefore, without the capacity for reproduction or regeneration, the tree of knowledge would have been destroyed.

Wow. So what is your point? The fig is used symbolically in Scripture to represent sin and the fruit of the fig represents death (Luke 13:6-9; James 3:12) - where do we find the tomato and the apple used for anything in Scripture?

Ah! So now you're describing the fig tree as being symbolic of sin and death. It looks to me like you're drifting between typology and literal interpretations of Scripture. My point, in case you missed it, was the fact that various fruits over the centuries have been superstitiously believed to have originated from the tree of knowledge. The fact is, it all amounts to superstition, and nothing more. Your interpretation, while interesting, is simply not better or worse than any of the other various superstitious interpretations.

Let me get this straight, you admit that you don't know what fruit it was, but whatever fruit it was it couldn't be anything we have today. And you base that "fact" on.... ?

God's nature and character. God blocked the way to the tree of life (Gen. 3:22-24) at the East entrance (Which logically was the only entrance of the garden. So if God blocked the way to the tree of life He also blocked the way to the tree of knowledge.

Hmm... where does it say in Scripture that Jesus is the Tree of Life?

In Proverbs 15:4 the wholesome tongue is a tree of life. In Rv 2:7 To him that overcomes the LORD will give to eat from the tree of life which is currently located in the midst of the Paradise of God.

Sorry, you were talking about symbolic representations, weren't you? Now you want to contend with me using literal interpretations? Well, does the fig tree represent death or is it death itself? If the fig tree represents death than Jesus, as the reality of the tree of life, can represent life.

Here's the connection for you: In Revelation 22:2 the tree of life grows on either side of the river of life, which is in the middle of the golden street. A single tree cannot grow on either side of the river unless it grows "along" that river or unless it reproduces along that river. Of the two I prefer that the tree of life was a vine reproducing along either side of the river. If the tree of life were a vine, then it would represent Christ Himself, who is the real vine (John 16). In Revelation the tree of life produces 12 fruits, which represent the apostles, who are the branches of the vine, each having produced though their work (which is God's adminiastration of life), the church.