PDA

View Full Version : Tree of Life



rchivers
Apr 20th 2007, 05:44 PM
I searched and could not find anything on this. What is the "Tree of Life"?


Gen 2:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=1&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Gen 3:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=1&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Gen 3:24 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=1&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=24) So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

rchivers
Apr 20th 2007, 05:50 PM
Ok, I did actually just find a thread about medicine where it was described as possibly Jesus and the salvation that he offers (eternal health/life?).

I guess what I really want to know is why we were blocked from it? Isn't there a verse that says something like "they must not eat of it, lest they become like us"?


Edit:


Gen 3:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=1&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:


This is the verse I was grasping for. Who is "us"? Jesus did not exist yet, how could he be the tree of life? Why does God not want us to live forever (like him?)?

Ramon
Apr 20th 2007, 07:54 PM
Jesus did in fact exist and you just pointed out his appearance in Genesis. :D Jesus existed with God from the beginning. He was a king in heaven and the angels worshiped him. This is often called the pre-incarnated Jesus. Before he was in Mary's womb he was in heaven. What did he look like? well the prophet Daniel saw him and was stunned and described him as "one that looked like a man" Notice that God also says "let us make man in our own image" We were made to look like Jesus before he became one of us. Your excerpt from Genesis just shows that there is a trinity. Hope that helped you.....

Toolman
Apr 20th 2007, 08:50 PM
Two Trees Theory thread (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=7482&highlight=two+trees)

TEITZY
Apr 21st 2007, 01:44 AM
I searched and could not find anything on this. What is the "Tree of Life"?

You forgot a couple of verses:)

Rev 22:2, 19 in the middle of its street On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations...and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.


I guess what I really want to know is why we were blocked from it? Isn't there a verse that says something like "they must not eat of it, lest they become like us"?

This is the verse I was grasping for. Who is "us"? Jesus did not exist yet, how could he be the tree of life? Why does God not want us to live forever (like him?)?


The main reason they were barred from the tree of life was so they could not live forever in the their sinful condition (2 Tim 3:13). The tendency of unregenerate sinners is to go from bad to worse and so in some respect it was an act of mercy on God's part to limit the physical lifespan of man and lessen his condemnation.

Just some side notes:)

We see in Revelation that those who corrupt the Word of God are barred from the tree of life as Adam & Eve were. You'll also remember that God placed angels at the entrance of Eden to stop people entering to eat from the Tree of Life (Gen 3:24) and in the New Jerusalem angels are also present at each entrance (Rev 21:12) but the gates are never shut (21:25) and all have access to the tree of life.

Cheers
Leigh

terraricca
Oct 12th 2015, 02:41 AM
I searched and could not find anything on this. What is the "Tree of Life"?

I believe that the tree of life was what was missing to Adam and Eve to be fully live forever ,but only God and they angels knew that ,

it also make me understand that everlasting life is not immortality ;so please do not confuse these two things ,

everlasting life will be receive for those that will inherit the earth while those that will receive "immortality" will be living in heaven,

this is why it says ;

Rev 21:2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.
Rev 21:3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.
Rev 21:4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
Rev 21:5 He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”
Rev 21:6 He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life.
Rev 21:7 He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son.

Rev 22:1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb
Rev 22:2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

Christinme
Oct 12th 2015, 11:59 AM
Two Trees Theory thread (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=7482&highlight=two+trees)Well along with many of the older threads this thread is gone ... and unfortunately from this site so are you Toolman.

BrianW
Oct 12th 2015, 12:48 PM
I'm pretty sure you could find it in the Archive ( http://bibleforums.org/archive/index.php ) but I have no idea how to search it so you would have to hunt and peck around for quite a bit.

Christinme
Oct 12th 2015, 12:51 PM
I'm pretty sure you could find it in the Archive ( http://bibleforums.org/archive/index.php ) but I have no idea how to search it so you would have to hunt and peck around for quite a bit.Well maybe ... but it's my understanding that many threads are just gone.

Hawkins
Oct 19th 2015, 04:20 PM
The main reason they were barred from the tree of life was so they could not live forever in the their sinful condition (2 Tim 3:13). The tendency of unregenerate sinners is to go from bad to worse and so in some respect it was an act of mercy on God's part to limit the physical lifespan of man and lessen his condemnation.


While I think that you are correct, I believe that the Tree of Life can have multi fold meanings. Prophetically it says that the Tree of Life is guarded from the reach of humans that humans will have no access to know whether life will continue after physical death or not. They thus need faith to believe that an afterlife exists, or they need faith to believe that it doesn't.

always
Oct 19th 2015, 07:46 PM
While I think that you are correct, I believe that the Tree of Life can have multi fold meanings. Prophetically it says that the Tree of Life is guarded from the reach of humans that humans will have no access to know whether life will continue after physical death or not. They thus need faith to believe that an afterlife exists, or they need faith to believe that it doesn't.


Adam and Eve, had never felt the sting of death, they had no knowledge of what death was, other than the fact that if they ate from the forbidden tree they would "die" began to age. (out of their knowledge)

I don't get a prophetic message that something being guarded would generate faith to believe that nothing exists................

chad
Oct 19th 2015, 08:40 PM
There are two more verses in revelation that talk about the tree of life ...

(Rev 2:7 NIV) He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.

and

(Rev 22:14 NIV) "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.

(Rev 22:15 NIV) Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

ross3421
Oct 20th 2015, 05:31 AM
Need to remember the tree is fed by the water of life which proceeds from the throme and the Lamb. Thus this tree is pure as the water.

Now of course the interesting question is why is it needed in eternity IF all have eternal life already, why is mediciene needed for the nations....... study, study.

Well then all must not be immortal in eternity. Then this would suggest that there is offspring in eternity needed of salvation which must by faith come to the city and drink from this water and eat of this tree.

So then those which are resurrection to life into the kingdom are immortal and live inside the city. No death.

But there will be a whole different world outside the walls which will populate for eternity where there will be a need for salvation and yes there will be death for those whom do not.

Today's life is a pattern of those things to come, though the king of kings is leader of the world.

chad
Oct 20th 2015, 06:32 AM
Do you mean these verses in Revelation 21:6-8?

6 He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7 Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”



Need to remember the tree is fed by the water of life which proceeds from the throme and the Lamb. Thus this tree is pure as the water.

Now of course the interesting question is why is it needed in eternity IF all have eternal life already, why is mediciene needed for the nations....... study, study.

Well then all must not be immortal in eternity. Then this would suggest that there is offspring in eternity needed of salvation which must by faith come to the city and drink from this water and eat of this tree.

So then those which are resurrection to life into the kingdom are immortal and live inside the city. No death.

But there will be a whole different world outside the walls which will populate for eternity where there will be a need for salvation and yes there will be death for those whom do not.

Today's life is a pattern of those things to come, though the king of kings is leader of the world.

ross3421
Oct 20th 2015, 06:46 AM
Do you mean these verses in Revelation 21:6-8?

6 He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7 Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

Not specific to these verses.

What is your question....

chad
Oct 20th 2015, 08:38 AM
I didn't really have a question. In the above post you mentioned death, so I thought you might have been refering to the second death as mention in Revelation 21:8



Not specific to these verses.

What is your question....

ross3421
Oct 20th 2015, 08:48 AM
I didn't really have a question. In the above post you mentioned death, so I thought you might have been refering to the second death as mention in Revelation 21:8

No. The verse which states there is no more death pertains only to the city and it's inhabinants. These which live there are of the true church. They are immortal.

I see that they will still be death in the land "outside" the city. These are those which do not come unto the city and water and tree of life. They will be the offspring of the 144,000 all enternity which will choose to serve or not.

chad
Oct 20th 2015, 09:14 AM
So where does the lake of fire fit in with your understanding of the bible?



No. The verse which states there is no more death pertains only to the city and it's inhabinants. These which live there are of the true church. They are immortal.

I see that they will still be death in the land "outside" the city. These are those which do not come unto the city and water and tree of life. They will be the offspring of the 144,000 all enternity which will choose to serve or not.

Sam07
Oct 20th 2015, 12:40 PM
Hi

The word Garden means hedge so I believe Eden was a protected area and that’s why the tree of life and tree of knowledge were placed the middle of the garden, because they were safe there.

I believe the tree of life represents Gods eternity or the alpha and omega without beginning and without end and the tree of knowledge represents Gods understanding of right and wrong.

God understood the outcome of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil so he warned Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge or Adam would die both spiritually, separated from God and physically due to his body being subject to sin sickness and then death.

God was not worried about Adam being tempted or curious about the tree because he knew Adam understood that he would die if he ate from it, and there is no record in the bible of Adam ever being curious or tempted by the tree of knowledge, because Adam understood God quite clearly that it would kill him If he ate the fruit.

The devil also observed and knew Adam was not tempted or curious about the tree and that’s the reason why the devil intervened and devised a plan by using Eve to trick Adam into eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil because the devil knew Adam had no interest in eating from it either.

What’s interesting to note is before Adams and Eves transgression God never said to Adam and Eve that they could not eat from the tree of life, but only from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

What’s also interesting is when Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil nothing changed and nothing happened in the Garden of Eden, it was only when she gave the fruit to Adam and he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil that both their eyes were opened.

Do you know why?

Because Eve was given to Adam as a helper and Adam was the head of Eve and responsible for her, so that's why her eyes and Adams eyes only opened after Adam ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and not when Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and this is how the devil used Eve to trick Adam into eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil because nothing changed in the garden of Eden when Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and Adam witnessed all this and is the reason why Adam didn't have a problem eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because he didn't expect anything to happen.

Now who ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil first, Adam or Eve?

Obviously it was Eve, but yet the bible says sin entered into the world by Adam not by Eve confirming that Adam was responsible for Eve’s safety and well being, and this covering is duplicated from God to Jesus to Holy Spirit to man to wife and to our children.

It would seem the tree of life extends from our God to all his creation and from his creation to their off spring and this is for eternity in this world and the next to come.

just food for thought

Peace

ross3421
Oct 21st 2015, 04:30 AM
So where does the lake of fire fit in with your understanding of the bible?

Note sure what you are asking.........

chad
Oct 21st 2015, 04:41 AM
You mentioned in a previous post ...

So then those which are resurrection to life into the kingdom are immortal and live inside the city. No death.

But there will be a whole different world outside the walls which will populate for eternity where there will be a need for salvation and yes there will be death for those whom do not.


Revelation 21:8 writes of the second death.

Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

So my question is, with what you posted above regarding death for those outside the city gate, where does Revelation 21:8 fit in (in your understanding of the bible) regarding death and the second death?



Note sure what you are asking.........

ross3421
Oct 21st 2015, 06:25 AM
You mentioned in a previous post ...

So then those which are resurrection to life into the kingdom are immortal and live inside the city. No death.

But there will be a whole different world outside the walls which will populate for eternity where there will be a need for salvation and yes there will be death for those whom do not.


Revelation 21:8 writes of the second death.

Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

So my question is, with what you posted above regarding death for those outside the city gate, where does Revelation 21:8 fit in (in your understanding of the bible) regarding death and the second death?

Sorry still not see what you are looking for.....please just come out and be specific to the problem.

Hawkins
Oct 21st 2015, 04:49 PM
Adam and Eve, had never felt the sting of death, they had no knowledge of what death was, other than the fact that if they ate from the forbidden tree they would "die" began to age. (out of their knowledge)

I don't get a prophetic message that something being guarded would generate faith to believe that nothing exists................

I am talking about a fact.

Do you think you need to have faith on what would happen after death or not?

As a matter of fact, every sane person without exception needs faith EITHER to believe that afterlife exists, OR it doesn't.

That's the point.


It doesn't matter anyway, if you don't get the point leave it there for others to read.

ForHisglory
Oct 24th 2015, 04:34 PM
Need to remember the tree is fed by the water of life which proceeds from the throme and the Lamb. Thus this tree is pure as the water.

Now of course the interesting question is why is it needed in eternity IF all have eternal life already, why is mediciene needed for the nations....... study, study.

Well then all must not be immortal in eternity. Then this would suggest that there is offspring in eternity needed of salvation which must by faith come to the city and drink from this water and eat of this tree.

So then those which are resurrection to life into the kingdom are immortal and live inside the city. No death.

But there will be a whole different world outside the walls which will populate for eternity where there will be a need for salvation and yes there will be death for those whom do not.

Today's life is a pattern of those things to come, though the king of kings is leader of the world.
The best post of yours I have read.
Couldn't agree more.

Glorious
Oct 24th 2015, 10:06 PM
Need to remember the tree is fed by the water of life which proceeds from the throme and the Lamb. Thus this tree is pure as the water.

Now of course the interesting question is why is it needed in eternity IF all have eternal life already, why is mediciene needed for the nations....... study, study.

Well then all must not be immortal in eternity. Then this would suggest that there is offspring in eternity needed of salvation which must by faith come to the city and drink from this water and eat of this tree.

So then those which are resurrection to life into the kingdom are immortal and live inside the city. No death.

But there will be a whole different world outside the walls which will populate for eternity where there will be a need for salvation and yes there will be death for those whom do not.

Today's life is a pattern of those things to come, though the king of kings is leader of the world.


Well then all must not be immortal in eternity.

Immortality and eternal life are synonymous. Eternal life, just as immortality, is life in perpetuity.

The tree of life is in the middle of the course of the river of life. It's 12 fruits are for the healing of the nations.



Healing is same as deliverance (spared and set free from destruction) by the power of God. It is weightier than healing of sickness that faith in the name of Jesus Christ provides.
A nation is the recipient of salvation (help and preservation) by the grace or mercy of God. Correspondingly, nations are recipients of salvation by the grace/mercy of God.



So, the tree of life provides eternal (perpetual) liberty from destruction for recipients of salvation in the new earth who, by the Holy Ghost, are in the Christ.

ross3421
Oct 25th 2015, 02:49 AM
The best post of yours I have read.
Couldn't agree more.

Well never expected anyone to agree.....thanks.

divaD
Nov 3rd 2015, 03:01 PM
The best post of yours I have read.
Couldn't agree more.


You did notice Ross indicated it will be like that for all eternity, right? He's not meaning for just a thousand years, but for all eternity.

Noeb
Nov 4th 2015, 12:32 PM
Well, if you wanna get all technical about it, we don't have any scripture that states whether or not mortals of the millennium remain immortal or are changed.

ForHisglory
Nov 4th 2015, 08:13 PM
Well never expected anyone to agree.....thanks.
I have noticed one thing though, which is that you claim that because this is the situation at the start, then it must be so forever (for all eternity).
However I would highlight that Dan 2 and Dan 7 point to this only being true for a period of time, yet is needed at the start of that final age.
Rev 20 seems to say the same thing, that death itself will be tossed into the Lake of Fire. When that happens (which is sometime after the Millennium has ended and presumably soon after the dead have been raised and judged) then the need will no longer be there for these things. yet they will remain I think because they will be reminders of His goodness and grace in the midst of everything.

ForHisglory
Nov 4th 2015, 08:14 PM
You did notice Ross indicated it will be like that for all eternity, right? He's not meaning for just a thousand years, but for all eternity.
Good point, and I have put something in regards to that. Still the best post that I have read from Ross.

ross3421
Nov 5th 2015, 09:52 AM
However I would highlight that Dan 2 and Dan 7 point to this only being true for a period of time, yet is needed at the start of that final age.

Can you give me what you are referring to????


Rev 20 seems to say the same thing, that death itself will be tossed into the Lake of Fire. When that happens (which is sometime after the Millennium has ended and presumably soon after the dead have been raised and judged) then the need will no longer be there for these things. yet they will remain I think because they will be reminders of His goodness and grace in the midst of everything.

I do not see a literal 1000 years for many reasons. But to say it is a metaphor as John is unable to measure time outside of this relm. Outside this relm only (father) time knows...... The 1000 years occur BEFORE the second coming.

With that said..... I would say that there may be folks contiually tossed into the lake of fire for all eternity. But agree that it serves also as a reminder.

ForHisglory
Nov 6th 2015, 09:22 AM
Can you give me what you are referring to????
Sure:
Dan 2:35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.
Dan 2:44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever,
Dan 2:45 just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure."

So in Dan 2 we have the stone breaking the statue. These all representing kingdoms. Yet the stone kingdom is a kingdom that we read will:
Fill the whole earth (2:35)
Never be destroyed (2:44)
Not left for another people, standing forever (2:44)
Breaks in pieces the other kingdoms (2:35 & 2:45)

So this tells us about the future kingdom of God, which will grow UNTIL it has filled the earth.

Dan 7:12 As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.
Dan 7:13 "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.
Dan 7:14 And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
Dan 7:18 But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever.'
Dan 7:22 until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given for the saints of the Most High, and the time came when the saints possessed the kingdom.
Dan 7:26 But the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and destroyed to the end.
Dan 7:27 And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; his kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.'

So we find the same story told in another way, 50 years later. Here again the kingdom of God, made of the saints of the Most High, possess the kingdom forever and ever. The peoples of the nations and their dominions shall serve and obey Him.
This shows us a progressive aspect to what happens when Jesus returns.
1) He destroys the beast kingdom
2) The other dominions continue for a season and a time
3) The other dominions are all serving Him
4) The saints possess His Kingdom, which is an everlasting kingdom.

I hope this clarifies for you what I was alluding to.


I do not see a literal 1000 years for many reasons. But to say it is a metaphor as John is unable to measure time outside of this relm. Outside this relm only (father) time knows...... The 1000 years occur BEFORE the second coming.

With that said..... I would say that there may be folks contiually tossed into the lake of fire for all eternity. But agree that it serves also as a reminder.
I am fairly certain it is a literal length of time, not least because the duration is stated 6 times, so that we can be pretty clear it isn't just a random number meaning a long time. However even if it isn't literal, it still speaks of a finite period of time.
Note also it isn't John measuring time, but God telling him the length of time. Why people claim that the next age is somehow unfathomable is strange as we are told that months continue and weeks continue.
However the Millennium occurs AFTER His return. It is IMPOSSIBLE for it to be BEFORE unless you believe that those who have died will be resurrected BEFORE He comes.

ross3421
Nov 7th 2015, 06:18 AM
Sure:
So this tells us about the future kingdom of God, which will grow UNTIL it has filled the earth.

It never says "until" and then it stops to grow......... this is an incorrect interpetation.

Dan 2 and dan 7 speak of the same everlasting kingdom. I think you are trying to say dan 2 is a supposed Millinum and Dan 7 is the everlasting kingdom....


I am fairly certain it is a literal length of time, not least because the duration is stated 6 times,

Becuase the fact it is repeated does not mean it is literal.


However even if it isn't literal, it still speaks of a finite period of time.

Yes it is a finite period. Is time measured in heaven or hell?


Note also it isn't John measuring time, but God telling him the length of time.

I dont think God is telling him........ He is writing down what he is seeing.

John also mentions the silence in heaving being ABOUT a half hour. Why did he say about? Becuase he could not quantify (measure) the time.


However the Millennium occurs AFTER His return. It is IMPOSSIBLE for it to be BEFORE unless you believe that those who have died will be resurrected BEFORE He comes.

Rev 20 is set up like this......

Verses 1-8 - events prior to second coming (those in verse 4 are the firstfruit resurrection of the 144,000 prior to Christ's return)

Verse 9 - is the second coming (the fire coming down from heaven IS Christ himself)

Verse 10-15 events after second coming (the rest of the dead.. believers and unbelievers are resurrected)

CFJ
Nov 7th 2015, 07:42 AM
Post edited by BrianW

Hi Savvoy,

In Genesis 1:1, we read, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." God = Elohim = Gods (plural)

In Genesis 1:2 we read, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

We know purely from these 2 verses, that a Godhead was involved and in John 1 and Hebrews 1, we know how it all folds together.

Are you sure, that the "US" in Genesis 3:22, refers to God, Adam and Eve and would you like to expand on this please?

ForHisglory
Nov 7th 2015, 11:27 AM
It never says "until" and then it stops to grow......... this is an incorrect interpetation.
It says it fills the earth. So that means it grows UNTIL the earth is full. Once the earth is full then that is it. Now you can argue that once the earth is full we may go to other planets, etc. BUT within this prophecy it is growing until it fills the earth. Which as the earth is finite, means a finite size, further it is a progressive growing until the fullness is reached. So it IS a correct interpretation, unless you choose to change the meaning of words.


Dan 2 and dan 7 speak of the same everlasting kingdom. I think you are trying to say dan 2 is a supposed Millinum and Dan 7 is the everlasting kingdom....
Not at all, they BOTH speak of the same kingdom, but the kingdom doesn't start as already having filled the earth, instead it grows (which is a progressive state) and it endures. So what I am saying is that the Millennium is simply the start of the Everlasting Kingdom. Not two separate kingdoms.


Becuase the fact it is repeated does not mean it is literal.
Can you give a single example from scripture (or pretty much any other literature), where the same figure is repeated SIX times, and the person telling you the number doesn't mean for you to take it literally. If it is symbolic as I highlighted, it still represents something real.


Yes it is a finite period. Is time measured in heaven or hell?
Time is definitely measured when it is in relationship with earth. As the New Jerusalem (which is the start of the everlasting kingdom) comes down to earth, we find that there ARE both months and weeks:
Rev 22:2 through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
We see this same river here:
Eze 47:10 Fishermen will stand beside the sea. From Engedi to Eneglaim it will be a place for the spreading of nets. Its fish will be of very many kinds, like the fish of the Great Sea.
Eze 47:11 But its swamps and marshes will not become fresh; they are to be left for salt.
Eze 47:12 And on the banks, on both sides of the river, there will grow all kinds of trees for food. Their leaves will not wither, nor their fruit fail, but they will bear fresh fruit every month, because the water for them flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for healing."
So time is definitely being measured. I could find more references if you like such as Zech 14 and Isaiah 65 & 66. Further it is definitely on the earth.


I dont think God is telling him........ He is writing down what he is seeing.
Who is showing him what he sees? Who is inspiring him? Further it is an angel showing John these things (as we read from Rev 21:5 and confirmed in Rev 22:1, and who it seems is telling John things.)
John is not just making things up, but writing what is revealed, that we may understand it.


John also mentions the silence in heaving being ABOUT a half hour. Why did he say about? Becuase he could not quantify (measure) the time.
If you don't have a watch how would you measure half an hour? he mentions half an hour because it was approximately that length of time, it may have been 29 minutes and 30 seconds, or 30 minutes and 23 seconds or some other length of time about 30 minutes or half an hour in duration. Time is being measured and is being specified, but sometimes those figures are specified in terms of half an hour, sometimes as days, sometimes as months, sometimes as years. Which ALL show that time IS being measured.
Jesus was ABOUT 30 when He started His ministry:
Luk 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age,
Now this is showing that He may have been in His 30th year (IOW it wasn't on His birthday), so may have been 30 years and 5 months old. Possible He was even 29 or 31. This usage (on earth) shows the word "about" doesn't mean time can't be measured, but rather that it isn't an EXACT length of time, which shows that we have to use the level of exactness that God uses and not some formulaic 24 hours of 60 minutes of 60 seconds, when considering a day etc.


Rev 20 is set up like this......
Verses 1-8 - events prior to second coming (those in verse 4 are the firstfruit resurrection of the 144,000 prior to Christ's return)
Verse 9 - is the second coming (the fire coming down from heaven IS Christ himself)
Verse 10-15 events after second coming (the rest of the dead.. believers and unbelievers are resurrected)
Nope, this means you have dead people being resurrected AND reigning WITH Christ, WITHOUT Christ. That is nonsense.
Rev 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
Further verse 9 is NOT Christ Himself. He is NEVER describes as being a fire in ANY part of scripture. You CAN make a connection with the Holy Spirit, but that isn't even what is happening here. This verse 9 is just like that stated in Elijah's day:
1Ki 18:38 Then the fire of the LORD fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench.

awestruckchild
Nov 7th 2015, 01:52 PM
I will admit I have not read this thread, only the op.
I believe the tree of life is Jesus but...I am not completely sure.
It seems like the cherubim sent to guard the tree of life so they could not have access to it and thereby live forever in their state, are like the veil in the temple.

So it is almost as if the tree of life could be likened to the Holy of holies or the inner sanctuary.

That might sound confusing. I see some connection between the cherubim and the temple veil.

awestruckchild
Nov 7th 2015, 01:54 PM
I don't think I have that fully right though. It's foggy.

ForHisglory
Nov 7th 2015, 02:07 PM
I will admit I have not read this thread, only the op.
I believe the tree of life is Jesus but...I am not completely sure.
It seems like the cherubim sent to guard the tree of life so they could not have access to it and thereby live forever in their state, are like the veil in the temple.

So it is almost as if the tree of life could be likened to the Holy of holies or the inner sanctuary.

That might sound confusing. I see some connection between the cherubim and the temple veil.
Nope, the tree of life is separate to Jesus. Jesus gives access to the tree of life. Just as the river of life is also distinct to Jesus.
Many do consider the Holy Spirit as the river of life, and you could perhaps consider the tree of life as simply another expression of the Holy Spirit.
We read about BOTH the river and the tree of life in Rev 22 and it also mentions Jesus:
Rev 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
Rev 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
Rev 22:4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.
Rev 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

So I think that though the "life" aspect is the work of God, the actual river and tree are simply created things made to allow access to them.
Thus the life was blocked by the cherubim.

awestruckchild
Nov 7th 2015, 02:14 PM
Nope, the tree of life is separate to Jesus. Jesus gives access to the tree of life. Just as the river of life is also distinct to Jesus.
Many do consider the Holy Spirit as the river of life, and you could perhaps consider the tree of life as simply another expression of the Holy Spirit.
We read about BOTH the river and the tree of life in Rev 22 and it also mentions Jesus:
Rev 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
Rev 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
Rev 22:4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.
Rev 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

So I think that though the "life" aspect is the work of God, the actual river and tree are simply created things made to allow access to them.
Thus the life was blocked by the cherubim.

Yeah, I hear you. But...it's very difficult for me to separate the tree of life, which to eat it would have made Adam live forever, from Jesus, who if we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we will live forever.

Maybe my inability to separate it is just because I consider the triniy as one but also sort of separate.

Good to talk with you this morning FHG!

ForHisglory
Nov 7th 2015, 03:46 PM
Yeah, I hear you. But...it's very difficult for me to separate the tree of life, which to eat it would have made Adam live forever, from Jesus, who if we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we will live forever.

Maybe my inability to separate it is just because I consider the triniy as one but also sort of separate.

Good to talk with you this morning FHG!
Can you separate His body from Himself? For we are His body and we aren't meant to eat each other. If a metaphor is stretched too far it breaks down.
However I read this tree and river as being REAL physical objects which interact with the world JUST as Jesus did when He was on the earth.
Further I see the Tree of Life speaking of physical life, not spiritual - for note this:
Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—"

Eating the fruit then of this tree doesn't bring the KIND of life that God wants, merely life. Do you grasp the difference?

Good afternoon to you :D

awestruckchild
Nov 8th 2015, 04:54 PM
Well...I guess...no, I don't grasp the difference.
To me, eternal life means living forever
I do understand that once they died spiritually, He forbid the option of living eternally in that state.

As for the rest, what I was trying to convey, from within my turbulent brain, is that I cannot easily separate Jesus from eternal life, which was the tree in the garden, by saying Jesus is Jesus and eternal life is eternal life and they are completely separate things. He has the words of eternal life, He is the way TO that eternal life, His blood makes the whole thing possible, and...He IS the life. My mind cannot separate and compartmentalize all of it. And it is the same with the Trinity. Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God and eternal life is in them and they're all sort of rolled up into one in my mind.

ForHisglory
Nov 8th 2015, 11:23 PM
Well...I guess...no, I don't grasp the difference.
To me, eternal life means living forever
I do understand that once they died spiritually, He forbid the option of living eternally in that state.

As for the rest, what I was trying to convey, from within my turbulent brain, is that I cannot easily separate Jesus from eternal life, which was the tree in the garden, by saying Jesus is Jesus and eternal life is eternal life and they are completely separate things. He has the words of eternal life, He is the way TO that eternal life, His blood makes the whole thing possible, and...He IS the life. My mind cannot separate and compartmentalize all of it. And it is the same with the Trinity. Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God and eternal life is in them and they're all sort of rolled up into one in my mind.
How about this way - Jesus provides the means to live eternally, and He gives the quality to that eternal life. Yet that life is what WE live. The tree is simply a mechanism by which you can live, but does NOT include the value or joy or quality of that life. Jesus though is a quality life and not a quantity alone.

awestruckchild
Nov 8th 2015, 11:48 PM
Nah, that doesn't work either for me. I know I am difficult. I still can't do it...
He said, I AM the life.
To me, He IS eternal life.

Though this HAS got me thinking about something...how is there eternal torment for someone who doesn't have eternal life? Satan appears to have eternal life. I understand eternal torment for him. But we do not have eternal life unless we have the Holy Spirit...

ForHisglory
Nov 9th 2015, 07:38 PM
Nah, that doesn't work either for me. I know I am difficult. I still can't do it...
He said, I AM the life.
To me, He IS eternal life.

Though this HAS got me thinking about something...how is there eternal torment for someone who doesn't have eternal life? Satan appears to have eternal life. I understand eternal torment for him. But we do not have eternal life unless we have the Holy Spirit...
Let me highlight that Jesus is the source of eternal life, but how He gives it (the mechanism) is how He chooses. We don't physically eat His flesh and drink His blood. So the life is given by Him, but how we take it in is separate. The gift and the giver if you like.
Does that clarify at all?

As to eternal torment, that is another thread which will probably end up in contro, but put simply, there is no eternal torment. There is eternal destruction, but I understand that to mean the destruction is for good (forever, for eternity). So no further resurrections.

divaD
Nov 10th 2015, 01:03 AM
Well...I guess...no, I don't grasp the difference.
To me, eternal life means living forever
I do understand that once they died spiritually, He forbid the option of living eternally in that state.

As for the rest, what I was trying to convey, from within my turbulent brain, is that I cannot easily separate Jesus from eternal life, which was the tree in the garden, by saying Jesus is Jesus and eternal life is eternal life and they are completely separate things. He has the words of eternal life, He is the way TO that eternal life, His blood makes the whole thing possible, and...He IS the life. My mind cannot separate and compartmentalize all of it. And it is the same with the Trinity. Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God and eternal life is in them and they're all sort of rolled up into one in my mind.



The way I reason it is like this. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden the entire time, and not once was it told them to not eat of it. As a matter of fact here's what the text indicates.

Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of 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.


Notice what it says here...Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat. Logically that has to include the tree of life. How can it not? It is only the tree in verse 17 Adam was forbidden to eat of.

Putting two and together then, I simply believe Adam and Eve ate of the tree of life also while in the garden. Why they eventually died then? Simple. They no longer had continual access to the tree of life because it was blocked, thus they couldn't live forever anymore without the tree of life to sustain immortality. I base this on Rev 22, the fact this same tree is shown to be partaken of post the 2nd coming of Christ, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month. That implies continual eating of. The question is why, especially if everyone becomes immortal at the last trump, meaning saints? Probably for the same reasons I suspect Adam and Eve ate of this tree.

ewq1938
Nov 15th 2015, 04:48 AM
e Adam and Eve ate of the tree of life also while in the garden. Why they eventually died then? Simple. They no longer had continual access to the tree of life because it was blocked, thus they couldn't live forever anymore without the tree of life to sustain immortality.

Or, they never ate from it, and were never immortal at any time.

jeffweeder
Nov 15th 2015, 05:35 AM
Or, they never ate from it, and were never immortal at any time.

If they were never meant to eat from it, then why remove them from it?
Jesus went to extraordinary lengths that we may eat from it again and live forever. We re enter the place that God prepared from the foundation of world, through the gates and into the city where the tree of life reappears.

ewq1938
Nov 15th 2015, 06:04 AM
If they were never meant to eat from it, then why remove them from it?

I never said they weren't meant to eat from it. I said I don't think they did in fact I know they didn't because eating from it makes you immortal and they weren't immortal.

jeffweeder
Nov 15th 2015, 06:21 AM
I never said they weren't meant to eat from it. I said I don't think they did in fact I know they didn't because eating from it makes you immortal and they weren't immortal.

They were told they would only die the day they ate off the other tree that was in the middle of the garden. They were invited to eat off any other tree that was in the garden.

ewq1938
Nov 15th 2015, 06:36 AM
They were told they would only die the day they ate off the other tree that was in the middle of the garden.

No, they were promised a death the day they sinned. They did die that very day they sinned. It simply was not a physical death.


They were invited to eat off any other tree that was in the garden.

Yes they were.

jeffweeder
Nov 15th 2015, 06:56 AM
No, they were promised a death the day they sinned.


That was the only death, as God didn't want them to die. He tried to keep them alive by warning them of the only thing that would create death for them.

divaD
Nov 15th 2015, 01:42 PM
Or, they never ate from it, and were never immortal at any time.

All of my life, meaning ever since I began reading the Bible, I had always believed that once you eat of the tree of life, instant immortality, and no reversing it at that point. But then one day as I was reading it again, I began asking myself, have I been understanding this correctly all this time? I began asking myself questions such as...why was the tree of life in the garden to begin with? And if it meant instant immortality if one eats from it, what if one eats of the forbidden tree first, and the fact both were in the midst of the garden, then moments later eat from the tree of life as well? What then? Things weren't adding up anymore. So notice something in the following passage.

Genesis 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.


Notice that apparently a bit of time passes before they are even confronted by God in the garden. Whether minutes or hours after eating of the forbidden tree, that I couldn't tell you. But the point being they would have had plenty of time to also partake of the tree of life as well. Then what? Meaning if partaking of it equals instant immortality?

So then I began considering that the tree of life is in the picture post the 2nd coming, that according to the book of Revelation. And there is not a single place in the entire Bible where it even hints that some time in eternity the tree of life will no longer be there. So why would the tree of life be there for all eternity if no one is eating from it during that time? What would be the purpose? Revelation 22 should already be giving one a clue that eating from it is an ongoing thing, because if it means instant immortality from eating just once, why is it being depicted like the following then? And in eternity on top of that, since the NHNE are clearly speaking of eternity.


Revelation 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

This says it's for the healing of the nations.

Revelation 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Here we are told by Jesus to him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. An overcomer is clearly meaning a Christian in this contexy.

Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Those who do His commandments are not only meaning those that would become Christians post the first coming, but also have to include the saints of old, such as the ones named in the OT.

So I started putting 2 and 2 together then.

1...the tree of life was never off limits at any time prior to the fall of man.
2...God said of every tree in the garden Adam can freely eat, which logically has to include the tree of life.
3...The book of Revelation shows that saints will be eating from this tree in eternity and that it also shows this is apparently on ongoing thing since there's not one Scripture I can think of, to where the tree of life is done away with at some point.

I therefore ended up concluding Adam indeed ate from the tree of life while he was in the garden, but the reason he didn't sustain immortality is because access to the tree got blocked and without it he nor anyone could continue living without dying at some point. If you still disagree that's fine. But it's not like I didn't think some of this through a bit first. I realize that doesn't make me automatically correct or anything. But who knows though, it may have been like I said, that Adam indeed ate of this tree while in the garden.

Willows
Nov 15th 2015, 03:07 PM
All of my life, meaning ever since I began reading the Bible, I had always believed that once you eat of the tree of life, instant immortality, and no reversing it at that point. But then one day as I was reading it again, I began asking myself, have I been understanding this correctly all this time? I began asking myself questions such as...why was the tree of life in the garden to begin with? And if it meant instant immortality if one eats from it, what if one eats of the forbidden tree first, and the fact both were in the midst of the garden, then moments later eat from the tree of life as well? What then? Things weren't adding up anymore. So notice something in the following passage.

Genesis 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.


Notice that apparently a bit of time passes before they are even confronted by God in the garden. Whether minutes or hours after eating of the forbidden tree, that I couldn't tell you. But the point being they would have had plenty of time to also partake of the tree of life as well. Then what? Meaning if partaking of it equals instant immortality?

So then I began considering that the tree of life is in the picture post the 2nd coming, that according to the book of Revelation. And there is not a single place in the entire Bible where it even hints that some time in eternity the tree of life will no longer be there. So why would the tree of life be there for all eternity if no one is eating from it during that time? What would be the purpose? Revelation 22 should already be giving one a clue that eating from it is an ongoing thing, because if it means instant immortality from eating just once, why is it being depicted like the following then? And in eternity on top of that, since the NHNE are clearly speaking of eternity.


Revelation 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

This says it's for the healing of the nations.

Revelation 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Here we are told by Jesus to him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. An overcomer is clearly meaning a Christian in this contexy.

Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Those who do His commandments are not only meaning those that would become Christians post the first coming, but also have to include the saints of old, such as the ones named in the OT.

So I started putting 2 and 2 together then.

1...the tree of life was never off limits at any time prior to the fall of man.
2...God said of every tree in the garden Adam can freely eat, which logically has to include the tree of life.
3...The book of Revelation shows that saints will be eating from this tree in eternity and that it also shows this is apparently on ongoing thing since there's not one Scripture I can think of, to where the tree of life is done away with at some point.

I therefore ended up concluding Adam indeed ate from the tree of life while he was in the garden, but the reason he didn't sustain immortality is because access to the tree got blocked and without it he nor anyone could continue living without dying at some point. If you still disagree that's fine. But it's not like I didn't think some of this through a bit first. I realize that doesn't make me automatically correct or anything. But who knows though, it may have been like I said, that Adam indeed ate of this tree while in the garden.
Keeping in mind that you are basing your understanding of this on private interpretation of prophetic riddles, which interpretation is not certain, for there are differing interpretations of them in the body of Christ.

divaD
Nov 15th 2015, 04:20 PM
Keeping in mind that you are basing your understanding of this on private interpretation of prophetic riddles, which interpretation is not certain, for there are differing interpretations of them in the body of Christ.

It's not exactly a private interpretation though. There are others who basically see it the same way. Maybe not exactly like I do, but close enough though. Maybe no one on this forum though.

Willows
Nov 15th 2015, 04:23 PM
It's not exactly a private interpretation though. There are others who basically see it the same way. Maybe not exactly like I do, but close enough though. Maybe no one on this forum though.
Yes, but by "private" I mean the interpretation is not given in Scripture; i.e., not a Biblical interpretation, but a personal/private interpretation.

ForHisglory
Nov 15th 2015, 06:52 PM
Yes, but by "private" I mean the interpretation is not given in Scripture; i.e., not a Biblical interpretation, but a personal/private interpretation.
Sorry, but what!?!
When is there EVER a Biblical interpretation? Can you give an example?
Everyone has their own personal interpretation, the question is ALWAYS, does my interpretation fit with every single scripture - is there any scripture which disproves it or no scripture to support it.

My own understanding is similar to divaD's but the main difference being that the Tree of Life is NOT for those who have been clothed in immortality, but for those who during the Millennium wash their robes.
As I tried to explain earlier for ASC, the Tree of Life simply gives physical life, it doesn't grant immortality - thus you need to keep eating it, nor (and this is more important) give the quality of life. It is Jesus who does that - for TRUE life is found in Him.

Willows
Nov 15th 2015, 07:59 PM
By "private" I mean the interpretation is not given in Scripture; i.e., not a Biblical interpretation, but a personal/private interpretation.
Sorry, but what!?!

When is there EVER a Biblical interpretation? Can you give an example?
And if I can give not one but ten, what does that establish with you?

The meaning of the prophetic riddle in Da 2:28-35 is interpreted in the Bible in Da 2:36-45.
The meaning of the prophetic riddle in Da 4:9-18 is interpreted in the Bible in Da 4:20-26.
The meaning of the prophetic riddle in Da 7:2-15 is interpreted in the Bible in Da 7:16-28.
The meaning of the prophetic riddle of Da 8:2-14 is interpreted in the Bible in Da 8:16-27.

The meaning of the prophetic riddle in symbolic acts
of Eze 12:3-7 is interpreted in the Bible in Eze 12:10-16,
of Eze 12:18 in the Bible in Eze 12:19-20,
of Eze 15:2-5 in the Bible in Eze 15:6-8,
of Eze 37:1-10 in the Bible in Eze 37:11-12,
of Eze 37:15-17 in the Bible in Eze 37:18-22,

of Rev 12:3-4, 13:1-8, 17:1-6 in the Bible in Rev 17:7-18,
all of which interpretations are Biblical and certain, and are a sound basis for doctrine.

All other interpretations of prophetic riddles are private and uncertain, and are not a sound basis for doctrine.

ForHisglory
Nov 15th 2015, 08:08 PM
And if I can give not one but ten, what does that establish with you?

The meaning of the prophetic riddle in Da 2:28-35 is interpreted in the Bible in Da 2:36-45.
The meaning of the prophetic riddle in Da 4:9-18 is interpreted in the Bible in Da 4:20-26.
The meaning of the prophetic riddle in Da 7:2-15 is interpreted in the Bible in Da 7:16-28.
The meaning of the prophetic riddle of Da 8:2-14 is interpreted in the Bible in Da 8:16-27.

The meaning of the prophetic riddle of symbolic acts in Eze 12:3-7 is interpreted in the Bible in Eze 12:10-16,
of Eze 12:18 in the Bible in Eze 12:19-20,
of Eze 15:2-5 in the Bible in Eze 15:6-8,
of Eze 37:1-10 in the Bible in Eze 37:11-1,
of Eze 37:15-17 in the Bible in Eze 37:18-22,

of Rev 12:3-4, 13:1-8, 17:1-6 in the Bible in Rev 17:7-18,
all of which interpretations are Biblical and certain, and are a sound basis for doctrine.

All other interpretations of prophetic riddles are private and uncertain, and are not a sound basis for doctrine.
Sorry but NONE of these examples are interpretations. they are explanations. The angel states what the vision means. How you interpret what the angel says, still remains your interpretation. I seem to remember this being something you didn't grasp in another thread.

There are in fact places where certain prophecies are claimed as having happened, such as Peter in reference to Joel 2, though other shave Joel 2 as being in the future.
May be we are just disagreeing about the usage of language, and so assuming your usage is correct, IF there are ONLY 10 examples of prophecy being interpreted, then that means ALL the rest of prophecy is open ONLY to private interpretation. So according to the yard stick you are using against what divaD states, it means that the majority of prophecy is pointless to consider.

Willows
Nov 15th 2015, 08:13 PM
Sorry but NONE of these examples are interpretations. they are explanations.
Interpretations are explanations.


The angel states what the vision means. How you interpret what the angel says, still remains your interpretation.
As does all Scripture according to that principle.


There are in fact places where certain prophecies are claimed as having happened, such as Peter in reference to Joel 2, though other shave Joel 2 as being in the future.
To which prophecy are you referring?


IF there are ONLY 10 examples of prophecy being interpreted, then that means ALL the rest of prophecy is open ONLY to private interpretation. So according to the yard stick you are using against what divaD states, it means that the majority of prophecy is pointless to consider.
Not pointless, but not a sound basis for doctrine, as is clear and certain NT teaching, which must govern all interpretation of prophetic riddles.

ewq1938
Nov 15th 2015, 10:50 PM
All of my life, meaning ever since I began reading the Bible, I had always believed that once you eat of the tree of life, instant immortality, and no reversing it at that point.

But it does say that if Adam were to eat from it he would live forever. It doesn't stipulate he has to constantly eat from it. Immortality by definition means you cannot and will not die. If you could, then it's not true immortality.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Not that it does not say this:

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat it's fruit everyday, and live for ever:

Btw "eat" is in the perfect tense signifying a completed action as opposed to an ongoing action. He needed to eat from the tree of life only once to gain immortality according to this verse.



But then one day as I was reading it again, I began asking myself, have I been understanding this correctly all this time? I began asking myself questions such as...why was the tree of life in the garden to begin with?

A basic choice between good or evil. One fruit gave forbidden knowledge and death, the other gave eternal life. Adam choose wrongly.



And if it meant instant immortality if one eats from it, what if one eats of the forbidden tree first, and the fact both were in the midst of the garden, then moments later eat from the tree of life as well? What then? Things weren't adding up anymore.

It adds up. Adam would have been immortal if he ate of the life fruit after the other fruit which is exactly why God barred him from accessing the tree of life.




Genesis 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.


Notice that apparently a bit of time passes before they are even confronted by God in the garden. Whether minutes or hours after eating of the forbidden tree, that I couldn't tell you. But the point being they would have had plenty of time to also partake of the tree of life as well. Then what? Meaning if partaking of it equals instant immortality?

Yes, if they had eaten from it but they didn't.




So then I began considering that the tree of life is in the picture post the 2nd coming, that according to the book of Revelation. And there is not a single place in the entire Bible where it even hints that some time in eternity the tree of life will no longer be there. So why would the tree of life be there for all eternity if no one is eating from it during that time?

These people already were granted immortality so eating from it doesn't "maintain" immortality because that isn't really immortality. That's called a conditional immortality which I don't believe is supported by scripture for the saved in the eternity.



What would be the purpose? Revelation 22 should already be giving one a clue that eating from it is an ongoing thing, because if it means instant immortality from eating just once, why is it being depicted like the following then? And in eternity on top of that, since the NHNE are clearly speaking of eternity.

I think the tree is much different before people are granted immortality through God's judgment than it is afterwards in the eternity.





Revelation 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

This says it's for the healing of the nations.

Says the leaves are for healing, not the fruit and it's hotly debated as to what this healing actually means.




1...the tree of life was never off limits at any time prior to the fall of man.
2...God said of every tree in the garden Adam can freely eat, which logically has to include the tree of life.

No evidence that Adam choose the tree of life.





I therefore ended up concluding Adam indeed ate from the tree of life while he was in the garden, but the reason he didn't sustain immortality is because access to the tree got blocked and without it he nor anyone could continue living without dying at some point. If you still disagree that's fine.

I disagree based on the Hebrew verb tense which would be different if immortality was conditional on continued eating.

ForHisglory
Nov 16th 2015, 07:41 AM
Which are the same thing.
As does all Scripture according to that principle.
Exactly, which is why I am highlighting it is a false understanding of what private interpretation is about.


Or in the light of Peter's authoritative interpretation, it was not a literal prophecy as many think, but a symbolic riddle.
Why do you say that? It was fulfilled literally, and no symbolic riddle.


Not pointless, but not a sound basis for doctrine, as is clear and certain NT teaching, which must govern all interpretation of prophetic riddles.
Your way of understanding it IS pointless. We are called to read what is written and everything is to be compared with scripture, but we aren't told it must be clear - for Jesus spoke in parables, and we need discernment to understand.

Willows
Nov 16th 2015, 03:03 PM
Interpretations are explanations.
Exactly, which is why I am highlighting it is a false understanding of what private interpretation is about.

The angel states what the vision means. How you interpret what the angel says, still remains your interpretation.
As does all Scripture according to that principle.


Why do you say that? It was fulfilled literally, and no symbolic riddle.
To which prophecy in Joel are you referring?


Your way of understanding it IS pointless. We are called to read what is written and everything is to be compared with scripture, but we aren't told it must be clear - for Jesus spoke in parables, and we need discernment to understand.
Your way of understanding is not certain, as are the NT didactics, which must govern interpretation of prophetic riddles.

ForHisglory
Nov 16th 2015, 05:05 PM
As does all Scripture according to that principle.
Which principle? Mine? Or yours which seems to say that unless we are explicitly told in scripture what something means then we can't interpret it as it is all private interpretation?


To which prophecy in Joel are you referring?
The one Peter quoted from Joel 2.


Your way of understanding is not certain, as are the NT didactics, which must govern interpretation of prophetic riddles.
My way of interpreting is about going DEEPER into His Word, and understand the whole of it. We KNOW 100% if it is correct because there is no scripture which refutes it, and their is scripture which supports it. If we find some scripture that seems to contradict then it means we need to continue developing our understanding of that area.
This is a healthy approach and means we aren't dictated to, but actual gain revelation.

Willows
Nov 16th 2015, 09:20 PM
The angel states what the vision means. How you interpret what the angel says, still remains your interpretation.
As does what all Scripture says, according to that principle.
Which principle? Mine?
Yes, according to your principle that what Scripture says is subject to interpretation.


Or yours which seems to say that unless we are explicitly told in scripture what something means then we can't interpretit as
it is all private interpretation?
Yes, when it comes to prophetic riddles, they are interpreted completely differently within the body of Christ.
No one's interpretation is certain.



To which prophecy of Joel are you referring?
The one Peter quoted from Joel 2.
Non-responsive. . .


My way of interpreting is about going DEEPER into His Word, and understand the whole of it. We KNOW 100% if it is correct because there is no scripture which refutes it, and their is scripture which supports it. If we find some scripture that seems to contradict then it means we need to continue developing our understanding of that area.
This is a healthy approach and means we aren't dictated to, but actual gain revelation.
Yes, that is the only rule of thumb.

ForHisglory
Nov 16th 2015, 09:35 PM
Yes, according to your principle that what Scripture says is subject to interpretation.
Yes, when it comes to prophetic riddles, they are interpreted completely differently within the body of Christ.
No one's interpretation is certain.
We can be certain IF we put it against His Word - that is the benchmark and is one of the things we are told to do. Another is to pray for wisdom and ask for discernment from the Holy Spirit.
What you seem to be suggesting (which I may be misunderstanding you) is that we can't be certain of any interpretation of prophecy and so we shouldn't attempt to do so.


Non-responsive. . .
You asked which one, I told you which one. Do you mean you want me to explain how Joel 2 was literally fulfilled?


Yes, that is the only rule of thumb.
Agreement !?!

Willows
Nov 16th 2015, 10:03 PM
We can be certain IF we put it against His Word - that is the benchmark and is one of the things we are told to do. Another is to pray for wisdom and ask for discernment from the Holy Spirit.
What you seem to be suggesting (which I may be misunderstanding you) is that we can't be certain of any interpretation of prophecy and so we shouldn't attempt to do so.
I am most definitely saying that we should not be building doctrine on those interpretations, we should limit doctrine to the didactics.


You asked which one, I told you which one. Do you mean you want me to explain how Joel 2 was literally fulfilled?
I'm asking for chapter and verse of Joel that Peter referred to, or chapter and verse of where Peter referred to it, that I may examine it.

ForHisglory
Nov 16th 2015, 10:09 PM
I'm asking for chapter and verse of Joel that Peter referred to, or chapter and verse of where Peter referred to it, that I may examine it.
This is Peter:
Act 2:14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words.
Act 2:15 For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day.
Act 2:16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel:
Act 2:17 "'And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams;
Act 2:18 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.
Act 2:19 And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke;
Act 2:20 the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day.
Act 2:21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.'

He is quoting Joel 2:
Joe 2:28 "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions.
Joe 2:29 Even on the male and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit.
Joe 2:30 "And I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke.
Joe 2:31 The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes.
Joe 2:32 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.

Now notice THREE things in Joel's prophecy:
1) Verse 28 starts with "its shall come to pass afterward..." After what needs to be understood.
2) Verse 31 ends with (before the great and awesome day of the Lord..." Before what needs to be understood.
3) The signs which are to be seen - sun turned to darkness, moon to blood, etc.

Willows
Nov 17th 2015, 12:20 AM
This is Peter:
Act 2:14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words.
Act 2:15 For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day.
Act 2:16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel:
Act 2:17 "'And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams;
Act 2:18 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.
Act 2:19 And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke;
Act 2:20 the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day.
Act 2:21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.'

He is quoting Joel 2:
Joe 2:28 "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions.
Joe 2:29 Even on the male and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit.
Joe 2:30 "And I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke.
Joe 2:31 The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes.
Joe 2:32 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.

Now notice THREE things in Joel's prophecy:
1) Verse 28 starts with "its shall come to pass afterward..." After what needs to be understood.
2) Verse 31 ends with (before the great and awesome day of the Lord..." Before what needs to be understood.
3) The signs which are to be seen - sun turned to darkness, moon to blood, etc.

Okay the context of our discussion was:




Keeping in mind that you are basing your understanding of this on private interpretation of prophetic riddles in Rev, which interpretation is not certain, for there are differing interpretations of them in the body of Christ.
It's not exactly a private interpretation though. There are others who basically see it the same way. Maybe not exactly like I do, but close enough though. Maybe no one on this forum though.
There are in fact places where certain prophecies are claimed as having happened, such as Peter in reference to Joel 2, though other shave Joel 2 as being in the future.
However, my point was: Peter's interpretation of it is Biblically authoritative, it is not an uncertain private interpretation.

Where we do not have a Biblical authoritative interpretation of prophetic riddles, as the examples I gave in Da, Eze, Rev, and here Pe, all interpretation of them is necessarily private and uncertain.

ForHisglory
Nov 17th 2015, 07:44 AM
Okay the context of our discussion was:

However, my point was: Peter's interpretation of it is Biblically authoritative, it is not an uncertain private interpretation.

Where we do not have a Biblical authoritative interpretation of prophetic riddles, as the examples I gave in Da, Eze, Rev, and here Pe, all interpretation of them is necessarily private and uncertain.
And my point was how is Peter's interpretation of Joel 2 understood - for many don't get what Peter was saying in regards to Joel and see it as a future event.
Your uncertain private interpretation is using a biblical statement and applying it in other contexts which don't apply. All interpretation is individual - those who read the explanations given by the angel in Daniel STILL interpret it differently.
So I was highlighting that your statement is applying a redundant statement being used as a criticism as though there is a higher way of interpreting prophecy.