Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Genesis 2:9 Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Genesis 2:9 And [in that garden] the LORD God caused to grow from the ground every tree that is desirable and pleasing to the sight and good (suitable, pleasant) for food; the tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the [experiential] knowledge (recognition) of [the difference between] good and evil. [Rev 2:7; 22:14, 19] |
Subject: The fruit and leaves of the tree of life |
Bible Note: So you find no credible evidence to support a teaching, but make the strong assertion that we should base doctrinal standards from silence or lack of evidence? You stated in a previous post: “And no, one questionable passage is not sufficient to demonstrate such an important doctrine. If it was not important enough for Paul and Jesus to mention it is highly questionable.” Such an important doctrine, your words not mine, but it is acceptable that your opinion be correct from such a lack of discussion. On one hand you claim there was teaching, however erroneous it may be, that was discredited by the early church and should be abstained from. On the other, you lay a foundation based on the silence of the subject or the lack of it being mentioned in Scripture. Your stance, to me anyhow, seems to be just as dangerous. The fact of the matter is although many hold a particular position concerning eschatology many others will and do hold a different position. As I see it, there is more than one way of considering the end times and they have equally valid strong arguments supported by Scripture and to further disagree, although it is a valuable doctrine, it may not be as important as you claim. You also make reference to some as Luther and Calvin to have not bought into the teaching you claim was discredited or any other eschatological view point for that matter. You will find that both held strong opinions concerning this topic if one would care to look, however, neither of them focused on it. It just doesn’t seem to be a necessity to hold one view over the other. Reading back over your posts a bit, it seems to me that your own personal end times position is somewhat ambiguous, at least to me anyhow, but I’ve been called thick in the past, no need to assume that has changed. You seem to be a “semi” partial preterist with a futurist impression. You take historical accounts in the gospels as literal but only partially fulfilled, but future events are not taken literally as many futurist hold and you seem prone to only take literally that which supports your position. I have a hard time understanding just where it is you are coming from, and with that assume others may as well. That may be part of our problem in communicating. You also made the statement “But in the wider context we must sometimes do what you have done on Revelations 6. Recognise that symbolism MIGHT be involved. But we must not determine our use of symbolism simply in terms of what fits our position.” In fact brother, isn’t that what you have done time and time again. You stated: “And from then on they reigned with Christ whether they were on earth or raised up to be with Him as Paul says in Philippians 1.20-23. The 'thousand years, is the ideal period ahead for Christians before His coming.” Your post # 183691, you make this claim based on your position while others take it literally to support theirs. The pot shouldn’t call the kettle black my friend. In some instances your argument is sound, but in most, its just rather confusing and confusion tends to frustrate people, at least it does me. So I apologize if I came across rash and will look discerningly before becoming involved with topics as this with someone without a real clear position. By the way, the info I can find on 2 Baruch indicates its origin to be late first century maybe early second century. Can you still consider it an intertestamental teaching, or perhaps maybe just one of the early church before they had a chance to clear it out? Stand in His grace, WOS |