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: Hi WOS Out of courtesy I will reply, at least partially, to your criticisms, but may I suggest that if you seriously wish to take them up with me you do so by email. As I see it the forum is for positive Biblical contributions, not discussions on each other (we have wandered far from the tree of life). My email address is given in my details. I would however lovingly suggest that I have not ever called the kettle black. I constantly strive not to blacken others, and especially not simply because they disagree with me. I recognise that we are all sincerely seeking to find the truth, and will hold many different positions. When I put my points over (apart from when I am answering posts like this one) I always try to do so positively citing Scriptural backing, or in some cases the very surprising lack of it. I am not surprised that you find the situation confusing. That is one of the problems of having to deal with a vast and complicated subject by answering totally different types of questions in smallish snippets. To set out my position fully (as for anyone seeking to set out a position) I would have to write a book. As Jesus and Paul were not seeking to attack Millennialism there was no reason why they should mention it negatively if they did not believe in it, but as they both dealt constantly with eschatological matters I would certainly have expected them to mention it had they actually believed in it. The fact that they did not would be quite extraordinary. The argument from silence is therefore sound. With regard to your suggestion of lack of clarity. Has it struck you that those who are 'clear' on such a vast and complicated subject, are the ones who are naive and just accept a simplistic position? The only problem is that their 'clarity' results from ignoring everything that disagrees with their position. The Bible is in fact a vast and complicated book looking at things from many different angles. Thus bringing it all together is a huge and complicated task. I love your definition of me as 'a semi-partial preterist with a futurist impression'. Does it not strike you that that might support my position? The reason that there are both preterists and futurists among genuinely seeking Bible students is precisely because something of both positions is found in Scripture. I would therefore expect a balanced student to come somewhere between the two. With regard to Baruch, as with all such literature there is a problem with dating, but it was certainly early enough to have affected Papias' position (which was partly my point as Papias is the first known example of millemarianism, excluding a possible but doubtful reference in Revelation 20 which you will note does not mention a reign ON EARTH) and that must almost certainly date it in 1st century AD. As there was no New Testament as such until the mid-second century AD (only individial books being slowly gathered together)it can therefore be described as intertestamental. Furthermore there is little doubt in most scholars minds that it reflects earlier Jewish teaching. But I do not want to make a big thing about it. I was responding to a request for evidence of my statement that Jewish literature was partly responsible for millennial belief in the early church. It is irrelevant to Biblical exposition. With regard to the use of what you call 'symbolism' (a rather loaded term as it simply suggests not being literal, as though being 'literal' was somehow superior, while in fact most language is symbolic) we all have to feel our way through what is to be taken absolutely literally and what is to be taken as only partially so. To take the simple example of Jesus' statement 'if any man does not hate his father and mother he cannot be my disciple'. I hope none of us would take His words literally. The truth is we constantly have to read into statements and interpret them. Like others I do so the best I can. I would certainly never claim to be always right. Only an arrogant fool would do so. But with regard to books like the Book of Revelation I am always careful to interpret its symbolism in the light of other Scriptures, for that is what the write intended. It is chock full of references to earlier Scripture. If you do wish to take up anything of this, please do so by email so that we do not unnecessarily bore the forum. I have already been accused of doing so :-))))). Of course I recognise that what bores some, interests others. Best wishes Jonp |