GoldStar, I don't believe the "Tree Of Life" is a literal tree. Revelation 22:1-5 is like a picture of Eden(Paradise) being restored.(See Genesis 2) The leaves on the tree healing the nations could be a symbol of the resurrection of the dead into a restored Eden. Rev 21:4 says There will be no more death’[b] or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away, so I'm skeptical of the theory that a certain group of people must eat of the fruit of a literal tree of life to remain alive in the new heavens & earth. Since you brought up Revelation 22, I am curious what your take on Rev 22:10 is.
I'm not ignoring this thread. I'm refusing to reply until I can sit down and treat this subject the way it deserves, and not with something off-the-cuff. I'll get to that as soon as I can.
Infoabsorption, thank you for contributing a meaningfully to the conversation, it is refreshing to see that instead of someone just throwing meaningless criticisms like rocks just trying to draw attention to themselves because they have nothing intelligent to contribute to the conversation
Without doing a comprehensive study, at first reading of Rev 22, I do not see much figurative symbolism, one is the word "Lamb", which I think most people familiar with the Bible would immediately recognize that as a symbolic reference to Jesus Christ, not a literal lamb animal.
To see a better example of figurative symbolism, if we look a few chapters back at Revelation 17, where in verse 3 it refers to "a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast....having seven heads and ten horns", I think most people would also immediately think that the beast with 7 heads and 10 horns is not a literal beast but a figurative one, like a mythological beast.
In addition Rev 17:7 says "And the angel said unto me....I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns," then in verse 9, the angel says "And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth."
And in verse 12, the angel says "And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings". And in verse 18, the angel says "And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth."
So in Revelation 17, the unusual figures of speech (beast with 7 heads and ten horns) are explained in the text of the same chapter itself, so we know, the seven heads, and the ten horns are figures. And even the woman, who could be a literal woman, is explained to be a symbolic figure actually referring to a city.
As we know, the Bible contains both literal and figurative speech, and there are certain ways to know whether what one is reading is either literal or figurative. Sometimes it is easy like in Rev 17 where we are told what is figurative and what the figures actually refer to.
In normal communications, the majority of things spoken are literal, for example, if are at home with your wife for the weekend and it has been raining all weekend and your backyard is flooded again like it has been many times before when it rained and it looks like a swamp again and your wife is looking out the patio glass door at the flooded backyard and says to you, "We're gonna have to drain the swamp again," she is most likely literally referring to the flooded backyard, and not to the crooked politicians in Washington.
If Trump is on TV and says "We need to drain the swamp," he is most likely talking about the politicians in Washington and not to your flooded backyard, unless he is there at your house looking at your flooded backyard through your glass patio door. Then you might need to ask him to clarify which swamp he is referring to. Context is a reference point that helps us know if language is literal or figurative.
Familiar figures of speech are usually understood immediately for example when your friend says: "Hi Fred, how's your better half," or he says "When you gonna buy some new wheels?," or "Wow, you flew out of that room when you left..." All familiar figures of speech. You probably know what each one of those mean, even though we have never met, and this is the first time we have ever talked.
When less familiar figures of speech are used, for example the Rev 17 beast with 7 heads and 10 horns, or for example if someone were to say something unusual like "Man, that's like a hippopotamus flying a refrigerator!", since I just made it up and it is not in common usage, it would probably require an explanation of what it means.
A person who is familiar with the Bible would immediately recognize the Lamb of Rev 22:2 to be a figure of speech referring to Jesus Christ and not a literal lamb, but to a person not familiar with the Bible, they might need to have it explained.
Back to Rev 22:2, the river and tree and leaves appear to be literal, because there is nothing in the chapter explaining those common things to be symbolic figures like the explanations in Rev 17. And also, there is nothing unsual said about those very normal things, like the river having eyes, or the tree having seven heads, or the leaves having horns.
We can speculate that those common words (river, tree, leaves) mean this or that, but that is pure speculation. There is no reference in that chapter to those normal things being symbolic references to other things.
The most reasonable understanding is that they are just a river and a tree and leaves, but the leaves are used for healing of the nations (people), just as many natural substances have been used for healing on earth for thousands of years, for example aspirin (from Spireaea, a biological genus of shrubs that includes natural sources of the drug's key ingredient, salicylic acid, which resembles what is in modern-day aspirin, which can be found in jasmine, beans, peas, clover, and certains grasses and trees.)
I would be very interested in hearing what it is that leads you believe that the tree and leaves are not literal but figurative.
18 hours ago, Infoabsorption said:
so I'm skeptical of the theory that a certain group of people must eat of the fruit of a literal tree of life to remain alive in the new heavens & earth
Rev 22:2 says "the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations", no mention in that verse of eating the fruit of the tree. The leaves are used for healing, as many substances found in nature have been used for healing on earth for thousands of years.
----------------------------
As far as Rev 22:10 which only says "And he (the angel) saith unto me, SEAL NOT the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand."
If we compare it to a similar verse, Revelation 10:4 which says:
"And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I WAS ABOUT TO WRITE: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, SEAL UP (as in my lips are sealed) THOSE THINGS which the seven thunders uttered, AND WRITE THEM NOT."
So SEAL UP seems to mean DON'T WRITE IT - Rev 22:10
And SEAL NOT seems to mean WRITE IT - Rev 10:4
So John must have written what he was told to SEAL NOT
So Rev 22:10, although at first glance it seems to be a mysterious statement, once it is compared with Rev 10:4, it seems to be nothing more than a fancy way of saying 'don't write it'.
GoldStar, Below, I'll give you a few examples from the old testament where trees are used figuratively.
Psalm 1:3 "That person is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither—whatever they do prospers."
"Thou hast brought a 'VINE' out of Egypt: Thou hast cast out the heathen (the Canaanites), and planted it. Thou preparedst room before it, and didst cause it to take deep root, and it filled the land. The hills were covered with the shadow of it, and the boughs thereof were like goodly cedars. She sent out her boughs unto the sea (Mediterranean), and her branches unto the river (Euphrates)."
In these words the Psalmist graphically pictures the taking of Israel from the uncongenial soil of Egypt, and the planting of them in the land of Canaan.
Of course we have all read the parable of the fig tree by Jesus. The fig tree represented Israel at that time.
There very well could be a literal tree of life in the new heavens & earth but at this time I'm leaning toward it being purely symbolic.
There is more to the meaning of the instructions to the Apostle John to "Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book"(Rev22:10) than most Christians realize. We have an example from another prophet (Daniel) at the end of the prophecy to him he was told to: "Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end." (Dan:12:9) This did not mean Daniel wasn't supposed to record the things revealed to him. Rather, he was told that the things revealed to him would not happen in his lifetime . However, the Apostle John was told to not seal the words of the prophesy for "the time is at hand" (present tense). The king James translators used the phrase "at hand". If you look at the Greek text analysis, "at hand" comes from the Greek word "eggus" which means "near (in place or time)" http://biblehub.com/text/revelation/22-10.htm
I know this is very controversial but I see the events recorded in Revelation occurring shortly after it was written and then distributed to the seven churches.
Infoabsorption, I agree that there are clearly figurative uses of the word 'tree' in the Bible, for example in the verses you refer to.
But content of those verses do not show any relation at all to the tree in Rev 22:2
So for example if I told you that I used to have a swing on a tree when I was a kid, and you told me that you also used to have a swing on a tree when you were a kid, that coincidence does not automatically create any relationship between those two trees with swings.
Unless upon further discussion we realized that we both happened to live in the same exact home at different times and we then realized that we actually had swung on the same exact swing but at different times. That would create a relationship between the two swings that we had talked about.
They were actually the same swing, unless whoever lived there later had replaced the first swing with a new one due to wear and tear on the first swing. But we still could have determined that the tree was the exact same tree, a very large oak tree 50 feet straight south from the back door of the house.
So the fact that there are other verses that use the word 'tree' in a figurative way does not automatically mean that the word 'tree' is figurative in Rev 22.2, especially when the content of those other verses has no relation to the content in Rev 22.2.
1 hour ago, Infoabsorption said:
There very well could be a literal tree of life in the new heavens & earth but at this time I'm leaning toward it being purely symbolic.
I agree that the tree could very well be a literal tree, and the evidence that we have looked at so far clearly points to that it is a literal tree.
I am open to any other information you may have that might point to the tree in Rev 22:2 being purely symbolic, but until I see such information, the evidence and logic that we have looked at so far, clearly point to the tree being a literal tree.
WIthout any definitive proofs to the contrary, believing that the tree is symbolic is pure speculation based upon personal preferences.
I am open to looking at any other proofs you may provide.
== == == == ==
Regarding your last statement in your last post:
"...I see the events recorded in Revelation occurring shortly after it was written..."
There are many things recorded in Revelation, including Rev 21 where it talks about "...the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven..." which have clearly not happened
So the statement "I see the events recorded in Revelation occurring shortly after it was written..." is overly broad and easily proven to be an incorrect statement
Of course if you meant to say that SOME things in Revelation occurred shortly after Revelation was written, that is different, but that is not what that statement says
Just to let you know, I am enjoying this conversation with you and am happy to read any arguments that are soundly backed up with clear scriptural evidence, but unfortunately due to time limitations, I do not debate many arguments that are not backed up with clear scriptural evidence
There is no limit to speculative ideas and wild goose chases
You need to define your term "salvation," GoldStar. From reading your initial post, it seems your definition is that there will be a physical body and that the physical body will thereafter dwell upon the [new?] Earth.
Is that it, or does your term "salvation" include other aspects? If so, what?
Does it differ from "salvation" for Christian believers? Or for Jewish or Hebrew [Israelite] believers?
Both groups of people, Christians, and also non-Christians (who apparently according to Rev 22:2 will be allowed to live on the new earth), both groups have physical bodies.
But as I clearly stated and documented from scriptures (see scriptues I posted) in my initial post, the physical bodies of the Christians in the new heaven, which are their earthly, natural bodies glorified to be physical bodies just like Jesus Christ's body after he was raised from the dead (Luke 24:39).
The Christian's glorified, physical body is the spiritual body referred to in 1 Corinthians 15:44 ~ "there is a natural body, and a spiritual body". The spiritual body is not a spirit (Luke 24:39). It is logical that the glorified, spiritual body of the Christians will not decay or get sick or die. They are eternal, and healthy, in nature. Stands to reason.
The scripture in Rev 22.2 points to the idea that there is a different 'Salvation' for 'the nations' that apparently do not have glorified, spiritual bodies like Christians will have (see verses I quoted)
Apparently the 'nations' in this verse refers to non-Christians.
True Christians (those who have received the holy spirit because of believing in Jesus Christ) WILL have glorified, spiritual bodies, which have eternal life, and logically will not get sick or decay and not need the leaves of the tree for healling
The other people who did not have a chance to receive the holy spirit for whatever reason, and thus do not have their natural bodies glorified into perfect spiritual bodies that have eternal life because of not receiving the holy spirit for whatever reason, even though they did not commit sins worthy of eternal danmation, those people are apparently allowed a different 'Salvation' different from Christians' Salvation of eternal life in glorified, spiritual bodies and being children of God by being born again
Those other people will apparently according to Rev 22:2 be allowed to live on the new earth, but apparently in non-glorified natural bodies similar to the ones we have now, and those natural bodies will also get sick and decay, and will need the leaves of the tree for healing, which Christians will not need
This short scripture in Rev 22:2 is not well known but opens the door to explain what happens to all the people who did not have a chance to be born again for whatever reason
It is not reasonable to believe that all those people (probably in the billions) will automatically be damned to eternal damnation just because they didn't have a chance to receive the holy spirit by believing in Jesus Christ for whatever reason
God can be cruel at times, but to just cast millions and millions of people into damnation because they lived at a time when receiving the holy spirit was not available yet, or because they lived in a place where it was not possible to hear the gospel of Salvation and believe in Jesus Christ does not reflect God's just nature, which is huge and loving and righteous
Could have been an interesting discussion, there's a lot to think about and many different ideas (all "scriptural"), but it doesn't need to be combative.
I'm done with this thread and with this poster. No profit.
It is a very interesting discussion without the combative conflict-baiting commenters who continually create conflict and then try to blame it on the poster -
Done with this conflict-baiting commenter who is completely off-topic, saying nothing at all about the topic or content of the post but only complains to create conflict. Unprofitable.
Galdstar stated: "Apparently the 'nations' in this verse refers to non-Christians. "
I'm not 100% sure about the context of Rev 22, but the term "nations" in the old testament has referred to gentile nations and also the tribes(nations) of Israel. There is a clue in Rev 22 that the tree of life bears 12 crops of fruit. Could this be referring to a resurrected Israel... i.e the 12 tribes of Israel?
Infoadsorption, I see you still want to try and sneak symbolic meanings into Rev 22............lol
Ok we all have our beliefs.....I already made a very solid case that the tree is literal, not symbolic, earlier in this thread, so no need to repeat it here, except to say that every baker's dozen of donuts is not necessarily secretly symbolic of the twelve tribes of Israel, it's a stretch with nothing else in the chapter pointing to the tree being symbolic in Rev 22, the context of which is the other chapters of Revelation
If I have some time I may post more specific info about the nations
GoldStar, your theory that the "nations" in Rev 22 is referring to non-Christians is just as much speculation as my speculation that it is referring to gentiles or the 12 tribes of Israel. Btw, your case is NOT solid.
Like I said Infoabsorption, I'll be glad to look at any solid arguments for your case, and I will do further study on nations in Rev 22, but my reasoning in my initial post is rock solid and peppered with scriptures documenting, though not an exhaustive study, is much more solid than the figurative tree view
But show me the money, not the promissary note please
I think WordWolf posted sound advice when he commented about not wanting to post things that are "off the cuff" which I admit i sometimes do. I looked at the Greek interlinear on Rev. 22:2 and the "nations" in the Greek is "ethnos" which is referring to Gentiles http://biblehub.com/greek/1484.htm (as distinct from Israel).
GoldStar, I admit that the tree of life may be a literal tree, I'm just skeptical of it being literal. It's one of those issues I'm not sure about. Maybe others could chime in and give us some insight. But regarding the time statements within Revelation (if you look at the Greek and not the translation) there is not much gray area there.
GoldStar, I admit that the tree of life may be a literal tree, I'm just skeptical of it being literal. It's one of those issues I'm not sure about. Maybe others could chime in and give us some insight. But regarding the time statements within Revelation (if you look at the Greek and not the translation) there is not much gray area there.
You’ve brought up some good points here and on another thread. This post that has been some fascinating food for thought and inspires me to keep an open mind when reading the book of Revelation...not sure what I think of this stuff in Rev 22 - especially since I find myself lately using an amalgamation of the various views of The book of Revelation
and on top of that there’s also John’s frequent use of the double entendre - both here and in the Gospel (a statement that may hold a double meaning - sometimes being literal AND symbolic - as in John 13:30, Judas having received the bread went out...and it was night)
as well as the New Testament writers’ theological reinterpretation of Old Testament stuff - like Gen. 1 compared to John 1....
I think WordWolf posted sound advice when he commented about not wanting to post things that are "off the cuff" which I admit i sometimes do.
Infoabsorption,
Don't feel like the lone ranger, I also have a tendency to sometimes instantly want to come to a conclusion about what something means when I first read a scripture, but I usually wait before accepting my own first impression until I have a chance to look at it more critically, and compare it with other related scriptures and other people's ideas about whatever the subject matter is
In the Rev 22:2 tree issue, I have looked at it critically, and don't see even the slightest hint pointing to it being figurative as I wrote earlier, but as I mentioned, I am open to looking at any scriptural proofs or logical arguments that would prove that it is figurative, just don't see anything pointing to that.
About 'nations':
5 hours ago, Infoabsorption said:
I looked at the Greek interlinear on Rev. 22:2 and the "nations" in the Greek is "ethnos" which is referring to Gentiles.
I looked up the Greek 'ethnos':
In the New Testament there are these verses where the word nation (Greek 'ethnos') refers to Jews:
And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews"
(GoldStar added the following words in all-capital letters to make words stand out, not to indicate yelling ok):
Infoabsorption wrote:
"I looked at the Greek interlinear on Rev. 22:2 and the "nations" in the Greek is "ethnos" which is referring to Gentiles http://biblehub.com/greek/1484.htm (as distinct from ISRAEL)."
1484éthnos (from ethō, "forming a custom, culture") – properly, people joined by practicing similar customs or common culture; nation(s), USUALLY referring to unbelieving Gentiles (non-JEWS).
I'm not an expert on this particular point > but I do believe that the Jews came from the tribe of Judah, which is only one of the 12 tribes of Israel
There's still work to do...
But this BibleHub reference that you provided does point towards the argument that I made that the Revelation 22.2 word NATIONS ("leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations") is referring to NON-CHRISTANS...
Both groups of people, Christians, and also non-Christians (who apparently according to Rev 22:2 will be allowed to live on the new earth), both groups have physical bodies.
But as I clearly stated and documented from scriptures (see scriptues I posted) in my initial post, the physical bodies of the Christians in the new heaven, which are their earthly, natural bodies glorified to be physical bodies just like Jesus Christ's body after he was raised from the dead (Luke 24:39).
The Christian's glorified, physical body is the spiritual body referred to in 1 Corinthians 15:44 ~ "there is a natural body, and a spiritual body". The spiritual body is not a spirit (Luke 24:39). It is logical that the glorified, spiritual body of the Christians will not decay or get sick or die. They are eternal, and healthy, in nature. Stands to reason.
The scripture in Rev 22.2 points to the idea that there is a different 'Salvation' for 'the nations' that apparently do not have glorified, spiritual bodies like Christians will have (see verses I quoted)
Apparently the 'nations' in this verse refers to non-Christians.
True Christians (those who have received the holy spirit because of believing in Jesus Christ) WILL have glorified, spiritual bodies, which have eternal life, and logically will not get sick or decay and not need the leaves of the tree for healling
The other people who did not have a chance to receive the holy spirit for whatever reason, and thus do not have their natural bodies glorified into perfect spiritual bodies that have eternal life because of not receiving the holy spirit for whatever reason, even though they did not commit sins worthy of eternal danmation, those people are apparently allowed a different 'Salvation' different from Christians' Salvation of eternal life in glorified, spiritual bodies and being children of God by being born again
Those other people will apparently according to Rev 22:2 be allowed to live on the new earth, but apparently in non-glorified natural bodies similar to the ones we have now, and those natural bodies will also get sick and decay, and will need the leaves of the tree for healing, which Christians will not need
This short scripture in Rev 22:2 is not well known but opens the door to explain what happens to all the people who did not have a chance to be born again for whatever reason
It is not reasonable to believe that all those people (probably in the billions) will automatically be damned to eternal damnation just because they didn't have a chance to receive the holy spirit by believing in Jesus Christ for whatever reason
God can be cruel at times, but to just cast millions and millions of people into damnation because they lived at a time when receiving the holy spirit was not available yet, or because they lived in a place where it was not possible to hear the gospel of Salvation and believe in Jesus Christ does not reflect God's just nature, which is huge and loving and righteous
Recommended Posts
Rocky
It looks like you have overthought the topic.
Didn't you (at least once) mention that you're aware of Occam's razor?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Infoabsorption
GoldStar, I don't believe the "Tree Of Life" is a literal tree. Revelation 22:1-5 is like a picture of Eden(Paradise) being restored.(See Genesis 2) The leaves on the tree healing the nations could be a symbol of the resurrection of the dead into a restored Eden. Rev 21:4 says There will be no more death’[b] or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away, so I'm skeptical of the theory that a certain group of people must eat of the fruit of a literal tree of life to remain alive in the new heavens & earth. Since you brought up Revelation 22, I am curious what your take on Rev 22:10 is.
Edited by Infoabsorptiondumb mistake
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm not ignoring this thread. I'm refusing to reply until I can sit down and treat this subject the way it deserves, and not with something off-the-cuff. I'll get to that as soon as I can.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldStar
Thank you WordWolf, I would like to hear your thoughts on this subject
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldStar
Infoabsorption, thank you for contributing a meaningfully to the conversation, it is refreshing to see that instead of someone just throwing meaningless criticisms like rocks just trying to draw attention to themselves because they have nothing intelligent to contribute to the conversation
Without doing a comprehensive study, at first reading of Rev 22, I do not see much figurative symbolism, one is the word "Lamb", which I think most people familiar with the Bible would immediately recognize that as a symbolic reference to Jesus Christ, not a literal lamb animal.
To see a better example of figurative symbolism, if we look a few chapters back at Revelation 17, where in verse 3 it refers to "a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast....having seven heads and ten horns", I think most people would also immediately think that the beast with 7 heads and 10 horns is not a literal beast but a figurative one, like a mythological beast.
In addition Rev 17:7 says "And the angel said unto me....I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns," then in verse 9, the angel says "And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth."
And in verse 12, the angel says "And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings". And in verse 18, the angel says "And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth."
So in Revelation 17, the unusual figures of speech (beast with 7 heads and ten horns) are explained in the text of the same chapter itself, so we know, the seven heads, and the ten horns are figures. And even the woman, who could be a literal woman, is explained to be a symbolic figure actually referring to a city.
As we know, the Bible contains both literal and figurative speech, and there are certain ways to know whether what one is reading is either literal or figurative. Sometimes it is easy like in Rev 17 where we are told what is figurative and what the figures actually refer to.
In normal communications, the majority of things spoken are literal, for example, if are at home with your wife for the weekend and it has been raining all weekend and your backyard is flooded again like it has been many times before when it rained and it looks like a swamp again and your wife is looking out the patio glass door at the flooded backyard and says to you, "We're gonna have to drain the swamp again," she is most likely literally referring to the flooded backyard, and not to the crooked politicians in Washington.
If Trump is on TV and says "We need to drain the swamp," he is most likely talking about the politicians in Washington and not to your flooded backyard, unless he is there at your house looking at your flooded backyard through your glass patio door. Then you might need to ask him to clarify which swamp he is referring to. Context is a reference point that helps us know if language is literal or figurative.
Familiar figures of speech are usually understood immediately for example when your friend says: "Hi Fred, how's your better half," or he says "When you gonna buy some new wheels?," or "Wow, you flew out of that room when you left..." All familiar figures of speech. You probably know what each one of those mean, even though we have never met, and this is the first time we have ever talked.
When less familiar figures of speech are used, for example the Rev 17 beast with 7 heads and 10 horns, or for example if someone were to say something unusual like "Man, that's like a hippopotamus flying a refrigerator!", since I just made it up and it is not in common usage, it would probably require an explanation of what it means.
A person who is familiar with the Bible would immediately recognize the Lamb of Rev 22:2 to be a figure of speech referring to Jesus Christ and not a literal lamb, but to a person not familiar with the Bible, they might need to have it explained.
Back to Rev 22:2, the river and tree and leaves appear to be literal, because there is nothing in the chapter explaining those common things to be symbolic figures like the explanations in Rev 17. And also, there is nothing unsual said about those very normal things, like the river having eyes, or the tree having seven heads, or the leaves having horns.
We can speculate that those common words (river, tree, leaves) mean this or that, but that is pure speculation. There is no reference in that chapter to those normal things being symbolic references to other things.
The most reasonable understanding is that they are just a river and a tree and leaves, but the leaves are used for healing of the nations (people), just as many natural substances have been used for healing on earth for thousands of years, for example aspirin (from Spireaea, a biological genus of shrubs that includes natural sources of the drug's key ingredient, salicylic acid, which resembles what is in modern-day aspirin, which can be found in jasmine, beans, peas, clover, and certains grasses and trees.)
I would be very interested in hearing what it is that leads you believe that the tree and leaves are not literal but figurative.
Rev 22:2 says "the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations", no mention in that verse of eating the fruit of the tree. The leaves are used for healing, as many substances found in nature have been used for healing on earth for thousands of years.
----------------------------
As far as Rev 22:10 which only says "And he (the angel) saith unto me, SEAL NOT the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand."
If we compare it to a similar verse, Revelation 10:4 which says:
"And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I WAS ABOUT TO WRITE: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, SEAL UP (as in my lips are sealed) THOSE THINGS which the seven thunders uttered, AND WRITE THEM NOT."
So SEAL UP seems to mean DON'T WRITE IT - Rev 22:10
And SEAL NOT seems to mean WRITE IT - Rev 10:4
So John must have written what he was told to SEAL NOT
So Rev 22:10, although at first glance it seems to be a mysterious statement, once it is compared with Rev 10:4, it seems to be nothing more than a fancy way of saying 'don't write it'.
Edited by GoldStarLink to comment
Share on other sites
Infoabsorption
GoldStar, Below, I'll give you a few examples from the old testament where trees are used figuratively.
Psalm 1:3 "That person is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither—whatever they do prospers."
In Psalm 80:8-11, we read-
"Thou hast brought a 'VINE' out of Egypt: Thou hast cast out the heathen (the Canaanites), and planted it. Thou preparedst room before it, and didst cause it to take deep root, and it filled the land. The hills were covered with the shadow of it, and the boughs thereof were like goodly cedars. She sent out her boughs unto the sea (Mediterranean), and her branches unto the river (Euphrates)."
In these words the Psalmist graphically pictures the taking of Israel from the uncongenial soil of Egypt, and the planting of them in the land of Canaan.
Of course we have all read the parable of the fig tree by Jesus. The fig tree represented Israel at that time.
There very well could be a literal tree of life in the new heavens & earth but at this time I'm leaning toward it being purely symbolic.
There is more to the meaning of the instructions to the Apostle John to " Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book"(Rev22:10) than most Christians realize. We have an example from another prophet (Daniel) at the end of the prophecy to him he was told to: "Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end." (Dan:12:9) This did not mean Daniel wasn't supposed to record the things revealed to him. Rather, he was told that the things revealed to him would not happen in his lifetime . However, the Apostle John was told to not seal the words of the prophesy for "the time is at hand" (present tense). The king James translators used the phrase "at hand". If you look at the Greek text analysis, "at hand" comes from the Greek word "eggus" which means " near (in place or time)" http://biblehub.com/text/revelation/22-10.htm
I know this is very controversial but I see the events recorded in Revelation occurring shortly after it was written and then distributed to the seven churches.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldStar
Infoabsorption, I agree that there are clearly figurative uses of the word 'tree' in the Bible, for example in the verses you refer to.
But content of those verses do not show any relation at all to the tree in Rev 22:2
So for example if I told you that I used to have a swing on a tree when I was a kid, and you told me that you also used to have a swing on a tree when you were a kid, that coincidence does not automatically create any relationship between those two trees with swings.
Unless upon further discussion we realized that we both happened to live in the same exact home at different times and we then realized that we actually had swung on the same exact swing but at different times. That would create a relationship between the two swings that we had talked about.
They were actually the same swing, unless whoever lived there later had replaced the first swing with a new one due to wear and tear on the first swing. But we still could have determined that the tree was the exact same tree, a very large oak tree 50 feet straight south from the back door of the house.
So the fact that there are other verses that use the word 'tree' in a figurative way does not automatically mean that the word 'tree' is figurative in Rev 22.2, especially when the content of those other verses has no relation to the content in Rev 22.2.
I agree that the tree could very well be a literal tree, and the evidence that we have looked at so far clearly points to that it is a literal tree.
I am open to any other information you may have that might point to the tree in Rev 22:2 being purely symbolic, but until I see such information, the evidence and logic that we have looked at so far, clearly point to the tree being a literal tree.
WIthout any definitive proofs to the contrary, believing that the tree is symbolic is pure speculation based upon personal preferences.
I am open to looking at any other proofs you may provide.
== == == == ==
Regarding your last statement in your last post:
"...I see the events recorded in Revelation occurring shortly after it was written..."
There are many things recorded in Revelation, including Rev 21 where it talks about "...the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven..." which have clearly not happened
So the statement "I see the events recorded in Revelation occurring shortly after it was written..." is overly broad and easily proven to be an incorrect statement
Of course if you meant to say that SOME things in Revelation occurred shortly after Revelation was written, that is different, but that is not what that statement says
Just to let you know, I am enjoying this conversation with you and am happy to read any arguments that are soundly backed up with clear scriptural evidence, but unfortunately due to time limitations, I do not debate many arguments that are not backed up with clear scriptural evidence
There is no limit to speculative ideas and wild goose chases
I follow the advice in
Edited by GoldStarLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
You need to define your term "salvation," GoldStar. From reading your initial post, it seems your definition is that there will be a physical body and that the physical body will thereafter dwell upon the [new?] Earth.
Is that it, or does your term "salvation" include other aspects? If so, what?
Does it differ from "salvation" for Christian believers? Or for Jewish or Hebrew [Israelite] believers?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldStar
You need to read more carefully Twinky
Both groups of people, Christians, and also non-Christians (who apparently according to Rev 22:2 will be allowed to live on the new earth), both groups have physical bodies.
But as I clearly stated and documented from scriptures (see scriptues I posted) in my initial post, the physical bodies of the Christians in the new heaven, which are their earthly, natural bodies glorified to be physical bodies just like Jesus Christ's body after he was raised from the dead (Luke 24:39).
The Christian's glorified, physical body is the spiritual body referred to in 1 Corinthians 15:44 ~ "there is a natural body, and a spiritual body". The spiritual body is not a spirit (Luke 24:39). It is logical that the glorified, spiritual body of the Christians will not decay or get sick or die. They are eternal, and healthy, in nature. Stands to reason.
The scripture in Rev 22.2 points to the idea that there is a different 'Salvation' for 'the nations' that apparently do not have glorified, spiritual bodies like Christians will have (see verses I quoted)
Apparently the 'nations' in this verse refers to non-Christians.
True Christians (those who have received the holy spirit because of believing in Jesus Christ) WILL have glorified, spiritual bodies, which have eternal life, and logically will not get sick or decay and not need the leaves of the tree for healling
The other people who did not have a chance to receive the holy spirit for whatever reason, and thus do not have their natural bodies glorified into perfect spiritual bodies that have eternal life because of not receiving the holy spirit for whatever reason, even though they did not commit sins worthy of eternal danmation, those people are apparently allowed a different 'Salvation' different from Christians' Salvation of eternal life in glorified, spiritual bodies and being children of God by being born again
Those other people will apparently according to Rev 22:2 be allowed to live on the new earth, but apparently in non-glorified natural bodies similar to the ones we have now, and those natural bodies will also get sick and decay, and will need the leaves of the tree for healing, which Christians will not need
This short scripture in Rev 22:2 is not well known but opens the door to explain what happens to all the people who did not have a chance to be born again for whatever reason
It is not reasonable to believe that all those people (probably in the billions) will automatically be damned to eternal damnation just because they didn't have a chance to receive the holy spirit by believing in Jesus Christ for whatever reason
God can be cruel at times, but to just cast millions and millions of people into damnation because they lived at a time when receiving the holy spirit was not available yet, or because they lived in a place where it was not possible to hear the gospel of Salvation and believe in Jesus Christ does not reflect God's just nature, which is huge and loving and righteous
Edited by GoldStarLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Ouch! How gracious of you GS to offer to clarify like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Yeah, I thought that too, Rocky. It was a legitimate (and interested) question.
I fancy GoldStar might be in for a surprise come Rev 22 time. In fact, I think we will all be in for a surprise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldStar
I used the same language that Twinky used and took the time to answer Twinky's question so to quote Twinky from another comment to me:
"what are you complaining about??"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Could have been an interesting discussion, there's a lot to think about and many different ideas (all "scriptural"), but it doesn't need to be combative.
I'm done with this thread and with this poster. No profit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldStar
It is a very interesting discussion without the combative conflict-baiting commenters who continually create conflict and then try to blame it on the poster -
Done with this conflict-baiting commenter who is completely off-topic, saying nothing at all about the topic or content of the post but only complains to create conflict. Unprofitable.
Edited by GoldStarLink to comment
Share on other sites
Infoabsorption
Galdstar stated: "Apparently the 'nations' in this verse refers to non-Christians. "
I'm not 100% sure about the context of Rev 22, but the term "nations" in the old testament has referred to gentile nations and also the tribes(nations) of Israel. There is a clue in Rev 22 that the tree of life bears 12 crops of fruit. Could this be referring to a resurrected Israel... i.e the 12 tribes of Israel?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldStar
Infoadsorption, I see you still want to try and sneak symbolic meanings into Rev 22....
........lol
Ok we all have our beliefs.....I already made a very solid case that the tree is literal, not symbolic, earlier in this thread, so no need to repeat it here, except to say that every baker's dozen of donuts is not necessarily secretly symbolic of the twelve tribes of Israel, it's a stretch with nothing else in the chapter pointing to the tree being symbolic in Rev 22, the context of which is the other chapters of Revelation
If I have some time I may post more specific info about the nations
Cheers
Edited by GoldStarLink to comment
Share on other sites
Infoabsorption
GoldStar, your theory that the "nations" in Rev 22 is referring to non-Christians is just as much speculation as my speculation that it is referring to gentiles or the 12 tribes of Israel. Btw, your case is NOT solid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldStar
Like I said Infoabsorption, I'll be glad to look at any solid arguments for your case, and I will do further study on nations in Rev 22, but my reasoning in my initial post is rock solid and peppered with scriptures documenting, though not an exhaustive study, is much more solid than the figurative tree view
But show me the money, not the promissary note please
Edited by GoldStarLink to comment
Share on other sites
Infoabsorption
I think WordWolf posted sound advice when he commented about not wanting to post things that are "off the cuff" which I admit i sometimes do. I looked at the Greek interlinear on Rev. 22:2 and the "nations" in the Greek is "ethnos" which is referring to Gentiles http://biblehub.com/greek/1484.htm (as distinct from Israel).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Infoabsorption
GoldStar, I admit that the tree of life may be a literal tree, I'm just skeptical of it being literal. It's one of those issues I'm not sure about. Maybe others could chime in and give us some insight. But regarding the time statements within Revelation (if you look at the Greek and not the translation) there is not much gray area there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
You’ve brought up some good points here and on another thread. This post that has been some fascinating food for thought and inspires me to keep an open mind when reading the book of Revelation...not sure what I think of this stuff in Rev 22 - especially since I find myself lately using an amalgamation of the various views of The book of Revelation
and on top of that there’s also John’s frequent use of the double entendre - both here and in the Gospel (a statement that may hold a double meaning - sometimes being literal AND symbolic - as in John 13:30, Judas having received the bread went out...and it was night)
as well as the New Testament writers’ theological reinterpretation of Old Testament stuff - like Gen. 1 compared to John 1....
Edited by T-BoneFormatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldStar
Infoabsorption,
Don't feel like the lone ranger, I also have a tendency to sometimes instantly want to come to a conclusion about what something means when I first read a scripture, but I usually wait before accepting my own first impression until I have a chance to look at it more critically, and compare it with other related scriptures and other people's ideas about whatever the subject matter is
In the Rev 22:2 tree issue, I have looked at it critically, and don't see even the slightest hint pointing to it being figurative as I wrote earlier, but as I mentioned, I am open to looking at any scriptural proofs or logical arguments that would prove that it is figurative, just don't see anything pointing to that.
About 'nations':
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
GS, intresting post. Thanks for the information.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldStar
Thank you Grace, I appreciate your kind words, I try to post interesting, informative content, it's nice to be appreciated, thank you
Edited by GoldStarLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.