1

In a comment to another question, someone commented that the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are "clearly" symbolic and not actual trees. I was surprised by that position. I think it's certainly possible that the trees are symbolic, but it's not obvious to me that God didn't use actual trees in Eden.

I am curious about what different denominations say about the literalness of the trees in Eden. I see three possible options:

  1. The denomination teaches that the trees were actual trees
  2. The denomination teaches that the trees were symbolic of something else
  3. The denomination doesn't say definitively one way or the other

I would like an overview of which of the above positions is taken by different denominations across Christianity.

I think that this question is following the guidelines on overview questions as described here, but let me know if it needs to be adjusted to be on-topic.

Improve this question
5
  • Note: someone claiming the trees are "clearly symbolic" is almost certainly doing so out of a commitment to deny that Genesis 1-11 record actual history and instead assert that the Creation and Flood accounts are merely "symbolic". Accordingly, I think the answer to your question can be summarized as 'those that take Genesis 1-11 as symbolic include the trees' and 'those that take Genesis 1-11 as genuine history include the trees'. (There might be some exceptions, but I wouldn't expect very many.) Also, note that opinions on this can vary within a denomination.
    – Matthew
    Commented Jul 10, 2023 at 1:59
  • 2
    The Trees were both literal and symbolic--highly symbolic, and used as a lessonbook for the generations to come.
    – Biblasia
    Commented Jul 10, 2023 at 2:54
  • 1
    Just as the Exodus from Egypt is both literal and symbolic, so the trees.
    – Mike Borden
    Commented Jul 10, 2023 at 11:22
  • 1
    Is this the comment, "The tree of life is clearly symbolic (though very real) as is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. These are identifications of spiritual realities not the identifications of botanical entities " If so it was a response to this Q, christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/96136/… I took it to mean both trees weresymbolic and also real trees, though unidentifiable botanically.
    – Anne
    Commented Jul 10, 2023 at 13:11
  • @Anne yes, that's the comment. And yeah, re-reading it now I see that your interpretation is probably what was intended, so maybe this question is irrelevant 🤔
    – T Hummus
    Commented Jul 11, 2023 at 23:35

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .