Are Heaven and Paradise the same?

I am not into fairy-tales and speculations. The Word of God is my only guide. Both trees were in the Garden of Eden and both trees perished. There are differences between the two trees of life in Genesis and Revelation. The one in Revelation is far different. Study it. The one in Genesis was not for the healing of the nations, was it? Don't make your story into the fifteenth apocryphal book. We have enough of them already. Let Scripture be your guide.

So far so good.

The earthly paradise was destroyed. You are talking of two different places. They are not the same. The garden of Eden does not equal paradise in every other place in Scripture where paradise is mentioned. The garden of Eden was paradise but one time in Scripture, and that is in the beginning of Genesis. That is the only time you find these two trees: the tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, on earth. They are physical trees just like any tree today. There was nothing supernatural about them. The reason that sin entered into the world, and Adam became a fallen man, is not because there was anything supernatural in the fruit that he ate, but because he directly violated the command of God. There is no reason to speculate that the tree of life in the garden of eden had any supernatural power inherent in it either at that time, except that by not eating the tree of knowledge and evil he would have avoided sin. It was all a matter of obedience; rebellion--not supernatural fruit.

You have no Scripture to back this up.
You have no Scripture to back up that there is only one tree called the tree of life.
You have no Scripture to back up that the tree itself gives eternal life.
In fact that is a heresy. It is Christ that gives eternal life, not trees.

Read the whole chapter and put the verse in its context.
First Noah waited until the ark settled and he could see the tops of the mountains. The water had started recede.
Then Noah sent out a raven. The raven didn't return because ravens are scavengers. They eat off of dead carcasses.
A week later (some think it was a week of Sabbaths, but not necessarily true), Noah sent out a dove, but the dove returned because it found no place to land.
Noah waited another week before sending out another dove. This time the dove returned with an olive leaf. Where did it come from? Noah knew now that vegetation had grown from the seeds that were left in the ground from the flood, and that it would now be save to exit the ark. The life of the vegetation came from seeds.
But Noah didn't leave immediately. He waited another 29 days to the first day of the month (314 days after the Flood began) to remove the Ark's covering. The he beheld the dry ground and all the water that was still around. So he decided not to leave at that time either. He waited another 57 days, or 371 days after the Flood began. That is a period of 53 weeks. It was enough time for the land to dry and seeds to grow into trees; perhaps not massive trees, but suitable enough for Noah's needs. It was a new world. The old world had perished!

2 Peter 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Job 22:15-16 Hast thou marked the old way which wicked men have trodden? Which were cut down out of time, whose foundation was overflown with a flood:

2 Peter 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

So you find a fossil? The area in which I live in is well-known for its fossils. Some say they are thousands of years old, and many say they are millions of years old. Take your choice. (Those are the foolish evolutionists that say those things). I have a piece of petrified wood as well. It is quite common. But I would be a fool to claim that it came before the flood or even from the garden of eden. That would be the same as finding a piece of wood on the street and claim that it came from the cross that Jesus died on. Petrified wood and fossils are not uncommon.

And your point is? I believe the Flood happened. You don't have to convince me. The Flood destroyed everything, like the Scriptures say, including the Garden of Eden and the tree of life.

 

This discussion made me think of a question. Did the flood also destroy the cherubim that guarded the way to the garden along with the flaming sword?

 

God destroyed the world that then was, and every living thing in it. God did not destroy his angels (which the cherubim are).

 

I realize I am being repetitive but Allan assured me that Scripture had been posted showing that Paradise and Heaven are not the same. I am hoping that whoever posted that Scripture will call my attention to it for my edification. Time is short and I am trying to learn as much as I can..

Again, I have no desire to remain blind when it comes to Scripture though I am sure some doubt if I have ever blown the dust off the Bible. It is certain that I missed that post. Allan was not much help. He suggested that I start with Post #1 but as I said time is short.

 

I suppose that would be dependent upon the time period you are referring to. As one who always emphasizes: "Context is everything."
Interestingly enough I could only find the English word "paradise" three times in our KJV.
We know that the Garden of Eden is often referred to as paradise even though the Bible doesn't explicitly refer to it as such. It was a paradise on earth, so to speak. That is one place.

Here are the other references:
Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
--This verse refers to the OT paradise (sheol) which is aptly described for us in Luke 16 with the "rich man and Lazarus."

2 Corinthians 12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
--Paul refers to heaven here.

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.
--This is a definite reference to heaven.

 

I agree that only Christ can give eternal life, but the scriptures say that if Adam and Eve were to have taken from the tree and eaten they would have lived forever.

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:

If you go back and read my post, you will see I said they would have lived forever in a sinful state.

So, perhaps the tree of life only gives life only to the body. This might be supported in Revelations as well.

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.

I've often wondered about this verse, because it says the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. Why would we need healing in heaven?

 

I have not looked into this, so this is just my guess right now, but it says "the nations," which in an OT context (and Revelation uses OT imagery, references, quotes, and language quite a bit) always means the Gentiles. And "healing" is salvation. If the Tree of Life stands for Christ in some way or represents Him, then this is repeating an OT theme that the Messiah would come for the Gentiles as well as the Jews.

 

I believe it is during the Millenial period where there will still be death.

 

This is an assumption based on the fact that had they not eaten of the fruit of the tree of good and evil, the could have lived forever. God had given them a test and they failed. The situation is comparable to the angels in heaven. One third of the angels fell when they followed Lucifer in a rebellion against God. The others were "confirmed in their holiness." Had they not eaten of that tree, it is very possible that they would have lived forever--not because of any supernatural power of the tree, but because of their compliance to the command of God.

It is impossible for any person to live forever in a sinful state. Sin, by its very nature, brings destruction. Once they had sinned they brought upon themselves a curse; the curse of death. All things would now start toward a process of degeneration--a process that they would not be able to stop.
"In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." Tree of life or not, God promised that they would die.

It is a different situation here. In the context here we already have a glorified body which cannot die. It has put on incorruption. It now has immortality. It cannot die. Remember that the images given in the book of Revelation are highly figurative.

We don't. Thus it has another meaning. Two have already been offered. Dig deeper.

 

I didn't mention any of the things you said, and I didn't assume anything. Gen 3:22 clearly says that if they took of the tree of life and ate they would live forever.

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:

Well, sorry, but again Gen 3:22 says they would live forever. I agree with you that man spiritually died the very day they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But they did not physically die until much later.

 

Read Jamieson, Faucett and Brown

 

Now why would I want to read men's opinions when I have God's word? Gen 3:22 is not difficult to understand, I bet if I showed my seven year old son this verse he would understand it.

God said that "in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

Gen 2:17 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.

I believe this verse 100%. Death in the scriptures means to be separated from God. And they were separated from God. They were ashamed and hid themselves. They tried unsuccessfully to cover their nakedness. They were spiritually dead, separated from God at this point.

Gen 2:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. 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.

The Bible speaks of this separation in other verses as well.

Isa 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

And even in Revelations the wicked are forever separated from God.

Rev 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.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

So death in the scriptures does not mean to be like a lifeless corpse. It means to be separated from God.

But Adam and Eve could still hear his voice and respond even though they were spiritually dead.

Gen 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

But Adam lived for 930 years. And if they had eaten of the tree of life they would be alive today.

That's not an assumption, that's what the scriptures say.

 

I already answered your post on the previous page but you didn't like my answer and just brushed it off.
I will quote part of it for you again:

"This is an assumption based on the fact that had they not eaten of the fruit of the tree of good and evil, the could have lived forever. God had given them a test and they failed. The situation is comparable to the angels in heaven. One third of the angels fell when they followed Lucifer in a rebellion against God. The others were "confirmed in their holiness." Had they not eaten of that tree, it is very possible that they would have lived forever--not because of any supernatural power of the tree, but because of their compliance to the command of God."

Remember that sin destroys. It sets in motion destruction not immortality. With it comes corruption, not incorruption. It would have been impossible for them to live forever even if they had eaten of that fruit. The tree was simply symbolic.

 

No, I read that. That is why I said I did not assume anything. I agree with you that sin destroys, and with it comes corruption and every evil thing.

Nevertheless, God said if they ate of the tree of life they would live forever. And God cast them out of the garden and set angels guard over it so they could not get to this tree.

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:
23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
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.

 

The meaning is quite clear. But the entire Scripture must be taken into account for the Scripture does not contradict itself. The meaning is simply that Adam and Eve might be deluded into thinking that they would by eating of the fruit live forever. It would be impossible for them to live forever. It would contradict Scripture.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Sin brought death, physical as well as spiritual death. Not a dozen trees of life could reverse that curse. The consequence of sin is death.
"The wages of sin is death."

James 1:14-15 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

The tree of life cannot reverse that process. Only the blood of Christ can give one spiritual life, eternal life, and eventually will give one a glorified body.

 

We will have to agree to disagree. The scriptures themselves say Adam and Eve would have lived forever. And the scriptures also show that God set Cherubims and a flaming sword to guard the tree of life.

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:
23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
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.

If the tree of life would not have caused them to live forever as you argue, then there was no reason to guard it as scripture says God did. And the word "therefore" in verse 23 shows that the reason God drove them out of the garden was to keep them from the tree of life.

That is why I believe Romans 1:12 is speaking of spiritual death, not physical. And the same for James 1:14-15

And even in the New Jerusalem it says we will eat of the tree of life.

Rev 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.

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 22:14 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.

I completely realize that my view is unconventional, but I believe the scriptures mean what they say. It says that those of us who are saved, Jesus will give us to eat of the tree of life. So perhaps even our incorruptable bodies need nourishment. Otherwise, why would we have to eat anything?

And this is also why I believe the tree of life in New Jerusalem is the very same tree of life that was in the garden of Eden.

 

First, the two trees are different.
The first was destroyed in the flood. It was not preserved. There is no mention of a supernatural preservation in paradise--that paradise described by Luke where Lazarus and Abraham were. It wasn't there. It was destroyed, as the Bible says. Everything was destroyed but Noah and his ark. A good commentary on Genesis is "The Genesis Record" by Henry Morris. He can explain many of these things, with special attention given to the Flood.
Let's look at the differences:

Revelation 22:1-2 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.
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.

Was the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden "in the midst of a street"?
Did it bare just 12 kinds of fruit?
Did it yield its fruit every month?
Were the leaves of the tree for the healing of the nations?

The description of the tree is not the same as the description of the tree that is in the Garden of Eden, nor is the purpose of the tree the same. Obviously, in Genesis chapters one to three there were no nations. This tree in heaven is highly symbolic. Perhaps the number 12 is symbolic of the 12 tribes of Israel, which would have meant nothing in Genesis 3.

BTW, in reading about the tree of life in heaven, which must be different because there is no resurrection for trees. That promise is only given to us mortals, not to the trees.
I read this comment:

But Ge 3:22 seems to imply, man had not yet taken of
the tree, and that if he had, he would have lived for ever, which in his then fallen state would have been
the greatest curse.

In protecting man from the tree of life he was protecting man out of his love for man. It would have been a far greater curse had he eaten of the tree of life in a fallen state. If you think about it, the world degenerated very quickly when man was able to live to 900. Then God had to destroy it with a Flood. God had the tree destroyed because of his love for man.

 

I agree with you completely here. Yes, it is a good thing that God prevented Adam and Eve (or anyone else) from eating of the tree of life.

But I still believe it is the same tree. The Bible does not tell us that the garden of Eden was destroyed in the flood. In fact, how did Noah know the flood was dried up? By an olive leaf. So some plant life obviously survived the flood.

Gen 8:11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

In Revelations 3 Jesus tells us the tree of life is in the midst of paradise. Jesus told the thief on the cross they would be in Paradise that day. Jesus told us he would be in the heart of the earth for three days.

The flood tore the earth up, turned over land masses, buried massive forests...

I can't be absolutely dogmatic about it, but perhaps the garden of Eden fell down into the depths of the earth, and this is where the departed saints went to wait until Christ ascended and took captivity captive.

Anyway, that is what I am inclinded to believe from scripture. But nowhere does the Bible say the tree of life was destroyed in the flood. And there is no physical description of the tree of life in Genesis, so we cannot comment on that.