The original meanings written in Hebrew have been changed over the years, to the point that modern English (and other language) versions appear to say and mean something they never did.
While it's essential to approach biblical translations with a critical mindset, it's equally crucial to acknowledge the meticulous work of scholars in ensuring accuracy. Modern translations undergo rigorous processes, and numerous ancient manuscripts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, validate the reliability of the text. Hyper-skepticism can overlook the dedication to preserving the original meanings and dismiss the wealth of evidence supporting the integrity of biblical translations.
Your analysis of the two, named, trees in the Garden, while exotic, really doesn’t make sense in relation to all the other trees that God said he gave to Adam to “freely eat.”
You have a misunderstanding of a “literal interpretation” of scripture. Taking a literal approach doesn’t mean you take non literal language (symbolism, metaphor, etc…) literal.
The Literal Interpretation method is like looking at the Bible in the most direct way possible, trying to understand what the authors meant using the regular meaning of words. It considers the historical and cultural background to get what the writers were saying. And here's the cool part – it doesn't force us to interpret everything as if it's all literal. So, if the Bible uses symbols or metaphors, this method encourages us to get what those symbols mean in the bigger picture, not necessarily taking them word-for-word. It's a way to appreciate the different writing styles in the Bible while still aiming to understand what the authors were trying to tell us.
While it's essential to approach biblical translations with a critical mindset, it's equally crucial to acknowledge the meticulous work of scholars in ensuring accuracy. Modern translations undergo rigorous processes, and numerous ancient manuscripts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, validate the reliability of the text. Hyper-skepticism can overlook the dedication to preserving the original meanings and dismiss the wealth of evidence supporting the integrity of biblical translations.
Your analysis of the two, named, trees in the Garden, while exotic, really doesn’t make sense in relation to all the other trees that God said he gave to Adam to “freely eat.”
Clearly, the two TYPES of "trees" are discussed separately.
There are the trees good for beauty and for food.
It was good to eat of the trees for food (literal fruit).
And THEN ... there (in the midst) are the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
It is the "literal tree" doctrine that makes no sense at all.
Explain THAT, according to your literal doctrine. You can't.
You have a misunderstanding of a “literal interpretation” of scripture. Taking a literal approach doesn’t mean you take non literal language (symbolism, metaphor, etc…) literal.
The Literal Interpretation method is like looking at the Bible in the most direct way possible, trying to understand what the authors meant using the regular meaning of words. It considers the historical and cultural background to get what the writers were saying. And here's the cool part – it doesn't force us to interpret everything as if it's all literal. So, if the Bible uses symbols or metaphors, this method encourages us to get what those symbols mean in the bigger picture, not necessarily taking them word-for-word. It's a way to appreciate the different writing styles in the Bible while still aiming to understand what the authors were trying to tell us.