Franz' statement is outrageously unreasonable! (page 7)

Schizm

Actually, you're quite wrong in saying that Adam and Eve had never eaten from the tree of life.
They had permission to eat from every tree in the Garden except for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.
Obviously, the angels were posted at the entrance to the Garden in order to prevent Adam and Eve from CONTINUING to eat from the tree of life. Which, btw, shows that merely eating from such tree only once would not result in them having everlasting life. It's obvious that Adam and Eve were created in such a way that they would need to regularly eat from the tree of life in order to keep on living. -- Schizm.

Where in the Bible does it say that?--undercover.

Here's hoping you can read.

15 And Jehovah God proceeded to take the man and settle him in the garden of E´den to cultivate it and to take care of it. 16 And Jehovah God also laid this command upon the man: “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. 17 But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.” -- Genesis 2:15-17.

.

Schizm

So Schizm, let me get this right. Your position is that if Adam and Eve abstained from eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad" and the "Tree of Life", they would still die, right? -- LittleToe.

No, that's not my position at all.

Like I said previously, prior to their eating the forbidden fruit Adam & Eve had already been eating fruit from off the tree of life (fruit which they had been given permission to eat).

But to answer your twisted question: Since their continued existence depended upon them regularly eating of the tree of life, it would obviously be suicidal for them to abstain from eating that particular fruit. But there was no reason for them to "abstain" from eating of the tree of life. As a matter of fact they had every reason to NOT refrain from eating of the tree of life. On the other hand, they did have a reason to "abstain" from eating from the tree of knowledge, because it would be suicidal for them to do so.

So your imagining them abstaining from *both* trees is unrealistic.

.

Rabbit

Gumby, Gumby, Gumby...I was reading along watching Schizms pretend not to see my posts again (even if I wasn't trying to exact that answer about Lot & his daughters I've been after for so long -- still unanswered) when I thought, "Where o' where could Gumbone be...?

"And thar he blows ! How in the world are ya' ? You have a PM, boy !

Schizms, I want to apologize...I am like SO sorry I have asked you such tough questions in the past. I realize now, any answer would simply embarrass you, even typing it out -- even before hitting 'submit.'

"How could Gawd keep using a man "Lot", as an example of a person, He wanted as a servant to represent him -- who committed INCEST with both of his daughters ?"

I guess the same way He could punish Billions and Billions of innocent people...because of the supposed 'sins' of, for crying out loud -- fruit eating ! How can you explain Gawd's cruelty and unjust practice of punishing innocent children -- for the 'sins' of their parents ?

You've had several months to contemplate a fantastic answer...please make it as good as "Lot's daughters did not really have sex with him, they simply borrowed his sperm and _______ it into __________ -what's..." ~ Schizms

Come on answer the yellow questions If anybody's curious -- go to the link Gumby provided, beware tho'...*sheesh* it ain't a pretty picture our very own Schisms has painted for us.

Rabbit

Schizm

After eating from the tree of knowledge, God hands out punishment to everyone involved. The serpent must crawl on his belly (did it walk upright before?) -- thinker.

No, the serpent didn't "walk upright before". The serpent never did have legs.

.

LittleToe

Schizm:

I'll give you ten points for being consistent in your use of the use if illogic.

On the one hand it was illogical that Adam would eat of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad". Kindly explain to me why it was not similarly illogical to refrain from eating of the "Tree of Life"?

According to what you've submitted, both courses of action would be suicidal, and there were evidentally plenty of other trees to eat from that maybe didn't require a trek to the middle of the garden....

...and yet, there was a command against one course of action and not against the other. Had Adam decided to take this equally illogical course of action, would refraining from eating of the "Tree of Life" have been a sin, in your estimation?

Since Romans tells us that the wages sin pays is death, how is it possible to die without sinning?

This also raises a secondary question, in my mind.

I was raised to believe that Eve ate of the fruit and Adam followed her, and that one reason for this might have been because he didn't want to be parted from her and showed that he loved her more than God.

Instead of eating of the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad", why didn't he just help her eat of the "Tree of Life", since there was no injunction against her doing that, at that point in time?

Since it would appear that the command came to Adam, it would appear that she hadn't actually broken a direct command to herself from God. She appears to have received it indirectly (and expanded upon with a comment about "touching") through Adam, but God isn't recorded as stating to her that she would die if she ate it.

thinker

Sorry, I meant Adam's offspring. See Genesis 5.

thinker

undercover

They had permission to eat from every tree in the Garden except for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.
Obviously, the angels were posted at the entrance to the Garden in order to prevent Adam and Eve from CONTINUING to eat from the tree of life. Which, btw, shows that merely eating from such tree only once would not result in them having everlasting life. It's obvious that Adam and Eve were created in such a way that they would need to regularly eat from the tree of life in order to keep on living. -- Schizm.
Where in the Bible does it say that?--undercover.

I'm not questioning about what permission they had, I'm questioning this:

Obviously, the angels were posted at the entrance to the Garden in order to prevent Adam and Eve from CONTINUING to eat from the tree of life. Which, btw, shows that merely eating from such tree only once would not result in them having everlasting life. It's obvious that Adam and Eve were created in such a way that they would need to regularly eat from the tree of life in order to keep on living.

Where do you get that from? Nothing in the account indicates that, so how do you reckon that?

The scripture says:

And Jehovah God went on to say: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad, and now in order that he may not put his hand out and actually take [fruit] also from the tree of life and eat and live to time indefinite,—”

Now show where they had already been eating from the tree of life.

JosephMalik

I had company yesterday and was not able to follow this thread but here are a few comments. What was the situation at the time? What do we know and what did Adam know? If we can establish a foundation for our views then hopefully a logical conclusion can be reached. The situation: There was the first man (Gen 2:7 and 2:15) and eventually a woman living in a garden. They had instructions from God to tend to it. (Gen 2:16-17) There was a tree of life and a tree of the knowledge of good and bad in the center of this Garden, and my guess is that both trees were in the center of it as they are both described together (Gen 2:9). What did Adam know?: He was permitted to eat from any tree except the forbidden tree the tree of knowledge of good and bad, from a tree located in the center of this garden. (Gen 2:17) Adam and Eve needed to know good and bad of course and we should not conclude that permission would never be given to them to gain it or eat from this tree. But there is a right way (with guidance) and a wrong way (in rebellion). Adam took the wrong way and suffered the consequences that result. We are not told that Adam was aware of the existence of the tree of life possibly growing close or even next to it. So are we to think that Adam would have attempted to eat any fruit growing around this forbidden tree? Would you take a chance like that? How far would any of us go in tempting a fate such as death? We also know that death would not have occurred for Adam or Eve even after such Sin if they could eat from the tree of life. So Adam and Eve were created mortal like the animals around them. Their perfection was in the fact they were without sin or in a state of grace if I can put it that way. We should be able to see this much. This tree symbolized immortality, something intended for them but not achieved by them or the rest of humanity. This is something lost to humanity that or Lord gained back and will restore to us in the future Kingdom. I can go on and on like this but this should be enough. You all can come to your own conclusions but by following a line of reasonable thought, visible error or wrong thinking can be weeded out. The result would be a supportable view that would not get into extremes. I see this account as an allegory or over simplification of what actually took place but it was intended to be understood literally as this saves time and effort in explaining why things are the way they are. And it also explains how and why such an extreme solution to this problem became necessary. The solution is also included in these prophetic texts so it is all here for anyone that wants to see. These are root texts folks and if we have our feet firmly planted in them we will understand the rest of scripture and not deviate to the extremes we see today. Joseph

gumby

I hate to mix up this argument...but I heard through the grapevine that ol' Lot had some of that fruit that Adam snuck out with him when he was booted out of the garden ( he hid it under his armpit) and saved it in a box. Lot ended up with it through Abraham. Soon as Lot played nasty with his daughters.....he ate a piece and the suckers still alive I hear. Watch out ladies! If ya see a guy with sheep ca ca on his shoes....that's him!

Gumby

steve2

One (possibly) unintended outcome of Schism's view is that, if it helps the furtherance of God's plan, any behaviour will be sanctioned, including incest. Who can blame Schism for adhering to this line of reasoning when there seems ample scriptural support for it. The most disturbing example is genocide - in the service of advancing his plan, God directed his people to wipe out every living human, young and old, when the invaded the promised land.

Hell, if genocide can be sanctioned in the service of the divine plan, anything can, including - yawn - disinterested sex with one's father!

Franz' statement is outrageously unreasonable!

Share this