Biblical Translation--Eden

I am not a native ancient Hebrew reader. But I do refer to English translations, the scholarship of which I trust. And I don't see how your rendering at all makes sense to the rest of the account. Particularly how "whole tree" obscures the matter of which tree was forbidden for man to eat."From the [whole tree] of the garden you must eat" you say is a better translation. Which tree? From which tree did God command man to eat "the whole" of it?There are two trees in the garden that are specifically mentioned -the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.Insisting on "must eat" there, I think is wrong. However it is not as damaging to the clarity of the passage as "whole tree". As soon as you want us to read "whole tree" there you cloud the matter. And this confusion can possibly lead to having the passage mean the opposite of what it intends to convey.First of all it is clear that the writer wants us to identify specifically two trees of the many trees which God made to grow in the garden: All these reputable English translations make it clear that two distinct trees are identified among all of the trees -1.) the tree of life2.) the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.Then we have verse 16: There are two trees identified in verse 9 in particular. And in verse 16 one of these two is again mentioned in particular. Man is forbidden to eat of this tree among all the other trees.You really obfuscat a simple matter by insisting instead of "every tree" that God is commanding man to eat of the "whole tree". When I read with your supplied words I immediately ask "Well then WHICH whole tree is God alledgedly saying man MUST eat?"The next clause is a specific divine command for man not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So "every tree" cannot include that tree. Every tree must mean every other tree in the garden besides the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This would include all the trees not particularly identified and the tree of life.I don't know how "whole tree" would even make sense in the passage.You continued: I will not comment on the technicalities of the Hebrew grammer except to offer reputable English translations as I have above, none of which agree with your rendering.Theologically, I can agree that man MUST eat of the tree of life. And practically I can see that man MUST eat to have food.But as far as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is concerned man , MUST NOT eat of it. Eve, emphasized that her understanding that she was not even to touch it (Gen 3:3). It is hard to believe that any part of it, let alone the whole of it was permitted to be ingested.Besides this it is the fruit of the trees that is probably suggested. It is less likely that God was commanding man to eat bark, root, and leaves. Rather to eat of the trees meant to eat of the fruit of the trees. So again I can't see how "whole tree" could do nothing but confuse and obscure a simple divine instruction.You continued: There is no need to make it considerably more complex. It is very simple. There were two trees and two choices. Man had to take one choice or the other. He could not have both ways. He could take God's way. Or he could take the other way.God's way - all the trees including the tree of life.The other way - the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.The two ways were mutually exclusive. This is evident because after man made the choice to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil the way to the tree of life was barred and man was expelled from the garden, thus terminating his ability to eat from ANY tree of the garden, at least: The penalty of Genesis 3:22-24 makes clear what God's command in 2:9,16,17 could not have been:1.) It could not have been for man to eat the WHOLE of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
2.) It could not have been to eat the WHOLE of every tree in the garden of Eden, including the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
3.) It could not have been to eat the WHOLE of both the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
4.) It could not have been for man to eat first from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and then from the tree of life.
5.) It could not have been for man to eat first of the tree of life and then from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.The command is simple. So simple in fact that a child can grasp it: Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

testing. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

That is frustrating. I have done something like it.

I think that this is really another issue from the matter of the clarity about the allowed tree and the forbidden tree.Nonetheless I will make some comment. Here I notice the popular tendency again to make an absolute dichotomy between allegorical and historical material. I believe that a historical place can have also a symbolic meaning.As a New Testament Christian I of course place symbolic significance to Egypt, the Good Land of Canaan, Mount Sanai, the wilderness, the Red Sea, Armageddon, Jerusalem, Eden with its four rivers.Recognizing symbolism with the names or characteristics of these places does not, for me, necessitate that I take them as also not geographic and historical locations.I have long been conversant on the symbolic significance of the names of the rivers in Eden. But in Genesis the flow of history from events in Eden is seamless in my reading of it. Cain wandered east of Eden to the land of Nod. It is hard to be east of a purely allegorical and abstract place.Perhaps I could just quote the footnotes in the Recovery Version a little on this matter: As you might see, some of us believe great symbolism and allegorical significance is related to the details of the garden in Eden which extend all the way through the OT to the end of the New Testament. God's eternal building is a living "building" built with redemmed, regenerated, transformed, glorified, resurrected, and saints, built up together in divine life and love.At the same time there is a flow of history through early Genesis which lead us to also take Eden as historical and actual. Latter in the book of Ezekiel Eden is used allegorically alone in one passage I think you drew my attention to. This is not how I understand the passages. Rather the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were close to each other. Perhaps their branches even crossed each other in places.If you want to put forth an interpretation that both the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and the fruit of the tree of life were on the same one tree, I would not go along with you on this.Two trees are there in the midst of the garden. The fruit of one was permissible to be eaten. The fruit of the other was completely off limits. Man was commanded not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.One tree stands for God and His divine and uncreated life - the tree of life.The other tree stands for the independence and rebellion of Satan. Notice that it is both good and evil which is on that forbidden tree. Our good can be in rebellion against God. And definitely our evil is in rebellion against God.To partake of the life of God is God's way dispense Himself into the man created in His image. The other way is for man to be joined to God's enemy in a continuation of his ancient rebellion to be independent from God.Man gains through this forbidden way the knowledge of good and evil. However, what he was not told but became painfully aware of was - that we would have only the knowledge. We would not have the power to fully perform the good that we acknowledge and know. And we would not have the power to completely escape the evil that we acknowledge and know.Man becomes very proud of this knowledge. But he lacks the life power to fully perform the good. And he lacks the life power to totally escape the evil.The immediate account of the murder of Abel at the hands of Cain reveal this degradation setting in in man's being. Sin is at the door but Cain is told that he must master it, overcome the temptation, and perform the good that his conscience knows. Cain cannot. He is a slave of sin.Upon eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowlege of good and evil a cosmic enemy of God has attached himself to man's being like a parasite. Instead of being joined to God man has been joined to Satan.I'll have to examine your other comments more carefully latter.Essentially what I see you have done is point out that both trees being in the midst of the garden should mean that they were one tree.I don't see them as one tree but as two. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This is strange that you should complain about the Canaanite treatment right after you have lectured me that both good and evil are sourced in God, appealing to Isaiah 45:7. You are the one who just proclaimed Isaiah 45:7 that He makes both good and evil to come to pass.If you want to believe that then why are you now trying to criticize His treatment of the Canaanites? Wouldn't that be consistent with your view of God being the source of both good stuff and bad stuff?I detect that we are about to go hopping from subject to subject, changing the topic many times. And I think you may want to decide which debate you would like to have.Reaching down into your handy bag of various and contradictory objections on this and then on that is going to lead to a very scattered talk here.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The Bible purports to be the communicating of God to man.I would be suspicious of it if there was nothing in it that I didn't like. I would be suspicious of it if everything in it went perfectly along with my disposition and opinion.I welcome "problems" in the Bible. I actually like it when it rubs my fur the wrong way and I stop and say "Why in the world is THIS in the Bible?"Actually, the Hebrew kings had a reputation of being merciful kings, you know?Secondly, their keeping of oaths to their own detriment and to the integrity of their sense of fair play caused them to deal honestly with some of the people they were to destroy.Lastly, from Genesis 15 we see that God would not bring the Hebrews into the land of Canaan because they had not gotten bad enough yet to deserve such judgment. God let them slide down hill for another 400 years.Even after the 400 years He added another 40 years as the Hebrews wandered in the wilderness to the fear of the Canaanites.So God added another 40 years for them to repent or disperse their evil societies. So I think I like to read the entire account and take a few other things into consideration.I will try to be a little lenient with your side points. Where did I attach love to God ? Not that I disagree with such an association. But I don't at all remember bringing it up.Since I don't recall bringing up the love of God at all, please quote me where I brought up the love of God.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Fair enough. Thanks. Yes. But ...So what is your beef? God can't have divine love because He judged the Canaanites?We can dispense with this quickly by realizing that God's love does not constitute Him the Ultimate Permissivist.ie. Since God loves He would allow us to do anything.It may be hard for the generation raised on Doctor Spock to get that but a little common sense should inform one, especially if you have raised childen.God gave 400 plus another 40 years for the Canaanites to repent of their trangressions. When they got bad enough the loving God came in to judge them.Their temporal judgement in this life says little about their eternal destiny. But they were made an example to the rest of us. Their judgment did serve that purpose.When people overly complain about God's alleged lack of love because of the judgment of the Canaanites I refer them to the book of Jonah. Here is one entire book in the Old Testament soley dedicated to the revelation of God's reluctance to have to judge a sinful nation.Read the book of Jonah sometime to get another angle on this matter of a loving God having to perform His "strange work" of disciplining a society.What would you like me to respond to about the Eden discussion? I think I made my points about there being two trees of special interest in the Garden.You're welcomed to have another view. But that is my view - two trees of particular note:The tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The tree of life.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Ah! Flamming already.I had a feeling that your true colors would show eventually. The scholarly sophisticated and objective tone was kind of intertaining for a little while. There's another juicy bit in Ecclesiastes which says "Money solves everything". Have you tried that one out for size?? What I needed to explain about the two trees I already did, thanks. If you really knew me you would see that I have no problem at all saying "I don't know." As a matter of fact I have told some posters that a certain question was too tough for me and asked them if they had a simplier one.We really are getting off on a sour note here aren't we? Hey. Didn't you read ? I said you are welcomed to have another view. But here is my view.That's how I closed off the last post to you. You had some interesting things to say.I'm kind of fiesty too though. This Forum tends to do that to you.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Autumnman writes: You do not have to await "Christian dogma" to inform us. Genesis itself informs us that the command was intentionally disobeyed. So I ask the reader. That man intentionally disobeyed God's command - is that an invention of the Apostle Paul or is that what the book of Genesis clearly tells us?It is what Genesis says and we cannot claim this as a concoction out of the imagination of Paul.Automnman goes on to write: The main question is was it Paul's invention that death came into the world through Adam or is this what the book of Genesis reveals?Let's read it: The repeated phrase "and he died, and he died, and he died, and he died ..." should not be taken for granted. The writer of Genesis is establishing that one after another all the descendents of the first man Adam eventually died.The only exception is Enoch in verses 22-24 who was raptured by God away from the earth. He walked with God and escaped physical death as a testimomy of God's ability to rapture the righteous man.So, was it Paul's invention that death entered into the world through Adam's transgression? No indeed. We cannot credit Paul with inventing the idea. It is expressed in Genesis.What about sin? Is it Paul's invention that sin entered into the world through Adam's one trangression? We have no mention of sin being a problem to man in Genesis until Cain reacts with furious envy that his offering is rejected by God while Abel his brother's offering is accepted. Sin crouching at the door probably means that sin was crouching at the door of Cain's heart. Cain was the firstborn child of Adam and Eve. It is not insignificant that the writer of Genesis highlights that terrible act of murder resulted in the firstborn son Cain not being able to resist the crouching sin. He could not master the power of sin.So how can we ascribe the intrance of sin into the human race as the concoction of Paul? Paul merely stated the facts as he read them in Genesis.Long before Paul wrote Romans, David wrote that as a born human being he was conceived in sin: And the wise Solomon wrote long before Paul wrote that though God created man upright man has sought out many deceitful devices: God made man upright. After the fall of Adam man became deceitful and sinful devising many tricky schemes. Even as the prophet Jeremiah also writes that man's heart has become desperately wicked. There is a salvation for the "incurable" heart of man through the new covnant. And God is able to save man from the indwelling sickness of the sin which polluted him from the fall of Adam.But we have here in this discussion another case of someone trying to say "Paul messed up the truth" or "Paul got it all wrong with his Christian dogma." This is a false alarm.Paul reported what Genesis taught. And the further revelation brought about by the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and indwelling of the Son of God was built upon the foundation of the previous revelations of the Hebrew Old Testament.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Autmnman, seems to be examining the Hebrew grammer to emphasize the there is allegorical significance to the intructions of God today to the reader of the Bible.With this I agree. I agree that throughout the Bible we are told particularly by God to turn to Him for divine life. For example in Jeremiah: God is the source of the divine life and all the well being of His people. But the nation of Israel has turned away from Him as the fountain of life and replaced God with "broken cisterns". That means idols and all other substitutes which usurp the place of God.God as the source of divine life cannot be replaced. In Genesis He is represented by the tree of life. And here is Jeremiah He is the fountain of life.I may agree with Autumnman as far desire of God for created man, and particlarly Israel to turn to Him to partake of His life. I don't think denying the historical flow from Genesis is at all necessary to establish this.Furthermore there is no reason to think the Apostle Paul's teaching leads us away in any sense from this. In fact he establishes it strongly. Here in Ephesians he says that fallen man was alienated from the life of God: Paul teaches that the fallen man was estranged not only from knowing God or knowing about God. He was estranged and alienated from God's own very life. He was alienated from the life of God. God's as the fountain of divine life, from the beginning, wanted man to take into himself His divine, uncreated and eternal life.In other words God created man in His own image for the purpose that God could live within man. This is to make man not only one who lives the human life, but one who lives the life of God also within his human life.God created man to be a God-man. He created man to be a deified man. He placed man before the tree of life that man would become a divinized man. That is a man like the God-man Jesus Christ.This desire for God to impart Himself into man as divine life is today realized in the incarnated, crucified, and resurrected Son of God - Jesus. These, and many other verses demonstrate that God's life today is not embodied in a tree in a garden but in the resurrected Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

God taught Adam how to speak human language. There was no one else to teach him that. And as far as we know the command came to Adam in the way of spoken words rather than written ones.It is true that we can read the Bible and not comprehend what is being said. I think this is true even after years of study because there are layers upon layers of deeper significances which require experience and the assistance of the Holy Spirit's guidance to appreciate.I didn't mean that a child could easily understand the technicalities of ancient Hebrew grammer. I meant that the command was simple.Here is a line. On on one side of the line is NOT eating of the forbidden tree. On the other side of the line is EATING of the forbidden tree. Adam's instructions were to stay on the side of not eating of the tree.Whatever else Adam did made no difference. He could sing about the tree. He could dream about the tree, talk about the tree, write a make up stories about the tree, watch the tree, etc. whatever. AS LONG as he did not EAT of the tree Adam remained innocent.That much was simple. Paul writes of this simplicity in this way: The Apostle makes clear that the simplicity of devotion can be lost in the cunning craftiness aimed at the thought life, to entice man away from the obedience of love and trust of God."[T]he simplicity of devotion" is what I mean by a child understanding what was permissible and what was not for Adam. I do not mean that the conseqwences of disobedience were not profound. Nor even that the obedience to the command had profound significance. Each of these clearly did have extraordinarly profound consequences. But what Adam and his wife's action's were prescribed concerning the tree and all the trees, including the tree of life, were a matter of simplicity. It is difficult for me to put myself completely in the place of Adam in this record. He was a perfect created human being. Surely, his mind was marvelous. He was able to name who know how many animals. And their names were significant.Adam was no dummy. Eve his wife - a perfect created female, was most likely brilliant by our standards also. They were the first human beings and God said that all that He made was "very good." (Gen.1:31).Just how much Adam understood is hard for me to know. Probably, the first created man understood the proprieties of human life mmuch better than we do. At any rate they were the first humans, undamaged as of yet by the corruption of sin.We may never know what exactly it was like to be in that innocent and neutral position. But we know that the first couple moved from the standing of being innocent and neutral between Divine Life and the knowledge of good and evil, to a position of being at enmity with God and enslaved to sin.Today, we read on this side of Eden as those who have been poisoned by this knowledge of good and evil. We read from the position of the fallen human race. How much Adam was aware of is hard to detect.The Apostle Paul does say that Eve was deceived but Adam sinned deliberatly. And the greater of the weight of responsibility seems to be placed on the man by the apostle. I see one command there. I don't know why you think it was not a simple one.Here is a line. You are to stay on this side of the line. Do not go over to the other side of the line. What is the line? The line concerns your action towards the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Don't eat of it.All the other trees are for your eating. Especially the tree of life which is also into the middle of the garden.I don't know why the command or if you wish command(s) are not simple. And Paul said that the thoughts could be corrupted from the simplicity of devotion towards Christ (in this case of Genesis, Christ pre-incarnated as God).At one time I was not clear about whether these were physical trees. And I do not pretend to understand everything about them if they were. However, elsewhere in the Bible God placed considerable spiritual significance to physical objects. For example, the ark of the covenant. How the priests and the people of Israel related to that material ark of the covenant was not insignificant. To touch it in the wrong way caused someone to die.Only the priests were to carry it about. Not only thier hearts had to be right towards God who designed it. But their hands had to be right in their handling it.In the same manner, I now believe that these two trees - the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - had profound consequences associated with them physically depending upon how Adam and Eve related to them.The knowledge of good and evil was something that God possessed. This was an attribute of God Himself. But only God is self existing, eternal, totally autonomous and non-contingent. He is the ever existing and self existing ground of being.The error of Adam and Eve was to rebel against dependence on God and to seek independence from God.And though I suspect that you may join the group of people who erroneously do not realize that God's enemy Satan was involved in this matter - Adam and Eve stepped under the authrority of Satan. They entered into his kingodm. They were infested with him and attached to him.In eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil man became joined to Satan. Man became "Satanified."Man was meant to be "sonized" - "organically joined and mingled with God through the tree of life. Instead of being joined to God in a mingled way, man became mingled with Satan.More can be said about this latter.But what I would really like to emphasize is the there was a line. Adam was to remain on one side of the line. As long as he remained on the right side of the line he was not guilty.How much morality and whatnot Adam had on this proper side of the line is not the point. As long as he did not eat of the tree that God forbade him to eat he was innocent. His eating of it constituted him not only guilty but also poisoned. A foriegn element entered into man. The evil spirit began to operate in man's being as the Apostle tells us.The spirit that now operates is the evil authority of the air driving man against the better knowledge of his good conscience: This operating spirit is a ruler, an evil ruler. He is Satan. And he was the serpent who enticed the first humans to join him in his ancient rebellion against God.The rest of the Bible is about how the faithful God delivers man with His power and absolves man with His redemption. He bring man back to the life of God that man may be filled with God, having the Satanic nature dealt with through Christ's extensive salvation.We do not today look for a garden or a tree of life in that ancient sense. To day we come to Jesus Christ for the life of God. I have no other comment at this time. But the reference to Deuteronomy is interesting. Maybe I'll repond latter.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Genesis does not specifically tell us that. I am assuming that. Is there some other passage stating otherwise that you'd like to draw my attention to? This account is mysterious. However the being either behind the serpent or who was utlizing the serpent or who was the serpent, learned to speak from his Creator also. Genesis does not specifically say that. I think it is a reasonable assumption. This is the opinion of your attitude that you don't like the way God did some things, if He did them. This is just you saying, that you don't like the way God governed His affairs.It could be that your charge of God's "error in judgment" just reflects your own misuse of the knowledge of good and evil. It is a fact that we get mixed up sometimes and take evil for good and good for evil.The old saying is:"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I don't see how that follows. Eve was given the name Eve because she was the mother of all living [people] that is.I think we have Eve to thank for our existence not the serpent. Of course Eve needed the help of her husband. And both in turn relied on thier Creator to have brought them into being.I don't see the serpent in any way responsible for the basic existence of any human who was born. That is one possiblity. But to assume that I would have to surmise that God was not too smart. Since I think His wisdom, knowleddge, and understanding are without limit, I assume there were plans that we may not know of, which were on the horizon.I believe that the whole universe was created for God's purpose. A fully cooperative Adam could request of God whatever was needed for the establishing of God's purpose. Afterall it was God's mandate. He should be able, with Adam's deputy authority, to fulfill the divine plan.Though I concede some unknowns about how the situation would have been handled, it is hard for me to imagine that an eternal uncreated Creator of infinite wisdom would have overlooked such things.In the New Testament we can see the great allowance God grants to those who are one with Him: We should never under estimate the power of the team of God and His cooperative and harmonious people. We see in the book of Joshua to what extent God assisted the Hebrews as they cooperatively worked along with God for the fulfillment of His plans.Did you not notice that the the Creator even went SO far as to cause the SUN to standstill and the MOON to remain in its place. Now you have to admit, that is some real divine assistance!The message should be clear to the Bible reader -where God secures for Himself a cooperative people who are in one accord with His heart's desire, He can and will go to encredible lengths to assist them. After all, they are only doing what He Himself requested of them.Now only does the New Testament show that God is eager to assist His people who are in one accord with Him. In the Old Testament too we see God instructing His people not only to ASK Him for things but COMMAND Him for things: For some reason we always tend to do our reasoning without taking the faithfulness and power of God into account. The problem that you site, I don't think is an obstacle for the the divine team of the all-powerful God and a subject and cooperative creature man.The power of this coordination is witnessed in many instances in the Bible, both New and Old Testaments. Cute stuff. You grilled me about where it says God taught Adam to speak. Now in turn please point out any mention of either apples, plumbs, or oranges in the text.I think your tone here is really "The account of Genesis is ridiculous." Well, I don't think it is ridiculous.And it seems perculiar to me that if the same writer also wrote the other four books which are traditionally attributed to him, that is Moses, he certainly was no dummy. The discription of the tabernacle with all of its measurements practicelly parallels the details of some modern operating systems. The writer had a incredible eye and recall of techincal details. This is seen in Exodus and Leviticus.So it is hard for me to dismiss Genesis as ridiculous or the product of a foolish and uninformed mind, albeit there are some unusual things recorded there. Your reasoning on THIS side of the fall of man. You're applying your post fall scenario onto a pre-fall contract the success of which we could hardly imagine.Of course we can look to the latter books of the Bible to get an idea of how powerful this divine and human coordination will be in eternity when God restores the proper relationship with the saved ones: In a nutshell, when God and man are in harmony the whole creation of nature is lined up favorably for the execution of His eternal purpose. In fact the creation is await for the people of God to be headed up in God first that they (all creation) may be released from corruption and vanity.This is hard to take for a generation raised to believe that we are second hand accidents on a second rate planet circling a second rate star which eventually must burn out - no purpose, no goal, no direction, and no hope other than to perhaps blow ourselves up with weopons of mutually assured destruction.Don't under estimate the success of God plus a people in harmony and coordination with Him in one accord with His eternal purpose. You're looking on what the rebellion of Adam has wrought and accusing God of planning the same things.I can't take your too criticism seriously. The universe is a big place. And eternity is a long time. If we do not know what was on page 1,000 of the divine blueprint, it does not mean that there was no plan.You mentioned the little baby before not being given more than it could handle. Why not apply that principle now. The multiplying and subdueing of the earth could have only been the beginning.We do know that created man is itching within to explore other worlds. And your tax dollars are going to fund such possibilties. Is that desire within man altogether not a part of his creative makeup?I don't know how this or that problem would have been handled. I trust that it was not overlooked when God made His plans before creating the universe and man in it to have His image and His dominion over His work. I've been reading and studying the Bible for over 30 years. If you think stuff like you mention has never crossed my mind, you insult my intelligence.I have thought about things like that apart from needing a sassy skeptic like you bring it to my attention, thankyou.Now you go and meditate a little on this: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1)Is anything too hard for God? I think He'll do what He needs to do. And I think the authority and power which enables Him to create a universe out of NOTHING speaks for His ability and wisdom to govern it.I guess you didn't catch it when the Apostle Paul wrote: This verse applies specifically to the redemptive work of Jesus the Son of God. But I think we can borrow it and apply it to His whole eternal purpose. For we are told that God is able to do far exceedingly above all that we ask or think. The other thing which you are not taking into account is what would have developed had Adam eaten of the tree of life. For sure it was more than just a tree to keep him living.I believe in light of the rest of Scripture that God's eternal plan was to dispense the divine and uncreated life of God into Adam. This means that God would live in Adam to produce a mingling of divinity and humanity - a God-man.Adam was too eat of the tree of life. He was already marvelous as a creation of God. Had he eaten of the tree of life mankind would have been even more marvelous. This tree represented God's life. This represented God Himself in His ability to live within and in organic union with man such that God and man move and act as one.If you want to see what this divine / human entity would look like you must study every aspect of the Lord Jesus Christ - God incarnate as a man. Christ is what God meant by Man.He is called in the New Testament the Second Man. He is called the last Adam. He is the head of a new race of divinized and deified humans by way of the process of His salvation.I think you should keep reading the Bible patiently, all the way through. Where does he go then? He died. He turned to dust. At least his material being turned back into the ground.Where do you read something else happened to him? Okay. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Firstly, in verses 12 through 14 of Romans chapter 5 "cross" is not mentioned at all. I would agree that verse 15 commences a teaching about justification and redemption. Your equating this to "the cross" is your idea.Actually the cross in the majority of verses in the New Testament is connected with denying of the self and terminating of the old nature much more than it is with the redeeming blood for man's redemption.A great many Christian hymns connect the cross with the redeeming blood. However, proper Bible students look primarily not to the popular hymns of Christians for theology but firstly to the text of the New Testament.So planting of "the cross" in the garden is your own idea. Not only is the cross not mentioned in verses 12 through 14. But the cross is not mentioned in the entire chapter of Romans 5! The cross is usually mentioned in the New Testament in relation to denying the self rather than blood sacrifice.Now we come to the matter of redemption which is spoken of in reference to what happened in the garden. But I would draw your attention to the extremely strong hint that God Himself through the writer of Genesis symbolizes redemption in Genesis chapter 4. We need to appreciate the scene here. Here are Adam and his wife now trembling before God and ashamed before each other. They have covered their nakedness with leaves (3:7): Not only were they desireous to cover the shame of thier newly discovered nakedness but they were also expecting to die. Instead of God killing them on the spot God kills a cattle. Here they are expecting to die and they witness instead God slaying an animal. Probably they thought to themselves that that was what should be happening to them.The covering of the animal/s, their coat, was removed and provided as a more adaquate covering for Adam and Eve. This was a type of the redemption of Christ. A substitute was slain and became their covering. The type was the slain animal of Genesis 4:21. And the reality of the reality, the antitype was to come in latter years as the slain Son of God. For through His death and resurrection He becomes the righteous justification of the sinner before God.The main thing here is that this is Genesis itself providing this window into God's plan of redemption and not Paul's writing. Paul merely develops upon the type in his Roman letter.And the type of the redemption of Christ seen in the slaying and skinning of the cattle is more secured by the Apostle John's word that Christ was slain from the foundation of the world: Peter also assures us that Christ and His redemptive act were foreknown by god before the foundation of the world: I don't know what the purpose of this paragraph is other than a innuendo that the message of Jesus was lost and that the apostles can not be trusted. My time is limited tonight so I think I will not devote too much time to this innuendo.However, Jesus not only died but rose from the dead. And He sent the Holy Spirit which He promised would not only guide the disciples into all the truth but would also remind them of the things He taught: We needn't fear that the message was lost. Not only the impact of the life, words, deeds, death, and resurection made a lasting impression on the disciples. But the Holy Spirit, after His resurrection and ascension, came to the disciples to teach them, guide them, and remind them of the things which Christ taught. I don't think those who were contemporaries of Paul had any problem debating or contradicting his teaching. They may have been wrong. But they had plenty of arguments. This is evidenced by the tone of his letters in which he wrestles with the various Jewish opposers, Judiazers, false apostles, and false brethren who were in competition with him.It is also evidenced by the book of Acts where the Jews enlisted a learned orator to contradict Paul in court. The picture of an intirely uninformed and ignorant audience unable to go toe to toe with Paul in intellectual debate seems to be from your own imagination rather than the historical data recorded. This doesn't agree with the Old Testament, let alone the New.It is more like you have a radio which has been tossed into the gutter. Instead of nice music programming it is broken and plays static. It is nonetheless still a radio though damaged.There are some things in man which were good and which STILL are good. Man is fallen though. His being fallen did not altogether make him NOT God's creation. After the sin of Adam the Bible still informs us that God created man. And man is still in the image of God. Now I have been speaking of the fall of man. Actually there was about four falls of man. Genesis marks some important milestones in which the human race took another slide downward into degredation. It is the sin of Adam and his expulsion from Eden which constitutes the first of a number of falls.Secondly, I already showed you that Genesis itself informs us long before Paul wrote, that the humans began to die ... "and he died ... and he died .... and he died ..." It is easy for us to overlook these pronouncements because we have lived for thousands of years with death. Well, of course he died. We all die.But coming to Genesis as a essential history of the beginnings of the human race it is significant that the writer points out to us, that so as God promised would happened, it DID, and that repeatedly. They all died.Paul merely picks up on what he read in Genesis.Now, that death is a kind of judgment upon man is also not the invention of Paul. We can see that mortality is a manifestation of God's anger upon human generations in the 90th Psalm: So long before Paul wrote Romans the Psalmist mused that all dying people are abiding under the overflowing anger of God because of our sins. Our pride is laid low. Without His salvation we fair no better than the grass of the field - here today, gone tomorrow. Christ is not only the Savior. He is the Head of a new humanity. He is called "the second man". He is called "the last Adam"."[T]he last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)This means that not only His redemption on the cross redeems man. But He Himself has been transfigured into a form in which He can enter into man and give man a divine and victorious life that can overcome the sin nature. He became a life giving Spirit. And the life that He gives is the life of God. It is the life of God mingled with humanity to produce a new generation of men and women united with God.The redemption and the justification are not ends in themselves. They are a means to bring man back to life, eternal life, the divine life. Now it is the Spirit of the resurrected Christ Himself as a NEW ADAM so to speak, a new head of a new race. The last Adam Jesus Christ has become a life giving God imparting Spirit. I have to shorten my writing at this time. But you should know that death is the enemy of God. I believe that God hates death more than He hates sin.It is discribed in the Old Testament as the covering which is upon all mankind which God intends to remove. So I think you teachers are teaching you to blame a lot of things on the Apostle Paul when he was merely standing upon the revelation of the Hebrew Bible. Of course the coming of the Son of God and His salvific work was added as further revelation upon this Old Testament foundation.Further comment will have to wait until latter.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I am going to shorten my answers today. I have a number of Englsh translations.While I think of it, I have been long time aware that the Greek word translated tree in some places in the NT can be rendered wood. For example "the tree of life" in Revelation 2 could be rendered "wood of life". I have also long been aware that in one of Peter's Epistles you have a similar effect, - carried our sins up onto the tree (or wood) meaning cross.The footnotes to the Recovery Version are very good.The Holy Bible Recovery Version I think I said I didn't know how God accomplished this. Whether rotations were stopped or God tampered with the time / space apparatus, we don't know.Incedently, I know of at least one argument that the account actually demonstrates a helio centric solar system. That argument exactly negates your charge. I cannot review the technicalities of it. But it was put forth that the behavior of the moon in that instance suggests a helio centric solar system.Regardless, for the one who "in the beginning created the heavens and the earth" it was possible. We can believe it or we can not believe it. I believe it.Latter on He did something similiar with the sun dial whose shadow moved backwards instead of forwards in the time of Hezekiah.It is interesting that many of the miracles of the Bible occur in pairs of twos. He does something. Then latter He does something similiar or the same. It is as if the Bible is saying "That's right. You heard what I said." Very interesting to me.Biblical miracles in pairs of twos is like God saying: "Just in case you didn't get it, I'll do it again." The whole universe is fine tuned for the existence of life. I don't think God needs to sit at our feet and be tutored on the operation of the universe.Modern man with his knowledge is so very arrogant. How God did it, we do not know. But you can believe or reject that he did it. I believe. Let's move on. It was some kind of eatable fruit.I mentioned before in the example of the ark of the covenant. Sometimes material things had profound spiritual implications with them as to how God's people interacted with them.At least with the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, there was an extraordinary spiritual quality associated with Adam's involvment with these fruits.What kinds of fruit they were I have no idea. Neither do I care. He may have been deceived. But the Scripture holds him responsible for direct rebellion. Isn't that what the Bible says? Now you have a little more ground to say that Eve was deceived. Look though at God's sentence against Adam. Sounds like pure rebellion to me: Sounds like a case of direct rebellion.You may have some language tools available to you which I don't have. However you should not let the possession of them obscure the clear meaning of the text.Perhaps, someone whose interpretation is faulty is not a good influence on your reading of Genesis. What Math? Here is one thing I think you do not realize.The tree of life means more than simply an endless human life. I think they already had an endless human life. There was no warning to them that failure to eat of the tree of life would result in their deaths.As far as we can see the only thing which would cause them to die was their eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I believe that Adam and Eve were created with an everlasting life.If they had an everlasting life then the tree of life (which also would cause them to live forever) must represent something more than simply an everlasting human life.The levels of created life rise higher and higher in the narrative, until God reaches man - created in the image of God. Man is at the top of the ladder. Above this is the tree of life. What is this?From the revelation of the whole Bible I understand that the tree of life represented the life of God Himself. God has a way to put His life into man's life. God has a way to dispense His life into Man's created being. God has a way to unite Himself with His creature man.The Apostle Paul says that fallen man was alienated from the life of God (Eph. 4:18). From the time God placed the cheribum and the flaming sword to guard the way to the tree of life, man was alienated from "THE LIFE OF GOD".This account is a window into the eternal purpose of God. God wants to impart Himself as divine life into man. Within the man created in God's image God would dispense "the life of God".Think of a glove made in the image of a hand. The glove is in the shape of a hand for the purpose of containing the hand. The hand fits quite comfortably inside the glove because the glove is in the image of a hand.This is more than physical. Man is made in the image of God so that God can dispense His life into man that man and God may be united and mingled into one.Remember, Paul writes that fallen man was "alienated from the life of God."The tree of life represented the life which is God Himself. It was for the taking in of man. God created man in order to dispense Himself into man for man's enjoyment and God's expression.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Thanks alot. I enjoy any excuse to have to go back and devour again the word of God in a book of the Bible. And Proverbs is a fine book.I would like to suggest that you read the First Epistle to the Corinthians at least up to chapter three.Of course I have studied the books of Proverbs but I will go into it again as you requested.I think we are not talking about the tree of life. I have long been aware that "a tree of life" is mentioned in Proverbs.At this time I would only point out that in the new covenant the wisdom to the saved people is Christ Himself. Christ the living Person becomes the wisdom to the saved man. You see here the apostle teaches that Christ, the resurrected and living Lord is both the power of God and the wisdom of God. He is so especially to both Jews and Greeks who are called unto salvation.Paul speaks much about wisdom in that letter. Again Paul mentions Christ Himself is wisdom to the saved believers: Christ makes His home in our hearts through faith: And coming to live in us, to settle down in us, and to make His home in our hearts, He becomes our living wisdom from God. This wisdom here is of three components - "righteousness and sanctification and redemption".Christ = wisdom = (righteousness and sanctification and redemption)The footnote of the Recovery Version says this for verse 30: Today all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in Christ: Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.