OneLight Posted March 23, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.22 Reputation: 9,763 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted March 23, 2009 What of the other aspect of the argument which I presented on the first page? You didn't post the first page . . . http://www.worthychristianforums.com/index...t&p=1342709 People, it all depends on how you set up your settings for the board as to how many posts will appear on the first page. This can be from 5 to 40 and can be set in your control panel under Board settings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted March 23, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Even without God's speaking, and with "room for interpretation" it is illogical to make the presumption that Adam and Eve had previously eaten of the Tree of Life, since the nature of the tree would have logically prevented them from eating of the other. The problem here is that there is not an agreement on "the nature of the tree." One argument says that we need to eat daily of the Tree of Life. The other view says that once is enough. But which is more fitting to the Christian life? Partake of Jesus once and then go on my merry way? Or partake of Jesus every day? Here's another look: Rev. 22:2 - In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. Does anyone else notice anything odd about this description? It states that the Tree of Life is in the middle of the street and on either side of the river. How can a tree be in the middle of a street and on two sides of a river at the same time? But then it says "each tree." So is it "the" tree of life, or is it several trees making up one? What can we learn from this? Next point. Are "the nations" supposed to take of the tree's leaves only once? Or will they need multiple applications? If only once, then the trees' usefulness will be spent within the first year, don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I understand that, however, in his infancy Adam did not know the evil and did not know the all encompassing nature of the Good. He Trusted God. Let me query further then on this thought and maybe this is my larger examination. Adam didn't know the totality of the Good neither did he know the totality of the evil. He knew what God had told him as pointed out by Dad E. My guess is that Adam didn't even know that in walking with God that he was worshipping Him and in fact was fulfilling the totality of the purpose of his Creation. Adam was in essence living a life of Worship, the one that you and I strive for due to his ignorance and what held him there was his Obedience to what he did know. He knew what God, his Father, had told him. Does that make more sense? I hear what you are saying, but I am not sure it is wise to presume too much about Adam did not did not know. Keep in mind that we don't really have much of timeline at this point and there is no way to know what God had told Adam when He walked with Adam in the cool of the day. There is a lot of missing information. We also do no know how much knowledge Adam was created with. I don't think he was created with his mind as a blank slate. I mean it would not be very satisfying on God's end for Adam to operating out of ignorance, it would seem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 The problem here is that there is not an agreement on "the nature of the tree." One argument says that we need to eat daily of the Tree of Life. The other view says that once is enough.It depends on how the word "life" is to be understood. I don't accept the view that the tree in Revelation is the tree of "eternal life." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveller Posted March 23, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 827 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 12,101 Content Per Day: 1.50 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 3 Joined: 04/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted March 23, 2009 Does anyone else notice anything odd about this description? It states that the Tree of Life is in the middle of the street and on either side of the river. How can a tree be in the middle of a street and on two sides of a river at the same time? But then it says "each tree." So is it "the" tree of life, or is it several trees making up one? What can we learn from this? Next point. Are "the nations" supposed to take of the tree's leaves only once? Or will they need multiple applications? If only once, then the trees' usefulness will be spent within the first year, don't you think? Maybe like a Banyan tree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted March 23, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted March 23, 2009 Does anyone else notice anything odd about this description? It states that the Tree of Life is in the middle of the street and on either side of the river. How can a tree be in the middle of a street and on two sides of a river at the same time? But then it says "each tree." So is it "the" tree of life, or is it several trees making up one? What can we learn from this? Next point. Are "the nations" supposed to take of the tree's leaves only once? Or will they need multiple applications? If only once, then the trees' usefulness will be spent within the first year, don't you think? Maybe like a Banyan tree? Now that makes sense since we will be deriving our new nature from the Root and Vine, grafted in as branches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yesult Posted March 23, 2009 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 326 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/12/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted March 23, 2009 (edited) Why do you keep saying that Adam and Eve were Perfect? Only one has been declared "perfect" and that was Satan. I have read every page of this topic. Have you? Blessings, Dad Ernie I've read all your posts and you're just ignoring my points. Continuing to repeat your arguments when you've been proved wrong and refusing to aknowlege it or answer those points doesn't make them go away. Also continuing to ask if I've read your posts is just starting to get weird. Yes I did and refuted them. Are we going to continue just going round in circles from this point on? If you can actually refute the answers I gave you then please do. Edited March 23, 2009 by yesult Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlindSeeker Posted March 23, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 69 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,063 Content Per Day: 0.53 Reputation: 427 Days Won: 5 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted March 23, 2009 Why do you keep saying that Adam and Eve were Perfect? Only one has been declared "perfect" and that was Satan. I have read every page of this topic. Have you? Blessings, Dad Ernie I've read all your posts and you're just ignoring my points. Continuing to repeat your arguments when you've been proved wrong and refusing to aknowlege it or answer those points doesn't make them go away. Also continuing to ask if I've read your posts is just starting to get weird. Yes I did and refuted them. Are we going to continue just going round in circles from this point on? If you can actually refute the answers I gave you then please do. What is getting "weird" is you thinking you "refuted" or "proved" anything. You only have 3 post on this thread and nobody's ignoring you or "refusing to acknowledge" you . . . you been gone/silent for 2 days. Plus, I fail to see where in your 3 posts that you "refuted" anything Dad Ernie said . . . you simply shared your opinion which amounts to nothing more than mere speculation and presumption . . . what exactly is that proof of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted March 23, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Even without God's speaking, and with "room for interpretation" it is illogical to make the presumption that Adam and Eve had previously eaten of the Tree of Life, since the nature of the tree would have logically prevented them from eating of the other. The problem here is that there is not an agreement on "the nature of the tree." One argument says that we need to eat daily of the Tree of Life. The other view says that once is enough. Actually I argued for both positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massorite Posted March 23, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 38 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,973 Content Per Day: 0.32 Reputation: 36 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/26/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/13/1953 Share Posted March 23, 2009 The question is easily answered: He went as many years not having eaten of the Tree of Knowledge either. It is therefore unreasonable to presume that Adam or Eve had eaten of the Tree of Life. Really? Unreasonable? The essential argument is: A) Adam was there for a period of time B) The Tree of Life was there for a period of time. C) Adam ate of the trees of the garden, so therefore, D) Adam ate of the Tree of Life. The flaw in the argument is lack of evidence. The mere fact that Adam and the Tree existed in the same space for a period of time does not necessitate his having partaken of the tree. I could say that I have lived in my home for 20 years. But does that necessitate my ever having been in the attic? Let's say that I walked into a room in which there was a flask of bourbon sitting on the table. Does the fact that I am in the room, or have been in the room mean that I partook of the flask? I believe that it is more reasonable to take God at His word when He said, "Now lest he stretch forth his hand and take also from the Tree of Life and eat, and live forever..." That lends stronger evidence to the fact that Adam had not previously eaten of that tree. There are 17 Hebrew words in the following verse being translated/interpreted with 41 English words. That is 2.4 times as many English words as Hebrew, or 140% more English . . . which makes for sufficient room for a pure translation to be distorted by another culture/language Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts