BlindSeeker Posted March 25, 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 25, 2009 The word "gahm" is the word translated as "also." It is nothing but a adverbial conjunction. No need to make more of it than is there. In this verse it indicates a future action but, is not an indicator of any past action in this verse, meaning that it does not serve as adequate indicator that anyone had eaten of the tree of life up to that point. Just out of curiosity, what exactly does gahm mean? Depends on the context. It can mean, "both," "as well as, " "also," "moreover," "yes," " though," "even." Those are the various ways it is employed. It does not mean all of those things at once. In Gen. 3:22, it simply means, "also." Hello Shiloh, I agree with your posts regarding the word "gahm" and it various usage and meaning, the problem I am having in my study is that in my sources it is only used 9 times in Genesis, the first being in 3:6 and the next in 6:3. The problem I have is in my sources 3:22 does not contain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted March 25, 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 25, 2009 I was thinking with those translations for that word, it still doesn't prove anything. For if a continuous eating of the tree was needed to keep one living forever, then you have the same effect. If the fruit of the Tree of Life keeps man's body from decay, then by being cut off from the Tree, his body will begin to decay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I was thinking with those translations for that word, it still doesn't prove anything. For if a continuous eating of the tree was needed to keep one living forever, then you have the same effect. If the fruit of the Tree of Life keeps man's body from decay, then by being cut off from the Tree, his body will begin to decay. Well no, it doesn't prove anything, and that is the point I am making. There is no way to be dogmatic about whether or not Adam ate from the tree or not. Furthermore, there is no way to know if one had to eat of the tree continously or if one trip to the tree was enough to sustain a person eternally. The Bible simply does not give us enough data concerning that. There is also no indication that the tree of life in Revelation is the same as or is the self-tree as we find in Genesis. There is also no data that states that Adam prior to the fall, had to eat of the tree of life to keep on living. What we do know is that death did come into the world until Adam sinned, so prior to the Fall, the tree of life would not have been needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 The word "gahm" is the word translated as "also." It is nothing but a adverbial conjunction. No need to make more of it than is there. In this verse it indicates a future action but, is not an indicator of any past action in this verse, meaning that it does not serve as adequate indicator that anyone had eaten of the tree of life up to that point. Just out of curiosity, what exactly does gahm mean? Depends on the context. It can mean, "both," "as well as, " "also," "moreover," "yes," " though," "even." Those are the various ways it is employed. It does not mean all of those things at once. In Gen. 3:22, it simply means, "also." Hello Shiloh, I agree with your posts regarding the word "gahm" and it various usage and meaning, the problem I am having in my study is that in my sources it is only used 9 times in Genesis, the first being in 3:6 and the next in 6:3. The problem I have is in my sources 3:22 does not contain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiloh62 Posted March 25, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 83 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,683 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 1 Joined: 11/14/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/14/1962 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 Greetings All, So why is it that everyone assumes that Adam and Eve DID NOT eat of the fruit of the Tree of Life? How long do you suppose that they were in the Garden - I have my reasons, but I strongly suspect about 70 years. Okay, I believe in the types and shadows of the OT as may be revealed in the NT. Do you realize in the NT, we have a "Tree of Life"? Now tell me, do you eat of that tree once then forget it forever? Of course not. I find myself eating from that tree every day of my life - because it gives life to my spirit. Now don't you suppose that for every day Adam and Eve were in the Garden they ate from the Tree of Life? Of course, they probably had other fruit and vegetables to eat, but I would bet that "Tree of Life" fruit was absolutely scrumptious and nourishing for the body, perhaps as well as the spirit. It may not have been quite as "pretty" as the fruit from the other tree, but let me give you this to consider: Ezekiel 28:13-15 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. NOW YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO HELP ME OUT HERE, CAUSE I CAN'T REMEMBER A VERSE: In the OT, a verse describes the appearance of our Lord as being uncomely, nothing to look upon, or to take notice of. Consider those two verses. We see Satan as beautiful and gorgeous and even in the NT it is said he can appear as an "angel of light". Whereas Jesus in contrast, was not distinguished in appearance. I bring these verses up because the "Tree of Life" probably was not as beautiful as the "Tree of Knowledge". In any case, I believe Adam and Eve ate from that Tree of Life as long as they were in the Garden. Once they were removed from the tree of life - this is what is said: Genesis 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: So if Adam and Eve were allowed to stay in the Garden and EAT DAILY of the Tree of Life, they would live forever in a state of SIN. God Bless, Dad Ernie P.S. BTW, I do believe we shall see them in Heaven, as God made propitiation for them with a covering - UNTIL the time of Christ, when their sins were paid for, as were all the OT saints. OK ... consider me a stick in the mud, but if Adam and Eve only had to eat once from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to gain this knowledge forever, then would they not also live forever if they ate from the tree of life? Does not God say in Genesis 3:22 this ... "and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever"? If the fruit from that tree was only temporary, then God would have nothing to worry about. It would seem that these two trees were special in the same way. Scripture does not say one way or the other, but this is what I have always believed. Thank you Onelight; that was my original thought too, so we are both "stick in the muds" ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlindSeeker Posted March 26, 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 26, 2009 What sources are you using? Mainly I use a program called "Power Bible" and I have my own library that rarely gets used due to the convenience of the PC and web. I also utilized a variety of online sites that offers study aids. As I mentioned in my earlier post though, my source only show the word used 9 times in 8 verses of Genesis (twice in one verse). The same info is confirmed in Crosswalk.com's KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon as well as here on this online Hebrew/English bible where the English words translated form Hebrew are in blue allowing you to click to Strongs dictionary, as well as on Olive Tree doing a verse search using KJV with Strongs definitions. Perhaps you wouldn't mind sharing your source which list 22 Hebrew words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlindSeeker Posted March 26, 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 26, 2009 OK ... consider me a stick in the mud, but if Adam and Eve only had to eat once from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to gain this knowledge forever, then would they not also live forever if they ate from the tree of life? Does not God say in Genesis 3:22 this ... "and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever"? If the fruit from that tree was only temporary, then God would have nothing to worry about. It would seem that these two trees were special in the same way. Scripture does not say one way or the other, but this is what I have always believed. Thank you Onelight; that was my original thought too, so we are both "stick in the muds" ! The Tree of Life, though a real tree, cannot make one live forever apart from God Himself. God alone is life and the giver thereof . . .and it is He alone who can unilaterally take it from anyone. Psm 68:20 He that is our God is the God of salvation; and unto GOD the Lord belong the issues from death. John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in Himself; so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself; 1John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life It matters not if Adam had eaten of the Tree of Life, for the life that he would have gained from it is still the life of God within . . . no God, no life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveller Posted March 26, 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 26, 2009 I was thinking with those translations for that word, it still doesn't prove anything. For if a continuous eating of the tree was needed to keep one living forever, then you have the same effect. If the fruit of the Tree of Life keeps man's body from decay, then by being cut off from the Tree, his body will begin to decay. Well no, it doesn't prove anything, and that is the point I am making. There is no way to be dogmatic about whether or not Adam ate from the tree or not. Furthermore, there is no way to know if one had to eat of the tree continously or if one trip to the tree was enough to sustain a person eternally. The Bible simply does not give us enough data concerning that. There is also no indication that the tree of life in Revelation is the same as or is the self-tree as we find in Genesis. There is also no data that states that Adam prior to the fall, had to eat of the tree of life to keep on living. What we do know is that death did come into the world until Adam sinned, so prior to the Fall, the tree of life would not have been needed. Hey brother - I've been thinking on this a bit concerning the tree being the same or "same as" the tree in Revelation 22. The tree in Ezekiel 47 is talking about the Millennium I think, and is similar as well. So there's three trees of life, Genesis, Eze and Rev, with the one in Revelation being more fully described. The river is in all three places too. Do you not think these are related? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 What sources are you using? Mainly I use a program called "Power Bible" and I have my own library that rarely gets used due to the convenience of the PC and web. I also utilized a variety of online sites that offers study aids. As I mentioned in my earlier post though, my source only show the word used 9 times in 8 verses of Genesis (twice in one verse). The same info is confirmed in Crosswalk.com's KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon as well as here on this online Hebrew/English bible where the English words translated form Hebrew are in blue allowing you to click to Strongs dictionary, as well as on Olive Tree doing a verse search using KJV with Strongs definitions. Perhaps you wouldn't mind sharing your source which list 22 Hebrew words. I speak and read Hebrew and I use an all-Hebrew Tanakh when I look up Hebrew words. You should be able to order one from any Christian bookstore. In fact, you can even get an all-Hebrew OT and NT as well. That is also very handy. I am not clear as to the importance of the number of times the word "gahm" is used in Genesis. I don't really see the relevance of that to the issue. It is simply an adverb that modifies the word "take." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Hey brother - I've been thinking on this a bit concerning the tree being the same or "same as" the tree in Revelation 22. The tree in Ezekiel 47 is talking about the Millennium I think, and is similar as well. So there's three trees of life, Genesis, Eze and Rev, with the one in Revelation being more fully described. The river is in all three places too. Do you not think these are related? They could be. I am not at all adverse to the possibility. I just don't think there is enough data yet to be dogmatic one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts