myth-one.com wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:13 pm
William wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:31 pm
myth-one.com wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:15 pm
PinSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:50 pm
We agree that man is mortal, but man is also eternal.
If mankind is eternal and exists forever as you claim, then why did God separate them from the Tree of Life "lest they eat from it and live forever"?
Is eternal not forever?
The difference is to enable an explanation of the difference between the station of The Creator and the station of the created, in relation to beliefs formulated through human experience.
Spirit bodies [forms] were created to last forever. They had a beginning.
The human form was created to last as long as its use-by date so an element within the fruit of the Tree of Life was required in order to allow for a reaction to take place in order to counteract the use-by date properties of the form - essentially make it last longer.
And the Lord God commanded the man saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Genesis 2:16-17)
Adam and Eve were created to live until the day in which they ate of the Tree of Knowledge. So their "use-by date" was
undetermined initially.
The bodies of Adam and Eve - Not the Spirit which was breathed into the bodies.
To God, a thousand years is like a day:
To the Creator, a thousand years is meaningless, because the Creator is eternal To a spirit in human form, a day is like a day followed by a night...nice insight, but what of its importance re the topic?
For a thousand years in thy sight are but yesterday when it is past... (Psalm 90:4)
But beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (II Peter 3:8)
So yes - it is an attempt at explaining how different The Creator experiences "time" in relation to how a spirit within a human form experiences time...what seems a long time in human terms is not experienced in the same way for The Creator...how does this dovetail re the topic at hand?
So Adam and Eve had only one God day to live after eating the forbidden fruit. And indeed, he died within the next 1000 years:
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years... (Genesis 5:5)
So? If they had not done what they did, then their bodies would not have died, as they would still have had access to the fruit which gave their bodies the ability to not reach any use-by date...
After Adam & Eve sinned, God put a limit of 120 earth years on the human species. This is the same number scientists discovered in about 1975-1980 when they discovered telomeres. Telomeres are repeating DNA strings (TTAGGG) that cap chromosomes. Each time a cell divides its telomeres become shorter. When they reach a preset length the cell ceases to divide, ages, and dies. This occurs at 120 years of age. The same number God set it to in Genesis.
So this might be the literal interpretation of the figurative "tree of life" - The Creator changed the DNA structure in order that human forms no longer could last indefinitely.
The same thing scientists are looking to find out how to do, in the now...to reverse that aging and dying process...
William wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:31 pm
Your belief that the fruit of the ToL need only be eaten the once, clouds the understanding. The evidence re the storyline [in how long Adam's form lasted after he lost access to the fruit] bears witness to this. Also to take into account, a tree bearing fruit has the purpose of providing a continuous supple of said fruit, also bearing witness that the fruit needed to be consumed on occasions, rather than simply once.
One could say [and so shall say] that it is possible that the pair wondered often about the fruit of the other [forbidden] tree [about the feel, taste and effects] when eating of the fruit of the ToL...after all, it is only human to wonder at what one is not allowed.
But anyway, the difference between eternal and forever and the point I think PinSeeker is trying to make, is that Adam was not an eternal being, . . .
Then why did PinSeeker say the following?
PinSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:50 pm
We agree that man is mortal, but
man is also eternal.
I think he was saying something along the lines of "Higgitty Piggity, Piggity Higgitty" but you will really need to ask him to get confirmation on that.
Spiritual bodies are immortal. Spirits have no reason to eat anything!
Spiritual bodies are also forms in which spirits occupy. Spiritual bodies are not "Spirits"
Adam and Eve were ejected from the Garden so as to prevent them from eating from the Tree of Life and living forever like God and the angels.
To be clearer, The bodies called "Adam and Eve" along with the individuate spirits which occupied said bodies, were expelled so that they did not have access to that which allowed the bodies to be indefinite [like The Creator in the story and his Angels were.]
The reason for this decision [not taken lightly] was that The Creator in the story and his Angels realized that the way [Adam especially] used the knowledge was unacceptable in relation to longevity. IF Adam had accepted his part in the process [eating of the forbidden fruit] and owned it, THEN the result would most likely have been different.
But now, the bodies had to die, and the Spirits within said bodies would have to experience the bodies dying...and in that, be ejected from said bodies.
If Adam & Eve have to eat periodically from the Tree of life to live forever, then they would never be like God and the angels, because God and the angels do not have to eat or do anything to remain alive!
Once more, you continue to conflate flesh with spirit and as a result, argue from that redundant perspective. The fruit was for the purpose of allowing the body to be an indefinite fixture, rather than it decaying.
So it takes only one hit on the tree of Life fruit to gain everlasting life.
Or, it takes one simple restructure of the DNA coding, and the body would die...if indeed the "Tree of Life" is simply a symbolic figurative, not literally a tree in a garden...