Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Did God originally create Adam and Eve to live forever? He set the tree of life in the garden. Only if man ate of that tree could he live "for the eon/age." Why even create a tree that would cause Adam and Eve to live for the eon/age if they already had immortality?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lantern
Depends on what the fruit of the tree of life actually do. Think about this, what if Adam and Eve never ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? God said they would surely die if they ate from that tree, and the Bible teaches us that death entered through sin. So if they never ate from that tree, death would have never entered. Thus they would have never died.
I think Adam and Eve had immortality when they were created. Only after they ate of the tree they weren't supposed to eat from, did they began to die. If they then reached out and ate from the tree of life, they would have once again lived forever, yet only then they would have been forever in the sinful state. God didn't want that. You could hear the pain in His voice when He was thinking of man eating the tree of life at that point.
Had Adam and Eve eaten of the fruit of the tree of life it would only have allowed them to live for the eon. This is what God said:
Gen_3:22 And saying is Yahweh Elohim, . . . And now, lest he stretch forth his hand,
moreover, and take of the tree of life, and eat and live for the
eon--!
Adam and Eve were never planned to live unendingly. They could not have had immortality. If they had immortality built into them they would have no need for the tree of life.
During the new earth the tree of life will be there once again. The leaves will be for the healing of the nations but only certain individuals will have a license to the actual fruit which will allow them to live for the duration of that eon. Those individuals only have immortality as long as they get the fruit. Only after the consummation of the eons will they put on immortality. We believers of the nations will put on immortality when we meet Christ and go with Him into the celestial realms. We don't need leaves or fruit of a tree since "the consummations of the eons have attained to us."
We went to the moon b/c we could, not b/c we needed to.
Name one other creature that can do what we do. That can have an impact beyond this world. If you asked me what creature is the most special on this planet, I would say it was us. What would you say?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekerSA
Rubbish. This planet is one of chaos. Tornadoes are caused by the water cycle, confluence of two streams of hot and cold fronts and due to the rotation of the earth (hell I did not even have to look that up). Earthquakes are b/c of moving plate aka tectonics, floods are caused by too much rain too fast, volcanoes, tectonics and the molten mantle. All of these have been happening for jonks (yonks correct pronunciation)
Still judging the distant past based on what you observe today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekerSA
We have a heap load more than the theist has. So far all you have offered is conjecture and playing what ifs.
We don't have to play what ifs hundreds of billions of years from now. There will be a day coming (if the universe continues to increase in the speed of it's expansion), where the "evidence" of the Big Bang will no longer be observable. That theory is pretty big, yet there is a day where it will no longer be science.
Imagine some crazy creature coming in with their religious book that day telling scientists, "Look here, my god has said in this book that the universe began as a tightly compressed ball of energy, that suddenly expanded at unbelievable speeds". Then the scientists will look at him and say, "Get out of here and stop wasting our time with that garbage. Go back and finish primary school you idiot."
So yes, these what ifs are very important. As I said, the only way we will know everything concerning the past, is if God exists. Only God can fill that gap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekerSA
I do not see the present as corrupted, whatever happens is due to nature. Only your "perfect" man has used WMD and creates chaos even further by overconsumption. You live in a fools paradise where everything is supposed to be hunky dory. Nature is impartial to what we want or prefer. It reacts and balances out whatever needs to be balanced. The movement of tectonics is cyclic and will remain so till the core solidifies but then we are probably gonna be extinct by then.
Which is why you don't understand what I'm saying. There's nothing wrong with science, I know what it says. I also know its a very present observational method. Man, if we were doing science a 1,000 years ago, I'm willing to bet the information we could have obtain would be much greater than it is now. (I mean we would have known more, a thousand years ago. Not that we would have had a 1,000 years of scientific study, vs the 200 or so we have now)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekerSA
Common sense tells us water cycles are also pretty much always was thus the biblical account gets it wrong. The GoE has four rivers named, where did they get the water from? Magic? Rivers w/o a water source namely a catchment and/or spring (which relies on rain seepage) run dry. Water flows downhill and thus if it all came from the ground then eventually it will stop flowing b/c the collection of water will cause a dam, sea, lake and thus and endless supply of water will flood the planet and then rise and the planet would just keep swelling and we would have a huge water blob in space. See how ridiculous your scenario works?
Could have been an underground source. The water for the flood came from under the ground. It mentions that all the fountain of the great deep were broken up. (And according to the flood, the waters covered mountains. So there was a very large reservoir of water underneath the earth.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekerSA
The water cycle and how it got here is from basic elements and this then led to the formation of the atmosphere. This is Gr7-8 science
No isotope decay is constant whether it under water or not, you really do not understand this do you?
The flood waters weren't just regular water. It came from underground, which of course is closer to the earth's core. Meaning this water got superheated. My experiment will include this information, but I'm still gathering more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekerSA
The atmosphere did not suddenly change. That conjecture has already been put to bed here time and again. Sudden changes in atmosphere would render whatever lived dead. Nothing can adapt to a sudden change, this is why the dinos went extinct.
Scientists don't really know why the dinosaurs went extinct. They say it could have been a combination of things, and that they died out gradually. (And not within months of an asteroid strike)
Again, I'm not surprised that they don't know. How can they, they weren't there to record this information. All they have is today's observation. Let me ask this question from a crazy scenario. Let's say I built a very large time machine, got together a great team of scientists, and we went back 100 millions years in the past. We then capture two sauropod dinosaurs, bring them back to this present day, and let them go. Do you think they would survive? If not, why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekerSA
You are conflating the movement of Pangea with Noah's fludd. This argument fails as a catastrophic movement of the continents at 40kmh+ would create such havoc that the evidence would be there if this happened and even so assuming life somehow survived, then we should see identical fauna and flora all over the world. We do not see that. BTW this idea was posited in the late 70's and really is debunked by science. It is NOT a new concept. Even when I saw it on Nat Geo in the early 80's it was thoroughly refuted.
I doubt those guys on Nat Geo understand the concept of the flood, as it is posited in the Bible. I imagine they were like you, still fixated on this current world and the laws that it go by. Not seeing the world as it was, pre-flood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekerSA
None of what you allude to here is even in the bible, you are merely using crap from AiG as their ideas go against all known science.
No, I'm not rehashing arguments by AiG. All of what I'm saying is in the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekerSA
Pets out of their natural environment and particularly a dog that has been domesticated out of its natural environment. The idea an ape loves a dog should tell you something else.
Then how do you explain the lion getting along with it's prey in the wild?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekerSA
Adaptation. You assume at one time the spider or frog ate each other.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. The article finds it strange the spider does not eat the frog. I argue that this is just a remnant of what the world was like, before the fall came in.
IVF is a new science relatively speaking and the success rate not very high. To claim this is the way it was done still is an appeal to magic as the conception had to be in the time of ovulation. IVF harvests ovums and then fertilises them, pace them in utero and hope nature does the rest.
This is anyway not what I was referring to and of course what comes out here is that we have someone not even versed in the content of the bible. All though out the bible the "seed of man" was thought to be "it", the woman was an incubator and no one knew what menses was about. The human ovum was only discovered in the late 19th century and we have progressed way beyond that to understand the mechanism of human reproduction. What was seen in copious quantities turns out a 1:300M contribution where as the female contribution is 1:1. The whole female thing was degraded to a secret fountain, an unclean thing to the point of comparing the righteousness of man to that of filthy rags aka used menstrual cloths.
Then how do you explain Genesis, where God put's emnity between the seed of the serpent, and the seed of the woman?
Had Adam and Eve eaten of the fruit of the tree of life it would only have allowed them to live for the eon. This is what God said:
Gen_3:22 And saying is Yahweh Elohim, . . . And now, lest he stretch forth his hand, moreover, and take of the tree of life, and eat and live for the eon--!
Adam and Eve were never planned to live unendingly. They could not have had immortality. If they had immortality built into them they would have no need for the tree of life.
During the new earth the tree of life will be there once again. The leaves will be for the healing of the nations but only certain individuals will have a license to the actual fruit which will allow them to live for the duration of that eon. Those individuals only have immortality as long as they get the fruit. Only after the consummation of the eons will they put on immortality. We believers of the nations will put on immortality when we meet Christ and go with Him into the celestial realms. We don't need leaves or fruit of a tree since "the consummations of the eons have attained to us."
I'm curious, what Bible translation are you using? Yet the question still presents itself that if Adam never ate of either tree, what would have happened to him? He wouldn't have died, because he wouldn't have eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I guess my personal opinion would be (not saying it's right by any means), the fruit from the tree of life, is just what immortals eat. Kind of like a name brand type thing.
My other thought about what the fruit from the tree of life does, is that whatever state you are in before you eat, that state you will remain forever. I'm still studying on these things I guess. I do know it was never God's will that man die. And dying is the only thing that negates immortality. So if God didn't create us to die, then we had to have been immortal from creation.
Edit: I didn't mean to triple post with this last post. My fault.
Awesome pic sanspeur! My wife and I are contemplating a trip to Banff!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
