If Adam and Eve were perfect, why did their immortality have to be sustained by the Tree of Life?

by I_love_Jeff 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • I_love_Jeff
  • prologos
    I thought immortality lifted a person, or thing beyond the possibility of destruction. A guaranteed or inherent quality, perhaps even beyond the reach of proton decay, or the need for energy flow.
  • millie210

    So could it be said that we are talking about potential?

    Immortality is guaranteed or as Morpheus said, the ability to generate life from within.

    Everlasting life carries the potential of ending in death if the terms under which it is being granted arent met?

    Is that the understanding?

  • prologos
    Jesus, the approved second adam is reported to have had everlasting life, that he sacrificed, but that needed to be watched over by angels (that would have brought him to a safe, airbag-type landing after jumping off the temple tower). Immortality in the OP is a misnomer, since it is impossible in the physical universe. In the cosmos?-- may be.
  • What is Truth?
    What is Truth?

    Should you be interested in the beliefs behind it I suggest looking into the kabalistic tree of life teachings. If you are simply interested in deprogramming JW doctrine you must know that most dubs aren't aware there was another tree let alone what role it played.

    From the it-2 250

    Adam lost life for himself and offspring.

    When Adam was created, God placed in the garden of Eden “the tree of life.” (Ge 2:9) This tree evidently had no intrinsic life-giving qualities in its fruit, but it represented God’s guarantee of life “to time indefinite” to the one whom God would allow to eat of its fruit. Since the tree was put there by God for some purpose, undoubtedly Adam would have been permitted to eat this fruit after proving faithful to a point that God considered satisfactory and sufficient. When Adam transgressed, he was prevented from having opportunity to eat from the tree, Jehovah saying: “Now in order that he may not put his hand out and actually take fruit also from the tree of life and eat and live to time indefinite,—.” Then Jehovah followed his words with action. He would not allow one unworthy of life to live in the garden made for righteous persons and to eat of the tree of life.—Ge 3:22, 23.
    Adam, who had enjoyed perfect life contingent on obedience to Jehovah (Ge 2:17; De 32:4), now experienced in himself the workings of sin and its fruitage, death. His life’s vigor was strong, nevertheless. Even in his sad situation, cut off from God and true spirituality, he lived 930 years before death overtook him. In the meantime he was able to pass on, not fullness of life, but a measure of life to his posterity, many of whom lived from 700 to 900 years. (Ge 5:3-32) But the process that took place with Adam is described by Jesus’ half brother James: “Each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn, sin, when it has been accomplished, brings forth death.”—Jas 1:14, 15.

    What is the point of God using the stupid trees in the first place? The whole story is symbolic, that is how the book should be read. A point you may lead into is why jah chose to sustain their life for so long and others who did serve him he also protected. Yet where is this protection today? Why does he drag the system on allowing so many faithful to wither and die? They stress the book of life and are interested in getting and keeping their name in it to inherit everlasting life.

    A&E had it pretty easy all they had to do was make sure they were eating from the right tree. Why all the extra rules today? Would we have all of these same laws today? Adultery was not an option for the original couple at the time. Would they never have sinned even if they did not eat of the tree of Knowledge? Another question that is brought up is how can both trees be in the middle or center of the garden? Are we talking about the same tree? And, did the snake actually lie? As they did 'have their eyes opened' and 'in that very day you will die' they did not.

    So since Jesus takes away the sin of the earth by dieing on the 'tree' was that the 'tree of life'?

  • prologos
    so: What is Truth wit? that story is not, neither can be the religions based on it.
  • Crazyguy
    In the original story the hero was offered food but his father warned him that this was a trick and not to eat the food. When the God's did offer the food he refused not knowing that this was not a trick and if he would of eaten the food he would have gained immortality. This is part of the story of the Epic of Gilgamesh. This is also the story that Noah s flood is taken from. This story is older then what the Jews wrote by at least 500 years and is a copy of a story that's even older. The original telling of this story could be as much as 2500 years older then what the Jews wrote. The tree of life is also another subject copied by the Jews and is a much older topic discussed as far back as the Sumerians.
  • prologos
    Even mortality (day to day life) has to be sustained. There was only one forbidden fruit tree, by contrast, the tree of life was a staple. Olive? Almond? Walnut?
  • Vidiot

    I_Love_Jeff - "It was access to this tree that kept Adam and Eve in a 'perfect' state. That is why they were kicked out of the Garden. Actually, they may not have found the fruit at the time of their expulsion. How can it be reasonably asserted that their bodies were in a perfect, immortal state when the facts tell us otherwise?"

    I remember when I first had this epiphany.


    If Adam and Eve - supposedly already created "perfect" - had to keep eating the Fruit of the Tree of Life to live forever, then immortality could therefore not be a fundamental aspect of said "perfection", in direct contrast to what is explicitly taught by the WTS.

    By that logic, it could be argued that mortality - aging and death - is actually, in fact, the normal standard of creative "perfection"...

    ...which, incidentally, is affirmed by the fact that everything else in the animal kingdom (with a few noteworthy exceptions) grows old and dies via the exact same biological process that causes human beings to grow old and die (telomerase reduction in cell subdivision). No "Fall into Sin" necessary.

    It's a theological elephant in the room that most JWs don't even know is there.


    BTW; for the record, I no longer believe that the Eden narrative in Genesis is literal history; I participated as an intellectual exercise.

  • I_love_Jeff
    There is an article on JW.org that addresses this topic:

    According to this article, it is not known how sin and death were passed on:
    "Humans inherited sin and death, two enemies they cannot escape. Though we do not know exactly how sin and death were physically passed on to Adam’s children, we can see the results."

    A careful reading of Genesis makes it abundantly clear what happened, so I'm not sure how the WTS has determined that death and sin are something physical. I do not see any scriptural indication that these things are physical in nature, apart from Romans 5:12 which says, "...[T]hrough one man sin entered into the world and death through sin..."

    It should be noted that Paul's commentary, here, doesn't cancel out the actual account found in Genesis, chapter 3. One would think, after reading Romans 5;12, that sin and death mysteriously entered into the human condition by an unknown process. However, going back to Genesis, we see that death was NOT a physical condition, but - rather - a geographical one. If you are in the Garden of Eden, it is possible to live forever by eating from the Tree of Life. If you are NOT in the Garden of Eden, you will NOT be able to eat from the Tree of Life and, therefore, you will die ... eventually. For some reason, people are always forgetting the part about the cherubs who were assigned to block access to the Tree of Life. It is obvious that death entered into the human condition due to a lack of access to a life-sustaining "substance" or component. The notion that we have "bad genes" or that our bodies are imperfect cannot be successfully demonstrated scripturally.

    Additionally, perfect people or spirit creatures can sin, so a "sinful nature" is not derived from imperfection. For example, Satan wouldn't have tempted Jesus if there was no chance that he might sin. Satan, himself, had a sinful nature even though has was an angel. The only thing that changed in Adam upon eating the forbidden fruit was his perception. Can the knowledge of good and evil be considered something sinful? If it makes us more like Jesus and Jehovah, then how can it be bad?

    Jehovah made Eve's pregnancies more painful (which is something we wouldn't expect from a loving God), and he cursed the ground, caused farming to be more difficult for Adam. Eve was physically altered where reproduction is concerned, but nothing happened to Adam, apparently. One might say that Eve passed on her "bad genes" that made the act of giving birth more difficult for her offspring, but that is a mechanical problem which would not affect her decision-making at all.

    Jehovah's Witnesses like to think that we will be restored to our original "perfect" state when we get to Paradise. I contend that we are not necessarily any less perfect now than when Adam and Eve were ejected from the Garden. Any subsequent deterioration would have to be attributed to our being deprived of access to the Tree of Life. Keep in mind that Genesis 3 suggests that Adam and Eve had not yet eaten fruit from the Tree of Life. One would expect it to have a permanent effect (like the Tree of Knowledge), which would mean that banishment from the Garden wouldn't affect their lifespan. Either way, death was IMPOSED geographically and did not result from physical imperfection. Any claims to the contrary are based on the Writing Committee's creative use of their imagination.

Share this