Here's that post of mine which AlanF found he couldn't deal with:
Hi AlanF,
: Also, since we have to eat in order to stay alive then it seems that *food* is the key to continual life.Not at all. We breath air and we drink water in order to stay alive, but you're not proposing that *air* and *water* are keys to continual life. You're not arguing logically. Lack of any of these will kill us, but it doesn't follow that a sufficient supply or a supply of "the right kind" will allow us to live forever.
It is true that we also need air and water in order to stay alive. However, the "key" to continuous life without ever dying is Biblically linked to *food*. Nothing was said about any "air of life" or "water of life" there in the Genesis account. It was a "tree of life" which Adam was no longer allowed to EAT from, and which finally led to his death.
:All that we're told is that Adam and Eve themselves were allowed to do so.--SchizmNo, Genesis doesn't say that. You're jumping to a conclusion.--AlanF
According to Genesis 2:16, 17 Adam had permission to eat from "every" tree of the garden, except for ONE particular tree. So, how can you say that Genesis doesn't say that Adam had permission to eat from the tree of life?
From what's been said so far I see no reason to ditch my original statements. Which were in two parts, as follows:
[1] I believe that the "tree of life" contained the unique ingredients that Adam & Eve needed in order to sustain their lives forever. I also believe that they were at least periodically eating from this tree, for the reason that the other tree was the only one of the two that was off-grounds for them. It was only AFTER they disobeyed that they were prevented from eating of the tree of life any longer. Had they not disobeyed it appears that they would have continued to live for as long as they replenished the needs of their bodies by consuming the essential ingredients that could be found in the tree of life alone.No question about it, they had permission to eat of the tree of life.
The fruit from the tree of life really had life-sustaining ingredients.
The fruit from the "other" tree was simply good for food, just plain ole food, and to eat from it was to disobey God and merit not being worthy of eating of the tree of life any longer.
So Adam and Eve would still be alive today had they not been disallowed from eating from the tree of life.
We die for the same reason that Adam and Eve died ... because we need the ingredients from the tree of life and aren't getting them.
[2] We die for the same reasons that Adam and Eve died. Namely, because we need the ingredients found in the tree of life, and can't have them. The reason we can't have them is because we fail to be fully righteous. We fail to be fully righteous because our fathers were unable to inculcate this quality into us by way of teaching us properly. Our fathers were unable to teach us properly because their fathers were just as incapable ... and so on all the way back to Adam. Ultimately it can all be blamed on "sin". Person's who "sin" aren't worthy of eating from the tree of life. Once we've been helped to overcome our sinfulness then we will be allowed to eat from the tree of life. That's apparently the reason for the mention of the "trees of life" in the book of Revelation. It has nothing at all to do with genes!I look forward to any further comments that you may make.
Thanks,
Schizm
I asked AlanF why he didn't reply to my comments, and this is what he said:
: Also, I had hoped that you would've made it back in order to offer a reply to my last post, addressed to you, but you never replied.I chose not to because you simply danced around my points, and I don't much feel like dancing with people about this topic. Really, since I believe it's like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, I'll take the time only as long as I have nothing more pressing to do. It's only of minor academic interest.
For any of you who might not recognize it, this tactic, as used by AlanF, is as old as the hills. The idea is to make it appear that the other person is the one who is side-stepping the issue when in fact it's ole AlanF himself that's doing all the side-stepping. And please note the part above which I've put in extra-large red font. Of course you'll never catch AlanF having the humility to acknowledge that he had been proven wrong there. Why that might hurt his widdle image.
Schizm