Unconditional Death

[stevencarrwork]

Genesis 3:3 God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

As we all know Adam and Eve did eat the fruit.

Genesis 3:22 'He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

Was their death after earing the fruit unconditional?

Could they have avoided death by different behaviour eg by eating from the tree of life?

Was their death conditional on them not eating from the tree of life?

[Sozo]

I believe the word is will, not could.

The day they ate, was the day they died. Not physically, but they were spiritually separated from the life of God (real life). If they had eaten from the tree of life, they would have lived forever in the flesh separated from God.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 03:07 PM
Sozo:

I believe the word is will, not could.

The day they ate, was the day they died. Not physically, but they were spiritually separated from the life of God (real life). If they had eaten from the tree of life, they would have lived forever in the flesh separated from God.

If you read Genesis carefully, you will see that they were separated from Eden, not God, who still talked to them after they ate from the tree. Indeed , in Genesis 4 , we read 'She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.".

So God was still helping them. They had not been separated from God.

But I take your point that they could still have lived. Their deaths were conditional on them not eating from the tree of life.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Both deaths are in view. They died spiritually at the moment of their disobedience which then brought on the progress of physical death. If they had been allowed to eat of the tree of life they could have prolonged physical life indefinitely.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Well Steven you are missing the point of separated from God, though I think you are doing it purposefully as is your habit. Suit yourself.

[Sozo]

Today @ 09:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79351#post79351)
Dee Dee Warren:

Both deaths are in view. They died spiritually at the moment of their disobedience which then brought on the progress of physical death. If they had been allowed to eat of the tree of life they could have prolonged physical life indefinitely.

What she said :thumb:

(which is what I thought I said) :shrug:

[Dee Dee Warren]

You did Sozo... I was reiterating it.

[Sozo]

Today @ 09:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79367#post79367)
Dee Dee Warren:

You did Sozo... I was reiterating it.

Oh... you were reiterating it. Ok then :hi:

[Jim E.]

The main problem here is Christian lunacy.

If you are a young earth creationist you can sensibly defend your Bible by rejecting modern scientific knowledge. Usually, this is done by people who know little to nothing about science. Taking such a path is lunacy if you know better.

Some try to mash the Bible in with science. It fails miserably. A talking snake and a garden of Eden and creation from dust is the stuff of mythology. It is lunacy to center your life around mythology if you know better.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

[Sher]

Now, now ... Jim ... didn't you learn your lesson regarding unsuppored assertions yet? Where is your proof? Where is your evidence that you keep touting? If you have no proof, you have no right to keep spouting off that Christians are lunatics (suffering from lunacy).

[Sher]

Today @ 10:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79350#post79350)
stevencarrwork:

They had not been separated from God. Actually they had. "Have you not read" (:lol:) that they ran and hid in shame ... trying to cover their own sins with fig leaves ... instead of going to God and confessing/repenting their sins ... allowing God to cover their sins as was right. When God confronts them for specific details, they finally confess, but they also try to pass the blame ... but the point was they confessed. It didn't bring them back into direct fellowship with God ... in His presence in the Garden ... that was the consequence of their choice to sin ... but they did remain in God's grace ... via the sacrifice ... and that is why they still received God's blessings ... which Eve recognized with that statement in Gen 4:1.

[cloaked_dagger]

Some try to mash the Bible in with science. It fails miserably.

Actually I compare the Bible with science frequently and I have found many similarities. In fact that was one of the reasons why I believe. I won't list them because I'm too lazy, but if you want I'll name off a few.

[Jim E.]

Today @ 01:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79469#post79469)
cloaked_dagger:



Actually I compare the Bible with science frequently and I have found many similarities. In fact that was one of the reasons why I believe. I won't list them because I'm too lazy, but if you want I'll name off a few.

Er, you have this backwards. Science debunks the Bible. I hesitate to ask why you think otherwise because I am afraid that you are going to say something weird. I'll leave that up to you.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

[mattbballman19]

Er, you have this backwards. Science debunks the Bible. I hesitate to ask why you think otherwise because I am afraid that you are going to say something weird. I'll leave that up to you.

Er, you have this inside out. The Bible and Science compliment eachother. I hesitate to ask why you think otherwise because I am afraid that you are going to say something weird. I'll leave that up to you.

Wow, its fun to just throw out assertions.:duh:

[Jim E.]

Today @ 02:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79503#post79503)
mattbballman19:

Er, you have this backwards. Science debunks the Bible. I hesitate to ask why you think otherwise because I am afraid that you are going to say something weird. I'll leave that up to you.

Er, you have this inside out. The Bible and Science compliment eachother. I hesitate to ask why you think otherwise because I am afraid that you are going to say something weird. I'll leave that up to you.

Wow, its fun to just throw out assertions.:duh:

No, no, no Matt. I can back up my assertions. Christians can't. Science says the universe is 13.7 billion years old and human life is the product of evolution.

Now let's take a look at the Bible: a talking snake, instant creation from dust, and other mythology. :no:

It is because of science that we know the Bible is mythological.

Matt, that is c-o-n-t-r-a-d-i-c-t-i-o-n not c-o-m-p-l-e-m-e-n-t. You Christians will say just about anything, won't you?

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

[mattbballman19]

Ladies and Gentleman, welcome to the assertion game!!

No, no, no Matt. I can back up my assertions. Christians can't. Science says the universe is 13.7 billion years old and human life is the product of evolution.

No, no, no Jim. Christian can back up their assertions. You can't. I viable non-contradictory solution can be made which allows for the universe to be 13.7 billion years old. Go read Hugh Ross. Human life can still be the product of creation. Evolution is not scientific.

Now let's take a look at the Bible: a talking snake, instant creation from dust, and other mythology. :no:

No refutations, just 'argument from outrage' assertions. Let's look at evolution: something from nothing, involves that dispicable philosophy of naturalism, which we all know to be false, etc . . . There we go! A couple of assertions and I'm done.

It is because of science that we know the Bible is mythological.

It's because of real science that we know how the Bible was never in contradiction to it.

Matt, that is c-o-n-t-r-a-d-i-c-t-i-o-n not c-o-m-p-l-e-m-e-n-t. You Christians will say just about anything, won't you?

No, I had it right the first time. Skepics will say just about anything, won't you?

[Jim E.]

Today @ 02:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79513#post79513)
mattbballman19:

Ladies and Gentleman, welcome to the assertion game!!


Watch Matt dance.


No, no, no Jim. Christian can back up their assertions.

Go Matt. Go Matt.



You can't.

I have, and I will.


I viable non-contradictory solution can be made which allows for the universe to be 13.7 billion years old. Go read Hugh Ross.

Go Matt. Go Matt. Why don't you tell us what Hugh says? Embarrassed? Afraid?


Human life can still be the product of creation. Evolution is not scientific.

Go Matt. Go Matt.


No refutations, just 'argument from outrage' assertions.

And what do we call Christianity? Argument from nonsense?



Let's look at evolution: something from nothing,


Let's look at Christianity: God from nothing



involves that dispicable philosophy of naturalism, which we all know to be false, etc . . . There we go! A couple of assertions and I'm done.


Go Matt. Go Matt.



It's because of real science that we know how the Bible was never in contradiction to it.

Go Matt. Go Matt.



No, I had it right the first time. Skepics will say just about anything, won't you?

Showing the Bible contradicts science is easy if you haven't been brainwashed. That is why Christians talk in evasive vague-speak (such as your vague reference to Hugh Ross). If Christians talk specifics, they get skewered. I'd be more than happy to skewer your position any time.

At least you're not a young earth creationist, though. See, we do agree on something. :smile:

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

[mattbballman19]

Watch Matt dance.

Watch John drive the assertion car without brakes and a steering wheel down the wrong side of the highway of common-sense and reasonable debate.

Go Matt. Go Matt.

Watch out for that tree John! :eek:

I have, and I will.

Good. Bring it out here so I can rip it to shreds. :brow:

Go Matt. Go Matt. Why don't you tell us what Hugh says? Embarrassed? Afraid?

It looks like the crazy driver in the assertion car is an unqualified psycologist! Instead of looking for ways to stop, he's leaning half-way out his window screaming unsubstantiated psycological assertions! :eww:

Since you are obviously the asserter (my asserting was done to a prove a point) you present evidence (you might not know what that is. so if you need to know let me know) for your position of religion being a superstition and how, why, when science proved that, and how the science and the Bible are incompatable. Hint: I'd stay away from historical/philosophical issues like the supernatural, since science has nothing to do with that.

And what do we call Christianity? Argument from nonsense?

The only nonsense here is your obsessive assertive answering methodology which does not make any attempt to actually argue rationally. You just seem to shout from your soap-box certain claims and expect people to eventually bow down and believe it. Now that's non-sense.

And the assertion car just ran over the nails of repetativeness. It now has two flat tires. :shocked:

Let's look at Christianity: God from nothing

Author, Page, and Title of one Christian who advocates this. Let's look at John: assertions from nothing.:teeth: Man, your own assertive philosophy is self-stultifying since the methodology you use contradicts what you say your science has discovered. :shrug:

I'd be more than happy to skewer your position any time.

The only 'skewering' that will happen is when you finally get out of that assertion car, off your soap box and participate in sensible debate. And, again, since my assertions were made only to prove a point, you are the original asserter: that means you must provide the evidence you say exists which supports your case.

At least you're not a young earth creationist, though. See, we do agree on something. :smile:

Yes, but did you reach that conclusion by investigating for the evidence, or did you wake up one morning, hobble over to the bathroom, look at your morning face in the mirror, and say, "Man, today, I shall assert that Young-earth creationism is incorrect. That was easy."

I have to ask since your recent activities in this thread have supported the assertion situation.