Did Adam ever eat from the Tree of Life?

[TheBear]

I edited.

Scroll up.

 

[TheBear]

Oh wait. I thought you were someone else. Sorry.

 

[Delta One]

Bear,

The doctrine of the Fall, which asserts that there was no physical death of any living thing before Adam sinned against God, is used to support a young earth position. This critical aspect has been glossed over and blindly accepted by YEC's. ... Like I said before, if Adam was created immortal, there's no requirement for him to eat anything, let alone from a tree that will keep him alive forever. Immortal is immortal - exempt from physical death. If Adam was created mortal, then there was physical death before he sinned against God.

I voted "No" for similar reasons to Mercury (for once I agree with him ).

If Adam really did eat from the tree of life then he would be immortal (or eternal) and live forever (not even God Himself would be able to kill something that can't be killed - an illogical state that cannot happen, IMO). As such, we wouldn't be wasting out time here as we could simpily ask Him what happened! The world would be rapidly different as the Global Flood would not have happened (what would be the point - they're immortal right?) and the fossil record would be significantly shorter. As painful as death can be sometimes, I praise and thank God for it as I know I would hate to be eternally separated from Him in this sinful state!

I believe that everything that God created was to live and exist forever. I will admit that it does sound a bit like Adam would be immortal, except I believe that God was upholding the mortal man 100%. We get an impression of how things work when God upholds them, take for example the Israelites wondering through the desert for fourty years - their feet didn't swell, their shoes and clothes didn't run down (my shoes are almost gone after about several months) -- stupid law of decay (and good law of decay in a way that we can digest and break down our food). It's one of those laws where you can't live with it and you can't live without it.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I believe that God was upholding or sustaining His creation 100% and thus, death, harmful mutations, cancer, etc, just wouldn't be a possibility. In Revelation the tree of life that was protected from us in Genesis to stop us getting to it and live forever will be presented to us such that when we eat it we will live forever. We read that we will be like Christ (who is the Son of God and thus eternal) and I'm pretty sure that the angels can't be destroyed or killed by God by their very nature. That is, IMO, why God sent the tratiorous fallen angels away from His presence and hence to "burn in hell" for eternity.

Perhaps God, in His foresight saw that man was going to rebell against Him and thus didn't make man eternal or immortal as He didn't want us to spend eternity seperated from Him because of our sin.

And also, I'm not quite sure so please don't quote me here, but isn't there supposed to be a massive celebration and feast when we get to heaven?


And what about all the animal and plant life? Did they also have to eat from the tree of life in order to remain immortal?

Plants are not considered by God to be of any real moral value as He gave them to us and the animals to eat in the beginning. As for the animals and plants you brought up - I personally don't believe that they have an after life as they were not made in the Image of God and thus do not have His eternal soul...

Hence making your question irrelevant as God upheld His creation 100% (He gave plants and fruit for food so they obviously decayed via 2nd law of thermodynamics as they were eaten) including the animals.

God is not the author of confusion. Yet, with the doctrine of the Fall, there are many levels of inconsistencies, faulty logic, unsound reasoning, assumptions, guesses and fill-in-the-blanks......all adding up to major confusion.

I agree with the first part to an extent. Have you ever read Revelation? Roughly 90% of that entire book makes very little sense to me, yet it did to John and the believers of that day as it was written to them in a context that they understand. I only really understand the main parts. Some other parts of the Old Testament also make very little sense to me, but they would have been totally understandable to the people of the day in their context.

One thing is sure: the Fall was a real event in human history and is the very reason why Jesus' Earthly life was made neccessary -- without it, us Christians are the biggest fools in the entire world -- and Christ, if He even existed, is even more foolish to die for a mythological cause.

We read many times in the Bible that the whole creation is groaning and travailing in pain because of sin (i.e. the Fall). That is, the pain and decay that we see today is the direct result of Adam's sin, which implies that the whole creation was different before the Fall, hence making sense with God totally upholding His creation. If I had a better knowledge of Biblical verses I could create a more compelling argument, but this will have to do for now.

I'd like to think that my argument isn't illogical and faulty and requires a minimal amount of assumptions, but I'll leave that up for you to deciede.

May God Bless you richly.

 

[Remus]

Please explain your vote.

Gen 3:22 seems to indicate that he hadn’t and there's no indication anywhere else that he had.

Also, I don't believe Adam was in the garden very long. One thing that also stands out is God tells Adam not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, but doen't mention the Tree of Life. Did Adam even know about the Tree of Life?

Okay, I've got to stop. I'm over thinking the problem

 

[Critias]

No need. We are discussing them right now in this thread.

For example, you assert that Adam did eat from the Tree of Life. Yet you struggle with the logical consistency that follows. ~ Why would he need the Tree of Life if he was already created immortal? But if he was created mortal, then there was physical death before Adam sinned against God. ~ Either way, you struggle to justify it in your mind. It's a faulty logic quagmire, and you're in it.

Actually to be accurate, I asserted that we don't know. The Bible doesn't say one way or the other. The best answer that can be given is I don't know. Any other answer is just speculation.

I wasn't feeling like I was struggling with this.

I will try to explain how I can see it from both sides. If he ate of the Tree of Life, he would have eternal life, or he would need to keep eating of it to have eternal life. Either way doesn't matter, my perspective is that God can take that eternal life away when man sins against Him.

Let me try and explain again, I said something similiar in a previous post here. When we become saved now, we have inherited eternal life. It starts when we believe in Jesus Christ. We can walk away from this faith in Jesus and lose our eternal life. If we cannot, then what would be the point of helping keep people in the faith. What would be the point of Paul telling a church that they started with the Spirit but have now turned away from the Spirit.

So, Adam could have had eternal life and God could have taken it from him.

I have no idea if Adam was created mortal or immortal the Bible does not say. So any answer other than I don't know is pure speculation.

Adam could not have eaten of the Tree of Life while he was in the Garden.

My point is, is that we don't know. If we say he did or we say he didn't is pure speculation.

My stance is I don't know. I will wait until I meet Christ on the day of my death or the day of His coming, which ever comes first, and ask Him.

 

[TheBear]

Actually to be accurate, I asserted that we don't know.

Yeah I know. That's why a couple posts later I apologized for cunfusing you with someone else. (post 22 )

Keep up, Critias! Keep up!

I will try to explain how I can see it from both sides. If he ate of the Tree of Life, he would have eternal life,

Or, was he created immortal?

or he would need to keep eating of it to have eternal life.

...which would be inconsistent with how the tree of knowledge worked.

Either way doesn't matter, my perspective is that God can take that eternal life away when man sins against Him.

I think the term immortal is more appropriate. After all, we're talking about all physical life - exempt from death - prior to Adam sinning against God.
Don't you think that something as huge of magnatude and impact on all living things would be written in scripture?

Let me try and explain again, I said something similiar in a previous post here. When we become saved now, we have inherited eternal life. It starts when we believe in Jesus Christ. We can walk away from this faith in Jesus and lose our eternal life. If we cannot, then what would be the point of helping keep people in the faith. What would be the point of Paul telling a church that they started with the Spirit but have now turned away from the Spirit.

Although I understand what you're saying, (I was fully entrenched in it years ago), I don't agree with this interpretation making salvation conditional after the fact, and mocking Christ by crucifying Him again and again. This is a topic for another discussion thread. I'll be happy to pick up from here if you want to start another thread.

So, Adam could have had eternal life and God could have taken it from him.

I have no idea if Adam was created mortal or immortal the Bible does not say. So any answer other than I don't know is pure speculation.

Adam could not have eaten of the Tree of Life while he was in the Garden.

My point is, is that we don't know. If we say he did or we say he didn't is pure speculation.

My stance is I don't know. I will wait until I meet Christ on the day of my death or the day of His coming, which ever comes first, and ask Him.

Why would you wait until death to find the answer to this? God has given us scripture. God has given us eyes to read the scriptures. God has given us a mind capable of reasoning and understanding what He's inspired in writing. God gave us the Holy Spirit to help guide us in scripture and in life. God commanded us to search the scriptures daily, and to test every wind of doctrine that may come along.

Then comes you ~ Let's forget all that discipline and vigilence, and wait till we die to find out the answers.

I'm not sure God would be very pleased.

 

[Floodnut]

Because the Scripture says "lest he eat of it and live forever," i.e. in order that he not be able to eat of it, to keep from eating it, to prevent, RATHER than "to stop him from eating it. . . ," I am inclined to think he had not yet eaten of it.

 

[adam149]

I voted no. I believe the consensus among a lot of theologians is that the Tree of Life would, having been eaten, given Adam and Eve eternal life. If this were the case, it was actually an act of mercy that God drove them from the garden so that they wouldn't eat the Tree of Life in their fallen state.

There does seem to be a good argument that in Christ we are restored, in a spiritual sense, to the tree of life. There does seem to be a theological comparison between the original garden and the restoration in Christ, to be consummated at the end of all things.

 

[Numenor]

I voted yes.

I'm not a YEC so I see the Tree of Life as not being a literal tree. I also believe that Adam and Eve were mortal. I believe the Tree of Life is in fact Christ and in the garden Adam and Eve had full communion and fellowship with Christ (in other words, they 'ate of the Tree of Life'). Because of this I also think that if they had not sinned they may well have lived eternally on earth, not because they were immortal but because Christ sustained them physically and spiritually. I also think that physical death only holds terror in a post-fall world.

 

[emm3]

;

 

[emm3]

.