duordi said:
GEN 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
Of course the sword turned round every way, but it was at the only entrance to Eden, the east side. Where was it placed? - at the entrance on the east, apparently the only entrance ot it woulf have said something like 'He placed at all four entrances swords of light that turned and turned' or whatever. As it is we see it was just placed in the one spot, why? Logically, this was the way in or out.
That is the interesting part.
The tree of life has to be buried somewhere.
Suppose we found the tree and our science had progressed enough to modify the dna of another fruit to comply.
I suppose at that point the flaming sword would reappear.
God doesn't play dice with the fate of men. This commentary takes a stab at it.
"...before what may be conceived
its gate or entrance;
Cherubims, ....
These angelic beings were for a time
employed in guarding the entrance to Paradise, and keeping the way of or road to the tree of life. This, I say,
for a time; for it is very
probable that God soon removed the tree of life, and abolished the garden, so that its situation could never after be positively ascertained. "
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=ge&chapter=3&verse=24#Ge3_24
Pre sin offspring would not be removed from the garden if they had no sin and so would be protected from the rest of humanity and then be killed in the flood, still sinless.
Well, that is quite a stretch. Adam had already opened Pandora's box of sin. As I said before, if he did have children, and grandchildren, they would be in the same boat as us, cause we are his children and grandchildren. Why are we more guilty than they? Sounds like sin was now in the world, and all were affected. But this really is not an important point that I can see, so we'll have to leave it a mystery. There was ample opportunity to multiply after leaving the farden as well, and thousands of potential wives for Cain to have had without having kids in Eden. Why would nude, sexy, perfect, fertile people with nothing better to do than have babies as they were ordered to -not have one pretty quick? I guess you assume they were not in there very long.
The Romans text makes this impossible of course unless you can point out a flaw in the logic or text.
It was an interesting idea though.
No, sin
did enter in through one man, Adam. His children
born or unborn would be in the same boat, in a world with sin in it! No? AS I pointed out, it sounds like Eve had kids. God told her that she would have sorrow in childbirth from now on. The insinuation is that she did not up to this point! Your take says she was barren still.
The serpent was not a created animal because the text is clear that it isn't.
Not as clear as you think.
"That it was a
real serpent is evident from the plain and artless style of the history and from the many allusions made to it in the New Testament. But the material serpent was the
instrument or tool of a higher agent, Satan or the devil, .."
http://www.studylight.org/com/jfb/view.cgi?book=ge&chapter=3&verse=1#Ge3_1
If the serpent is more subtle then any beast of the field, then it can not be a beast of the field because it can not be more subtle then itself.
Whether it was a beast of the field we don't know, or a forest beast, etc etc. It was real, and the smartest beast on the block.
GEN 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.
Notice how I changed the wording in the following statement to make the serpent a beast of the field.
What if it were a beast of the field, then it would simply mean it was smarter than the rest? Either way, field, air, sea, or forest, it was a real creature.
My point was that if satan was (using/or/inside) a serpent and the serpent was an animal then the serpent-animal would have no soul or motive and therefore can not commit an act of immorality.
What is the point in punishing an animal for Satans actions.
On the other hand there is a demand to punish Satan which is a moral being having moral resposibilities for its actions.
This is all just opinion. I already explained how we are responsible for the spirits we entertain in us.
Your right, animals don't talk.
Talking goes with moral awarness and the ability to reason.
Opinion. I think we talked to all the animals then, as we will in heaven, even the birds! I have heard lots of people speak who didn't have much reason or moral awareness, as you say!
All the more reason to accept the idea that the serpent was Satan from a previous creation and not an animal.
Ah, I thought you were twisting for a reason here! No, gotta stop you right there. Wrong.
Now you have no problem with the animals, only with Satan.
This also fits with the beginning of the fear of man in animals after the flood.
No, that fits with your silly pet doctrine, thats about it. I suggest you drop that whole bit of luggage right quick.
Yes, I wonder how many men tried to get into the garden?
I suspect if someone, like Cain, did get close enough once to look at the guards the Almighty had posted, they would hightail it toward the nearest T rex, if they had to, in a hurry!
I was reading about the blood, oops, I think they call it pliable red stuff, in the T-rex bone.
It looks like the T-rex is not only from the bird family and close to an ostrich, but it was an ostrich.
A large one.
T Trex a large ostrich? Guess it was quite a scene when it buried it's big head in the sand?
The little arms fit as the wings on its back and of course the neck and the legs are a bit thinner then the T-rex artists conceptions but it all fits.
So, what, we feed the ostrich wheaties, and watch out!? Then we simply rip off the T Trex arms, and glue them as useless little wings on the back of the dino, and we are in business? I would use a grain of salt there.
If this is true then the T-rex survived after all and the normal size was an easy passenger on the ark.
It could also mean that early man used selective breading to enlarge the size of some animals.
Too busy surviving, having babies, hunting, farming, warring, etc, more likely. The adapting mostly came by hyper evolution as needed.
An interesting thing about the tree of life is that Adam and Eve could have eaten from it and lived forever before they sinned.
So Adam and Eve had a choice which was within their abilities to make.
Once they ate from the tree of life the tree of knowledge may have been OK to eat from.
To bad they chose the way they did.
Yes, and for all I know, they did. But the eating of the other tree cancelled the effects, and they never got the chance to eat the tree of life again, till they got to heaven, where they enjoy it as we speak! Originally, things, even the world, and universe, I believe, were designed to last forever! WE messed up, He promised a saviour, He delivered, we are on the road home again, and have the right in believing in Jesus to that tree of life, that waits for us, somewhere over the rainbow.