How do those who believe in no death before the fall understand the Tree of Life

[Rubiks]

No. Where did you get that idea from?

The consensus of Biblical scholarship.

 

[trophy33]

So, whether they ate the fruit of the tree of life before... is of no consequence. They were immortal.

Nothing physical can be immortal. It would lead to logical contradictions, such as:

"Our bodies need oxygen, food or drink to live" vs. "we would live even without oxygen, food or drink".

 

[mmksparbud]

Perhaps I'm interpreting scripture wrong but don't we become immortal when we are given our new Sinless bodies when Jesus returns? So the tree of life is not required for immortality because we won't be able to eat from the tree of life until AFTER the 1,000 years are over and the heavens and the Earth are recreated.

What the purpose of the Tree of life is I don't know but, I don't think it's required to eat from to maintain our immortality. I could be wrong.

The tree of Life is in the city, that is where we will be for the 1000 years. The whole city, foundations and all, including the river of life, are not brought down to earth until after the earth is made new. We will have access to it during the 1000 years. We are totally changed at our resurrection. However, God alone has immortality. We are given the gift of eternal life, with access to the river of Life and the Tree of life.
Not even the angels are immortal.

1Ti 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
1Ti_6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

 

[misput]

I believe there was only one tree in the garden, God/Christ but two very different ways of "eating" from Him. The wright way, Spiritually, loving Him through faith. The wrong way by, "stretching forth our hand" which indicates by works, keeping the law, which we all know brings death. Remember, Christ was the embodiment of the law, fulfilled it, because we cannot. Except through Him by faith.

 

[JacksBratt]

You contradict yourself.

You are right. That was not written well.

They were removed from the garden, after the fall, so that they did not, then, in their immortal state as sinners... eat of the tree. Again, if they had eaten of it before... or at all... if they had not eaten of it earlier, in their immortal sinless state.

 

[JacksBratt]

Nothing physical can be immortal. It would lead to logical contradictions, such as:

"Our bodies need oxygen, food or drink to live" vs. "we would live even without oxygen, food or drink".

Many believe that something, physical, changed in Adam and Eve, after they ate of the fruit.

Think about it.. they became aware of their nakedness..What were they before. Some say their bodies were cloaked in light.

On the other hand. I have heard medical doctors claim that our bodies, in a perfect form, are designed to run forever.. Our cells can replicate and replace themselves continually. It is only through degradation of the cells due to oxidants and other harmful things that cause our cells to deteriorate and eventually die.

Another show that I saw, showed that every cell has a limit as to the number of times it can replicate.. It's like a timing device that terminates the cell after a certain number of replications.

Could it be that God did this... just as He did when Noah got off the ark and God told him that a man would live shorter lives... What was it? 70 years?

 

[trophy33]

On the other hand. I have heard medical doctors claim that our bodies, in a perfect form, are designed to run forever.. Our cells can replicate and replace themselves continually. It is only through degradation of the cells due to oxidants and other harmful things that cause our cells to deteriorate and eventually die.

You are talking about growing old, only. But what about if Adam's head would be separated from his body?

If we believe that physical bodies can be immortal, we would get illogical and quite ugly (horror-like) ideas similar to Deadpool movie.

Adam was physical, not spiritual, because Paul says so in his letters.

 

[JacksBratt]

You are talking about growing old, only. But what about if Adam's head would be separated from his body?

If we believe that physical bodies can be immortal, we would get illogical and quite ugly (horror-like) ideas similar to Deadpool movie.

Adam was physical, not spiritual, because Paul says so in his letters.

I believe that when God created everything.. and stated "It was good" He meant it.

I believe that Adam and Eve were designed to live forever.. in their physical bodies.

Are you saying that this would be impossible for God to do?
Did God not tell them that if they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that they would die?
What would be the point of saying this if they were going to die anyway?

 

[Resha Caner]

The consensus of Biblical scholarship.

That doesn't tell me much. My experience is that the "consensus" depends upon which Biblical scholars you're listening to.

 

[trophy33]

I believe that when God created everything.. and stated "It was good" He meant it.

I believe that Adam and Eve were designed to live forever.. in their physical bodies.

I do not believe that "good" must mean "immortal physical bodies".

Are you saying that this would be impossible for God to do?

No, I am saying that it would lead to logical contradictions like a square circle. Why to have a physical heart or a brain if you can live without any discomfort without them? The design would be redundant and simply not elegant. There would have to be an unending line of miracles going on, so natural laws as such would have no point. And that would again rise a question, if it can be called "physical" or "natural" or even "good".

Did God not tell them that if they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that they would die?
What would be the point of saying this if they were going to die anyway?

They did not die physically after eating. So it probably was not about this kind of death. More about spiritual death, separation from the abundance and presence of God, who is the source of all life.

I believe that the tree of life would transform them to spitirual bodies like Christ has now and which we will obtain to live eternally.

 

[misput]

This thread has me thinking about the garden of Eden, so I looked up the original words in strongs dictionary and garden means "a fenced off area" remember satan accusing God of having Job hedged or fenced off and Eden means delight, as in what a delight it is to be in the presence of God. Since we know many of the statements in Genesis (as well as the rest of the bible) are metaphorical, I believe Adam and the Garden of Eden are about God creating an innocent man, placing him on this beautiful earth in His presence, much to both their "delight" but then man decides to be good "like God" on his own but because he is human, he fails and falls from this special fenced in relationship that is so delightful to God and him. God then places this flaming sword, (remember the sword of the Spirit) His word (Christ) that purges like fire, between Himself and the man. So the man can only get back to this fenced in relationship of delight through Christ, which we see he did, because he obviously taught at least one of his sons to worship God. From that day forward we see this same scenario playing out when each child is born and grows up.

 

[Tree of Life]

What purpose does it serve?

It is a sacramental symbol of eternal life with God. Adam and Eve have this life with God before sin. They are denied this life with God after sin. And the Tree of Life shows up again at the end of Revelation (except now it's many trees). After sin is totally removed, the people of God have access to this tree again.

 

[Rubiks]

Many believe that something, physical, changed in Adam and Eve, after they ate of the fruit.

Think about it.. they became aware of their nakedness..What were they before. Some say their bodies were cloaked in light.

I mean....they did eat from the tree of knowledge after all.

 

[Rubiks]

That doesn't tell me much. My experience is that the "consensus" depends upon which Biblical scholars you're listening to.

Most biblical scholars are committed Christians.

 

[misput]

New creations of God, whether full grown or babies are unaware of their nakedness because they are clothed with the innocence and love of God. When we are born again, a new creation in God/Christ we become innocent, enjoying the love of God once more but we still realize when we are naked. This should tell us something about living a sin free life.

 

[Resha Caner]

Most biblical scholars are committed Christians.

I don't know if that statement can be supported. Regardless, there is a large body of Biblical scholarship that opposes the statements you've made, so I'm not seeing the consensus you speak of. I am aware of the position of which you speak, I just don't know if it can be justified as the "consensus". Still, I get the feeling you're not interested in digging into that. As such, I won't push.

 

[JackRT]

I don't know if that statement can be supported. Regardless, there is a large body of Biblical scholarship that opposes the statements you've made, so I'm not seeing the consensus you speak of. I am aware of the position of which you speak, I just don't know if it can be justified as the "consensus". Still, I get the feeling you're not interested in digging into that. As such, I won't push.

I think that Biblical scholarship can be divided into two broad categories --- apologetic and critical. Apologetic scholars are mainly interested in using thier scholarship to support their a priori understandings of doctrine and dogma. Critical scholars attempts to avoid a priori understandings but to allow the evidence to guide their conclusions. This approach to the Bible has only been possible over the past several centuries. Prior to that, the scholar could lose his head.

 

[Tree of Life]

I think that Biblical scholarship can be divided into two broad categories --- apologetic and critical. Apologetic scholars are mainly interested in using thier scholarship to support their a priori understandings of doctrine and dogma. Critical scholars attempts to avoid a priori understandings but to allow the evidence to guide their conclusions. This approach to the Bible has only been possible over the past several centuries. Prior to that, the scholar could lose his head.

Hah! The critical scholar has no a priori philosophical commitments? I know many critical scholars who are very committed to atheism, materialism, and secular humanism. You don't think these commitments influence their interpretation of evidence and the conclusions that they draw?

 

[Resha Caner]

I think that Biblical scholarship can be divided into two broad categories --- apologetic and critical. Apologetic scholars are mainly interested in using thier scholarship to support their a priori understandings of doctrine and dogma. Critical scholars attempts to avoid a priori understandings but to allow the evidence to guide their conclusions. This approach to the Bible has only been possible over the past several centuries. Prior to that, the scholar could lose his head.

There may be some who knowingly take an apologetic approach, but I would wonder if that is more an accusatory classification, i.e. I'm being objective and you're not.

It's hard enough to prevent confirmation bias in quantitative studies (e.g. science), let alone qualitative studies. And when they involve controversy (as in Biblical scholarship), it's a tough slog. As such, I don't trust anyone in a field such as Biblical studies who claims objectivity or points to a particular critical method as if it justified their conclusions. The ones I am willing to listen to are those who are aware of their assumptions and state them in their study.

[edit] For example, I'm willing to read a study by an atheist if he states up front he is an atheist and realizes that affects his conclusions. One of my favorite essays on the historicity of Jesus was written by an atheist.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

But he didn't. Nor did Eve.

They died spiritually. That death was instantaneous.