I can certainly understand your chosen philosophy/approach, Tom, however it is just that many of these different viewpoints and paradigms are factually and/or readily demonstrably, the result of skewed, faulty, deficient, shoddy or entirely absent exegesis and/or an improper exegetical approach, namely one that uses from the unclear to understand/reword the concretely clear. I personally, currently do not have the time to entertain such an approach, nonetheless, I do plan to exhaustively deal with all such divergent viewpoints, (see here) however when the necessary manpower is available, and that solely to debunk all viewpoints that are indeed spurious.

In regards to your offer to continue, sincerely speaking, to be worth my while, it will have to be exegetically based and conducted and to this end, you still have not provided an exegetical sound response, if any, to the clear statements made in Gen 2:17 & Gen 3:22-24 (PP 60.3). I am thus firstly awaiting for a response from you on these because trying to understand this topic starting with other, exegetically and relatively speaking, “sub-statements” than these “statements of God Himself” is not proper exegesis. That is instead really saying: “ I am going to ignore what God Himself is clearing stating here, to instead go by what I understand other statements to mean.

And in regards to viewing texts as inspired, whether these are the writings of EGW, “the SDA Pioneers”, the Apocrypha, the Church Fathers, or other’s people works, I think and actually only consider as worthwhile the accompanying view that the Bible is to be the final authority of the validity of the statements made in any of these other works.

NJK, it has been my experience that when someone says things such as "clearly", "obviously", "most likely", etc., it may not be so clear. In fact, there was a different denomination's little booklet which used such words which resulted in "skewed, faulty, deficient, shoddy" interpretations. I thought, I hope our church doesn't do such things. Now I have come across a paper from our denomination doing the same things. It makes me call into question anyone who uses such words.

If something is so clear and obvious, why should there be a need to dig diligently? And isn't that what we are instructed to do?


Regarding the two Genesis passages, those clearly are two different trees, two different ideas.

Do you consider the following passage "clear", that God killed Saul?

NJK, I think my background regarding exegesis is probably as strong as yours is. I majored in Theology, and studied several years at the seminary. I'm only mentioning this because I don't believe our difference is due to exegetical methodology, but due to the assumptions we have; in short, our paradigms are different.

Regarding using the SOP, you used the SOP, so I felt it would be cricket for me to do so as well. I've cited several statements to demonstrate the validity of my point of view. In particular, I believe the one involving the cross is quite a strong one, as far as my point of view is concerned. Why should the cross bring the conviction to one that the result of sin is death? I think that question can only be answered along the lines of what I've been asserting.

What do you think of this assertion? (i.e., that one is convicted that the sure result of sin is death by looking at the cross) Do you think it agrees with Scripture?

As stated in that reply, this was all said in the baselessly judgmental and condemnatory interjecting statement of Green Cochoa:



I had no problem with Tom at all. Green Cochoa just presumed this to make his ‘jabbing’ point, and his hypocritical circuitous biblical reference, clearly trying to by pass the rules of the forum here. So he need to refrain from such vindictive “attacks” which have as an underlying basis, that his views are unimpeachable.

Therefore I correspondingly expect that Green Cochoa’s irrelevant and baseless instigating statement will likewise be removed. Then will this subsequent, pertinent public defense/clarification no longer be necessary. Otherwise that will just concretize the points I made in that statements.

NJK Project,

Instead of responding here, please reply to the PM I sent you.

I judiciously reserve my clear statement for points that I do, at least personally, consider to be clear. So claiming that I am wrong in such cases, will have to be done substantively and not by merely addressing the use of “clear” in a statement. So where exegetically-based points prove something to be clear, I accordingly explicitly say so.



LOL. “Clearly” this default “clear” abhorrence/suspicion does not apply to you...

Nonetheless, substantively speaking, if you had read my post dealing with Gen 2:17 you would see that I was not dealing with the tree of Good and Evil, but with God’s literal explanation of how it is that man will die if he eats of that tree. That verse exegetically states that man was also naturally subject to death from Creation. Only eating of the tree of life prevented that from being the end result through its health restoration and healing capabilities



Sure God cause the judicious premature/untimely death of Saul. Saul was however, independently still due to die someday. That was a capital punishment execution. So I do not see how this relates to this present discussion on whether man, without eating of the tree of life can live eternally.

In my experience, including with formally educated seminarians, the “strength” of one’s exegetical ability, is much determined by how deep their studies have been in these issues, and that is mostly done in specific and more detailed studies beyond what was done during seminary which, though more advanced, tends to merely be a general overviews of many Biblical studies “departements”.



I do substantively, specifically see our approach as between at two opposite ends here. I am working from the view that the foundational passages are being misunderstood or indifferently ignored in this discussion. You seem to be working from an already self-establish view that sin is organic, and also that sin must be a spiritual issue, while I am showing you here that such passages, from the mouth of God Himself state/imply the absolute contrary, focusing more on a physical aspect of things here.


Nonetheless, since you do have a formal Theological background then it should not be any trouble for you to see what is literally being said by God in Gen 2:17b. That phrase has often been translated/rendered as a form of a hendiadys, as “you shall surely die”, (as is the statement ‘it shall be built again/rebuilt’ in Dan 9:25b) however that is, though popular, an exegetical/translational fallacy. That statement, (as the syntactically similar one in Dan 9:25 as shown in an Adventist Theological Society publication), is more distinct and specific in what it is saying/conveying as seen through more indepth syntactic analysis.



I have no problem with using the SOP, however, I follow EGW recommendation and first try to establish what the Bible is teaching before going to the SOP. EGW was not inerrant and it is repeatedly seen that many of her statements, even Theological ones, were greatly dependent on how she understood some things. That is why she has had to make many corrective revisions of prior, even Theological views/statement that she had made.



Actually, in even the SOP passages that you have quoted, I do not see that she is contradicting my view that: [sin = no tree of life = death] so [sin = death] is perfectly acceptable, but the full truth, as shown in the Bible (Gen 3:22-24), is that this is because access to the tree of life has been removed as she clearly corroborates in PP 60.3 which you have, at least in my view, not provided a proper explanation for (i.e., why would not support my view).

As I have already said: the cross restores the right of redeemed man to have access to the tree of life, through which they can then perpetuate their life. It is thus in that sense that the Cross, shows/reminds us that sin will end up resulting in death and without this sin bearing sacrifice, one will not be allowed into Heaven where the tree of life is. So also sin without the Cross = Death by no tree of life.

Also, consider this. Why do people who accept the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, and are completely forgiven of their sins when they sincerely ask for this, still die if that was, in itself, the, physically speaking, life perpetuating solution/remedy? One would just have to ask for forgiveness every second , as it can sincerely be done, in order to never die!! Since we are not ever going to have immortality, as this is only an attribute that God possesses, then you have to answer, how will we live forever, but for eating of the, pointedly-named “Tree of Life.”

I'm curious as to what your experience consists of. That is, on what basis are you making these conclusions? Also, do you think it is the strength of one's exegetical ability that best correlates to being able to discern truth?



I agree with your assertion that foundational passages are being misunderstood or indifferently ignored in this discussion. You seem to be working from an already self-established view that sin is not organic, while I am showing you here that such passages, from the mouth of God Himself state/imply the absolute contrary, focusing more on a spiritual aspect of things here.

Indeed, the Bible is a spiritual book, which is spiritually discerned. It seems to me if we view death as only/primarily physical, we're missing the whole point. If this were the case, what would be special about the cross? Certainly from a physical standpoint, there have been many more impressive deaths than Christ's.



Gen. 2:17 is one of the most debated passages in Scripture. Why do you think this is the case?



I find your statement here rather incredible. Certainly there is the implication that Ellen White's writings are inferior to those of Scripture because:

1.She was not inerrant (whereas Bible writers weren't).
2.Her writings were greatly dependent upon how she understood some things, whereas those of the Bible writers were not.

Is this correctly representing your thought? Do you really think that the writings of Scripture were not greatly dependent upon how the Bible writers understood things?



This is not the thought that anyone considering the cross would have. Instead, their thoughts are drawn to the great love of God revealed in such a sacrifice, and that love draws the viewer to repentance that made such suffering necessary.



I don't think this sense is a sense that anyone considering the cross sees. I can think of many, many statements regarding the cross, by both inspired and non-inspired writers, but cannot recall every the idea being mentioned that sin without the Cross = Death by no tree of life.

This doesn't mean, of course, that of necessity your idea is false, but simply it is an idea original to yourself. You may dispute this by citing someone who has written that sin without the Cross = Death by no tree of life.

I don't mind being wrong here, by the way, as I like learning new things. Simply quote for me someone who has expressed this idea. I don't mean word for word, but simply the idea in a general sense. I don't believe anyone considering the cross would have the idea that from it one sees that death comes about as a result of not having access to the tree of life.



They don't! Jesus said, "He who believes in me shall never die."



Eternal life is not of works, but of faith. Surely having to ask for forgiveness every second to obtain eternal life would be tantamount to salvation by works.



I addressed this. We can only life forever by breathing. Does this mean that the problem of death is one best answered by considering breathing?

Let's consider sin for a moment. The root of sin is selfishness, or love of self (or, one could say, unbelief). Do you disagree with this?

Assuming you don't, how is it possible that such principles as these could sustain life forever? (or, even at all)

Life is the fruit of faith, of obedience. God alone is the source of life. We receive life by being yoked to Him. The parable of the Vine illustrates this. We have no life except as we are connected to God, and the whole point of the Tree of Life is to make evident this point, in the clearest manner possible.

You have made some good points in your post here, Tom, particularly with respect to Ellen White, Jesus, eternal life and the Cross. Well said, and thank you.

Regarding the Tree of Life portion of this discussion, I remain in the sidelines on account of my relative ignorance of this topic. I have yet to be convinced on the Biblical or White evidence as to the exact relationship of the Tree to our living forever.

It is interesting that there are sometimes truths or distorted truths in other religions, even "pagan" ones. The devil likes to mix a little error with the truth (or vice versa). No religion seems completely devoid of truth. This discussion causes me to think a little upon the Buddhist beliefs and compare them to what is being said here in relationship to the Tree of Life. Have any of you read (or perhaps watched the movie based on it) the book "Journey to the West?" It is one of the Chinese classics from centuries ago, and is something like a cross between "The Great Controversy" and "Pilgrim's Progress" in terms of the Buddhist beliefs, i.e. parts of it genuinely follow their understanding of the spiritual realm and parts are more allegorical and/or legendary. If you have read it, perhaps you can recall the manner of obtaining or increasing one's immortality in their belief.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Succinctly said here, over now 13 years of having to deal with many and various “scholars” (i.e., SDA’s and non-SDA’s), whether personally or through their works, whose views were surfacely plausible, but upon more indepth exegesis have proven to be grossly deficient. Some of these corrections and experiences are documented on my blog. And, for the most part, these errors have stemmed from an inability to properly function in both Biblical Hebrew and Greek Syntax, indeed the ‘Level of Grammar Beyond the Basic.’



Not necessarily. God’s Spirit can guide someone into Truths when expediently necessary. I believe that is what occurred with EGW in many points, though not exhaustively, even resulting in some inaccuracy when she was entirely left to her own level of knowledge. Indeed, as shown in this post, some of the things that EGW state and seem to be extra-biblical are proven to be concretely in the Bible through a deeper exegesis. However, naturally, this ability is necessary for exegetical issues, such as the Syntax of Biblical Languages.



I actually got this view from ready what God said in Gen 2:17b & 3:22-24, as confirmed by the SOP in PP 60.3. That is indeed what anchored my viewed on this subject and I, in a deductive approach, study all other Bible and also SOP passages in that clearest light.



I would like to see a listing of those specific passages because I (off the top of my head) only recall the passage in Ezek 18:4 where God says: the soul (i.e., living person) that sins shall die. Which actually is meaning, the person who has himself sinned in that case will die. However even if this is understand as ‘sin leads to death’, which I do not see that it is exegetically/contextually concerned with, I still see that the 2 statements in Genesis have already, foundationally, defined/described why death was the consequence/result of having sinned.



I appreciate your right to express your personal point of view, but I think it would be better at this foundational level of this discussion if we do not now focus on what would “seem to be right for us” or ‘what should be’ but rather on what the Bible is literally saying, as revealed through proper and indepth exegesis. So if I make such personal suppositions, do not hesitate to point them out to me.



That is the first time I hear of this, but be it as it may, that still does not mean that it cannot be understood through proper exegesis. (I know from many, many past experiences that such a surface, non-substantive objection to studying out a passage has never proven to be the incontrovertible obstacle that it had been claimed to be.) So let’s deal with the text here, rather than what people claim about it, even if more substantively than this objection. As a trained seminarian, I presume that analysing the crucial syntax here of the last statement in that verse should not be a problem here. So, seriously speaking, let’s concretely deal with it already!



First of all, that is not a personal opinion but a factual one. The writings of EGW are indeed the Lesser, and actually not indispensable, Light while the Bible is the Greater and indispensable light.

Secondly, errors/inacurracies,/incomplete understandings in the SOP are amatter of fact and not opinion. That can easily be studied out from many honest and responsible works that deal with these issues.

Thirdly I was not dealing with the Bible vs . the Bible in that response but solely the SOP vs. the Bible. Having said that, one of the reasons why there are very little, if any such crucial “differences” between the writings of Bible writers is that they, much more than less, over 1600 years of this writing period, all spoke the same language, lived in the same geographical area, had the same culture, lived in pretty much homogeneous worldly times, etcs. We today, includign EGW are far removed from these key aspects for this crucial “context” and so it is mainly through in depth exegesis that we can recreate this need context through which we can understand what was being said. And so it is because of this variously manifested remoteness that much of the errors, inaccuracies and deficiencies in our Biblical understandings come to occur. And, correspondingly, what we think are errors in the Bible is actually due to our own exegetical deficiency.

So I do factually known and see that the writing of EGW are subordinate to the Bible itself.



Let’s be honest/real here. On what factual basis are you making that blanketly generalizing point??? It is my thought, for one!



If they Theologically understand the ‘Right to the tree of Life’ that t the Cross has made possible, then they’ll see it as I have presented. You are viewing the cross from a sentimental aspect. That is really your view, and though it may be a popular one, that does not necessarily mean that is the Biblical One.

How one emotionally looks at the cross also does not change or set its underlying Theology. Biblical Truth and theology is not set by such emotionalism and sentimentalism. Rather much error has been. We were dealing with the Theological truth of the Cross, to which I made my point and not “How does reading about Calvary make me feel?”
So also, let’s set subjective, personal emotionalism and sentimentalism aside for this Theological discussion, because they really do not contribute to the Theological understanding here.

Also, will someone become a Christian merely by reading about Calvary in the Bible or SOP? If that was the case, then sentimental and emotional people would have the greatest chance to be saved.



Skipping over the recurring issue of overgeneralization, I do not guage what is Biblically true, by what most people believe. Only the Bible can serve as the indicator and arbitrator of actual Truth. That is therefore why, again, it is passages like Gen 2:17b; 3:22-24 and PP 60.3 that have shown to me this to be the Biblical Truth here. If you disagree address these passages substantively and head on rather than continuing to skirt them,* and worst appealing to popular consensus. Biblical Truth is not determined through setting up a voting booth. So I indeed quote God Himself in the Bible for the validity of this Theological understanding.

*I.e. If I am saying that 2+2=5, you can’t actually nor think to be disproving my “view” by even rightly saying that: 3+1=4. You rather/duly have to address that calculation “error” head on. Why you as a seminarian are not jumping on this would-be exegetical opportunity to prove me wrong, and doing this “correction” is actually quite baffling me, to say the least. It just demonstrates to me that you cannot exegtically disprove this concrete Biblical fact.



Let be serious and Biblically/exegetically responsible here. People do die. Jesus was speaking here of dying eternally. Had Adam and Eve never sinned, they would never have died at all. And that because they would have continued to have access to the Tree of Life.



How about this then. How about asking for forgiven after every single sin, as most, born from above Christian aim to do. And a blanket prayer occasionally for committed sins we may have missed. That’s certainly is not works, as it is with cause. Why then do will still physically die sin we are forgiven?



That is not a good analogy because we actually do not breathe, since at some point our lungs fail, or some other vital body part and we stop breathing. The Tree of Life however prevents this from ever becoming the case by restoring out body and its part to perfect health, apparently every month. So, as the Bible clearly states. the problem of dying because of sin is still inextricably linked together by the removal of the Tree of Life that occurred in Eden.



Not fully, however I do not see that such derived issues can be examined yet since the exegetical foundation is still not set on your part. So that is really just ‘jumping to a conclusion’ and a rather subjective one at that (e.g., “one could say”)



As the Bible in Gen 3:22 and PP 60.3 says, by the sinner continuing to eat of the Tree of life, and that not only one more time, but for, at least once a month for every month after that.



Gen 3:22-24 rather teaches that the ‘Right to Life’ is the fruit of faith that leads to obedience to God.



He has indeed Created Life and has, through an apparently highly scientific process made it that human life, i.e., of non-immortal beings is perpetuated through the healing ingredients in the fruit of Life.



We receive physical life only when we are faithful and obedient and thus have right to the Tree of Life on top of Him not injuctively killing us if need be. E.g., fallen man could live for up to 969 years, if not 1000 years, still God could have injunctively destroyed them at any point before such natural time elapse.



Since the parable of the Vine (John 15:1-11) is speaking of spiritual vitality i.e., a fruit-bearing life (vs. 8), then it exegetically does not, per se, speaking on this issue of physical life. So that is really a textbook “proof-text.”