Greetings all...
NJK - compare your though with EGW:
What is being described here? Genetic engineering? Sure sounds like it to me. Eating from the Tree of Knowledge was the key to releasing these "seeds" on to creation. I think this statement says that God is not responsible in any way for the distress we see in creation.

Welcome APL.
I agree in essence with this SOP statement. The use of a Qal verbal form for “curse” shows that this would be a natural act. I.e., natural because of sin. The causation of Satan however may merely been from the fact that he was able to make Adam and Eve fall and thus remove the Tree of Life beneficence from all of Nature resulting in this, actually natural genetic self-mutation. So I do not understand this to pointedly mean an ‘active/direct sowing of bad seeds’ by the devil but an indirect one through the more direct act of having tempted Adam and Eve into sinning. Still “an enemy has done this’.

More of my pertinent PM comments on this topic

-I am not versed in genetic science as you manifestly are but here you say that the mental state affects gene expression, then why is that not enough to come to cause DNA damage? This is just like a key is really not why you car start. I.e., you can hot wire the car and make it start or find soem other way along the line (e.g., with a manual car, roll it down a hill), however the key does also make the car start and that most easily. That is how I see that mental states can cause damage, even if indirectly to one’s DNA.

-EGW states that we can break free from this ‘captivity’ when the ‘whole heart is yielded to God.’ I’ll say more on this distinct issue later.

-I see that this “act” opened the door for the devil to influence them to do evil and thus caused these evil thoughts to begin to flow in their minds.

-As I said earlier in the forum discussion thread (see here):



God never said that they could not “touch” the banned fruit. That was Eve’s statement in Gen 3:3 (vs. Gen 2:17). So that is also why I see that God made the test here to fully eat of the fruit in order to have this chose sealed. The fact that the effect of sin was not immediate also gave both Adam and Eve an uninfluenced chance to stopped this fruit eating at any time before the wholly ate it, thus this sudden change of mind would have been wholly done in faith and would have righteously been credited to them. By taking a first bite and not seeing any change they however placed themselves under the possibility of believing that Satan lie was truth and thus in continuing to eat the whole fruit, they sealed their choice that they distrusted God and believed Satan.

-Here is the continuation of my earlier point. And this is where Tom’s Theologically view fits in. I believe that Jesus takes care of the psyche/psychological aspects of sin. This “psyche” is what is understood as the soul. Christ bore our acted out sins and that mainly, psychologically. See my blog post on this topic.
The Tree of Life takes care of or physical perpetual life (i.e., body and health) however Christ’s sacrifice takes care of the mental/psychological (= “soul”) detrimental effects of sin. So He purges our mind of these adverse effects and traces of sin restores to us a perfect psyche. Still our eternal life is physically possible only by eating of the fruit of life and if we were to refuse to eat it, we actually would be sinning, violating God’s health law.

-As a pointed symbol of God’s Righteousness, I see the Robe of Light as being distinct of Man’s physical body. So I see that God fully controlled when I could be removed and thus see that He did not immediately remove it after Eve sinned, but only when both Adam and Eve sinned, for the reasons stated above. And for sin to be established in the Earth, both Adam and Eve had to sin. So sin really did not take its effect when Eve alone ate the fruit. Furthermore, this Robe of Light is the only thing that man had wholly/tangibly lost as a result of sin. Our bodies remain the same sin Creation, though they have gradually become less performance. So that fact also suggests to me that this Robe was distinct from Man’s physical form/body/faculties.

I also see that its function was to properly cover Man and Woman with their perfect bodies which could in itself, independently be a source of temptation and a occasion for sin. So God took it upon himself to remove that natural temptation. No doubt this Robe was not even “form-fitting/revealing.” Hence also the dress and adornment reform mandate of the Remnant Church.

-I addressed this point in my first comment above. If thoughts are a root or indirect cause of DNA damage, then it is still a cause, and a indispensable one at that. As a example, if I spend my life being angry and having feeling of hatred against my spouse who I live with every day, those bad emotions and thoughts will cause my body to over-secrete or even just secrete e.g., bile which can lead to the development of cancer. Thus my thoughts came to affect me on the cellular level. The healthful converse is true for having a “merry heart” and being joyful.

-We will indeed see God like the Angel’s see him. And that may simply be looking at the light which surrounds Him. From what I understand only Mighty Angels, which include Michael/Jesus and Gabriel. (And evidently five others (see here [search for “Raphael”]) for a total of 7) are able to enter into that light; at least more than the other regular angels.

-Fully agreed and the end result would inevitably be death, through harm and diseases that the Fruit of Life may not have been empowered to fully heal as they were sin related. God no doubt new this which is why he cut things short here, preventing such suffering. However a “righteous” sinful/unbelieving person, as many in the world today consider themselves could live a very long time if they avoided these blatantly evil acts though they would no doubt be affected in some ways by the misery in the world. Satan was probably banking on this latter possibility: I.e., created beings could live without having to be subject to God’s authority and this requirement was really just self-serving and arbitrary. God on the other hand knew that even if it took 1 million years, death could be the end result. E.g. a violent sinful person could assault a “self-righteous” sinful person and inflict a mortal blow and to defend against this, this “self-righteous” sinful person would have to build weapons to defend himself and thus would probably have to kill many people along their long life. So one way or the other such fear, death, killing and murder would mar the world.

-I rather see that the Theological reason why Adam and Eve had a shorter grace period than Lucifer was that Lucifer was acting in a first instance situation. Adam and Eve were clearly warned by God. They thus had much less excuse for falling/persisting in their wrong course. Satan was testing waters that had never been tested. Adam and Eve sinned out of a complete non necessity. They did not need to eat of the fruit, having a garden full of other permitted trees. Satan sin was more ideologically centered. So that shows me the fairness of God’s grace, indeed as seen throughout the Bible and as it will be in the final judgement (cf. Exod 33:19). So God really and justly “understood” Lucifer more in his fall than Adam and Eve who had less of an excuse/reason to sin.

-Though, through freedom, a possibility, I see that this fully-allowed-to-develop GC, will be the reason why no one will mistrust God again. However, consider this: I also believe that it could for some reason happen, however sin God and all of the Universe will have tangible proof at hand as to what this will lead to, indeed with all of the issues having been answered during the GC, then no one will object to the instant, summary destruction of such a rebelling person. So that is pointedly how I see and understand the often quoted Nah 1:9 here as it fully says: “Whatever you devise against the LORD, He will make a complete end of it. Distress [and not merely sin will not rise up twice.” (Nah 1:9 NASB). So “sin” may freely take root in someone, but its “distressing effect will not again be allowed to flourish and that through the full approval of everyone else. That is really the inevitable risk in truly and eternally granted freedom.

Were sin to reoccur in the New Earth, death would also reoccur. However, Jesus promises, "There shall be no more death."

Mental state and lifestyle choices greatly affect what is known as epigenetics which alters gene expression. The underlying DNA does not change, but the switches that turn it on or off do change. In your car example, this may represent you loosing the key. There are other ways to make the car go, but without the key it is more difficult. However, this is not all that we see in the genome. It is one thing to loose the key, it is another is someone came in and took out the entire steering column along with the ignition switch. You may still be able to start the car, but it is much more difficult to control the car without a steering wheel.

That is what has happened in the genome. DNA elements called transposons, mobile DNA, jumping genes, transposable elements (TEs), selfish DNA, junk DNA, many names, have caused wide wholesale damage to the DNA. If a portion of DNA is completely removed, how do you get it back? You don't. TE are responsible for many, perhaps all of out diseases. I realize that is a bold statement, but the evidence is accumulating and pointing that way. TE damage accumulates over time. All life forms are infected by TEs. Romans 8:22 AKJV "For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now."

Yes, our thought patterns affect gene expression. But this does not account for the huge damage observed in the genome. Epigenetics can control much of the damaged genome, but can not cure it. EGW talked about "holy flesh". So the question - is sin just a wrong thought pattern, believing lies about God, or is it something else? I submit, that believing lies is insufficient in and of itself. If Eve had believed the lie at first, but had stopped short of eating the fruit, she would not have been a transgressor. The Tree of Life could have perpetuated sinful man if allowed to eat from it, but it would not have been able to undo all the damage done, thus our need of a savior. And our savior Jesus destroyed the works of the devil (1 John 3:8) which is more that just lies. EGW in GC page 49 depicts Satan as lying about God, telling lies. Yet, "He had not at this time fully cast off his allegiance to God." How do you lie and yet still not cast off allegiance? Particularly if Satan's works are his lies. At some point, Satan had gone too far. So far that even God could not repair it!

Again, our thoughts and actions are the cause of many diseases, this is not in question. But it is at the epigenetic level which is the control of the genome. The underlying genome has been horrifically damaged beyond what is possible with by epigenetic control.

What I'm trying to get at is *why* God the Father was reluctant, not *that* He was reluctant. That is, I think you're wanting to defend the point of view that God was reluctant, but I'm not questioning *that* God was reluctant. I'm asking your thoughts as to *why* God was reluctant.

I can see the ambiguity in the question. Sorry I wasn't clearer earlier, but hope that it's clear now.

Also, I've been extremely busy, so sorry I haven't been contributing more, but hope to read through all the comments and chime in some.

Another option is that creatures are not immortal of themselves, but live while God gives them life, which, without the existence of sin, is forever.



Are you saying that angels need to have wings to fly from heaven to earth? And they can travel millions of light years because they have really powerful wings?



I think we're on the same page regarding Abraham and "for now I know," so that's nice to see. Given that's the case, we're probably on the same page in relation to the EW statement that it was a struggle for God to send His Son.

Regarding literal/spiritual, can a thing be literally true, but there's still a spiritual, and more important, aspect to the thing in question? For example, in addition to the tree of life, there's also a "river of life" which proceeds from the throne of God. Jesus Christ is the "water of life." Wouldn't the deeper truth here be that Jesus Christ is what we need for life, and that water, because it is so essential to our existence, is used as a reference? This doesn't mean that we don't need water, nor that there isn't a "river of life," but the real point is that we need Jesus Christ.

Christ is referred to in myriad ways, and one of them is the "Tree of Life." If we think the primary or main issue is that we need access to the tree of life to live (or we need water, or bread, or air), don't we miss the real point, which is that we need Christ?



Immortality rests inherently only in God. Our living is dependent upon His life. God alone is the source of life, so if man is separated from Him, he dies. This doesn't mean that man was created to "naturally die," however. It simply means that man has a dependence upon God in order to live.

Tom - perhaps it is me, but this EGW quote seems to not agree with your view. The EGW quote agrees with Genesis 3:22.

APL, there are some 'thorns' which are really modified branches which, as I see it, could easily be accountable to selection - that is, those trees with branches which slough off creating sharp structures are more likely to survive than those which don't. But true thorns do seem to be designed. They do appear to me to be new structures. This leaves us with either God created a second creation of pain, satan is able to create some things, evolution does happen creating new structures, or God created structures which were suppressed and then became expressed. What do you think? I tend towards the belief that God didn't create life that would succumb to the first disaster which happened by, that He created life to survive. This may mean that He created the ability to produce defense mechanisms, the ability to survive cold and droughts, etc. which then were no longer suppressed.

There are some parasites which have complex relationships that can only seem to be designed that way. However, some observations of other relationships suggest a symbiotic relationship gone awry. However, thorns seem unusual to attribute to anything of a beneficial purpose. It can appear to some that God created these to smite people. However, I can no more seeing it was God's will that things harm people than it was to command people to kill others. But unlike in people wanting to kill others, you can't see trees wanting to harm others.

The only thing I came across once was a biology student said something about thorns were not part of the tree but a outgrowth from an organism living inside it. They used a term that sounded like arbuckle. But that was the days before I was interested in biology and now I have searched and found nothing related to such an idea. Any thoughts?

Is the tree of life some magic herb, or does it have a deeper meaning?