Jesus said, "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." "Thinking in one's heart," denotes deep thought, getting to the core of one's beliefs, not simply mental assent. The lie Eve believed involved God's character, not simply whether or not to eat a fruit. Satan deceived Eve by representing God to her as One who did not have her best interests at heart. Believing this lie led her into transgression.



I think this is a good point. If the problem of sin were merely a physical one, then it would be easily fixed, whether by eating of a special tree, or God's simply snapping His fingers. But sin involves our core, and this God cannot change without changing us apart from our own decisions, which would violate our free will.

Not sure how clear that is, but what I'm getting at is who we are at our core is determined by our decisions -- what we choose to believe, what we choose to do and think about. God cannot change who we are apart from this mechanism (we choose to fellowship with Him, to respond to His Spirit, to meditate upon His word, to overcome evil with good, etc.), without our being like automatons. And, as you rightly point out, that comes a point of no return, where even God cannot undo the damage. I suppose something like alcoholism might be an example of this, to where the will gets to damaged, a person can no longer recover.

I think the rebelling person might object.

I made these points:

1.Immortality rests inherently only in God.
2.Our living is dependent upon His life.
3.God alone is the source of life, so if man is separated from Him, he dies.
4.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.

I'm guessing you're not speaking about points 1-3, but point 4. My point of view, that because man dies if separated from God, it doesn't follow that man was created to "naturally die," contradicts the EGW quote?

I'm not seeing this. Please elaborate how. Or, more generally, what in what I said (first paragraph quoted) contradicts what Ellen White wrote (second paragraph quoted)?

This is an interesting question. I think our bodies will work much differently than they do now, and it's difficult to answer this. For example, without sin, will there be entropy? It seems to me that entropy is a by-product of sin. Everything we know about the human body depends upon entropy, however, so I don't know how we can go about addressing your question. That is, we'd have to imagine a situation completely different to what we are accustomed to.

I agree with NJK's point about such actions would of themselves be sin, by violating the health laws God had created. That is, God created us to eat, to breath, to drink water, etc. So it could be that persisting in a self-destructive action would be sin, which would bring about entropy, allowing sin to bring forth death.

Agreed.



Why do you think this is the only inhabited planet in our galaxy?



If breathing the aroma is sufficient, then why would man have to eat of it?



I haven't said this.



Nor this! I never used words like "merely" or "only". I've said that the point of the Tree of Life is to teach sentient, spiritual beings that they receive life from God.



I don't understand how there can be death without sin.



My view is not that the Tree of Life is not that God didn't create man to eat from the Tree of Life, nor that the Tree of Life does not have special properties, but that the cause of death is not being denied access to the Tree of Life, but rather sin. I've also made the point that life comes from God, not from a Tree (except indirectly). God designed things in a certain way so that we would see that life comes from Him. If there were no tree involved (or eating in general, or breathing), it wouldn't be so obvious that we are dependent upon God for life.

Regarding comments about Christ's healing the soul/mind, I agree with that, but would also point out that the body is connected to the soul/mind. So we obtain bodily benefits by having our mind/soul healed by Christ. Do you think the Tree of Life would fully supply these benefits, apart from Christ?

That is, if we accept that sin causes harm to the soul/mind, which also causes harm to the body, can this harm to the body be healed by the Tree of Life, independent of Christ?

Did Jesus close their 490 year probation early? Was there still a chance they might comply with the conditions and remain God's chosen people and nation? Or, was their death and destruction inevitable?

When Jesus finally withdrew His protection, what organic relation, if any, did their death and destruction at the hands of Roman soldiers in 70 AD have to do with their sins? That is, is death at the hands of enemy soldiers the natural, organic, inevitable result of rejecting Jesus? Or, is there something arbitrary about it?

Also, how is Jesus withdrawing His protection and permitting enemy soldiers to kill people different than President Truman permitting the military to drop atomic bombs on Japan?

Finally, I would appreciate it if you would take the time to answer the other two questions asked above.

My question doesn't envision willfully refusing to eat, drink, breathe, or eat the fruit of the tree of life. It imagines a theoretical situation in which someone is unable to partake of one or more them for reasons that are not evil or sinful. You seem to be saying partaking isn't necessary to sustain life.

Also, whenever Satan desires to cause death and destruction, he must first obtain permission from Jesus. Jesus considers the request and then establishes the perimeters within which Satan is allowed to work. Jesus also enforces His limitations by commanding holy angels to ensure evil angels do not exceed His restrictions. Satan is then dependent upon Jesus to work to uphold the laws that give life and vitality to whatever resources he intends to use to wreak havoc on humanity.

With these things in mind it is proper to ask - Who or what acts when sinners are punished and killed? For example, when fire "went out from the LORD" and killed Nadab and Abihu, who or what acted to kill them? We both agree the fire did not act on its own. Please understand I'm not asking you to explain why they deserved to die. Obviously they are responsible for the fact they died. The question is - Who or what employed the fire that killed them?

One of the main features of God's creation is free will. So yes, as we think that is the direction we will go. Yes, believing the lie led her to transgress. But the transgression was the eating of the fruit, not the believing the lie. As I suggested, if perhaps Adam came around the corner just as Eve was ready to take a bite, and said STOP. And Eve did stop and did not take the bite, she would not have been a transgressor.

I think this is a naive suggestion when looking at the genome. The genome controls the laws of how a body functions. It exerts significant influence over all body processes including the brain. Autism for example may be in part a flaw in the oxytocin receptors in the brain. As more damage occurs to the DNA, there is a point where you can not fix it and retain the character of the individual. It would be impossible. You can not totally separate the physiological functions from the mental functions of the mind.

Before Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they could have entertained doubts about God's character. But with a perfect brain given the time and evidence, they would have sorted out the issues. The eating of the fruit, appears to me, to have causes a change change in their physiology which was not reversible by the Tree of Life, or by anything they could personally do. This is why they needed a savior. Jesus came and "borne our infirmities and carried our diseases" Isaiah 53:4, and "bore our sin in his body on the tree" 1 Peter 2:24. These are literal statements. And then Hebrews 1:3 says, that "he purged our sins by himself, then sat down on the right hand of the Father". Has he literally purges my sin, or your sin? No. But if there is a physical representation of sin, which he carried, then yes, you could have purged it from himself and by himself. EGW: "By taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin."{16MR 116.3}. Key term, "participate in its sin".

The other issue Tom, is how does believing lies about God cause thorns to grow on roses, and our dogs to get cancer? There is no explanation.

Another question - what is separation from God? This is a favorite term of those that espouse the character of God (a character which I agree with), but that is not explained very well. From the same article above, "It was sin that separated man from his God, and it is sin that maintains this separation." {16MR 115.2}

And this is to NJK - The Tree of Life can perpetuate life. But sin causes a separation from God and how is that caused? One hypothesis along the genomic view is that the DNA so weakened by transgression/sin, would disintegrate in the presence of God. Who can stand in the everlasting burnings? Only the righteous. Isaiah 33:14-15.

I have addressed that point more fully in the blog post on my GC view (see Eternity Section), however succinctly said here, since man will be free sin can, though highly unlikely, occur again. Rev 21:4 also is speaking of: “death [i]of itself[/u] not being again (Greek middle [=reflexive] voice), so that would not include passive or active death i.e., capital punishment or “possibly” deliberately suicide. As I theologically understand it, the future is not known so I see this statement of Jesus meaning that He, and because of this GC proof, will not permit death to be reinstitute again as it was in this fallen earth, causing death. So if someone was ever to try to doubt God’s Wisdom and challenge His Authority as did Lucifer at the beginning, they would immediately dealt with. I however do see a period of many sincere ‘questions to God’ by the Redeemed during the Millenium, however after all is demonstrated during that time all issues in this GC will truly be completely resolved.

Not being knowledgeable in genetics I may have spoken of the wrong causative element, but my main point in this key illustration was that the root cause of physical imperfection/disease, what this genetically/scientifically is, has a pointed cause. I spoke of wrongful thinking adversely, even greatly and most tangibly affecting the physical body, and that may be one of two possible way in which sin came to affect fallen man. That may be the “psyche-derive” aspect of it. What you are pointing to “transposons”, to me, seems to be the “physical” aspect of sin which, as I see it, could all have resulted from Man no longer eating of the Fruit of Life. Thus his body/genes naturally began to degenerate and get corrupted from its perfect state, producing those harmful results. Since I see that Man, as with all of Creation, being mortal, was always susceptible to such consequence when he stop eating of the Fruit of Life, I do not see that this harmful elements had to be externally injected into his system through the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. If that was the tangible case, the I think it would have been called, the Fruit of Disease/Death instead of merely “knowledge”. As I Biblically understand it, this “knowledge” came to be the case when God’s limitation on the influence of the Devil was thus removed and he could at will “share” his ideas of evil and lawlessness with them, further plunging them into sin.

Also sin and Disease are not the same thing, as disease is only the effect of sin and, as I see it, tangibly through the absence of the tree of life.



I personally see that you are eisogetically reading way to much into the writings of EGW. I have already encountered (through an email discussion) this attempt to force a scientific hypothesis into the statements of EGW with an SDA physicist (see his website here) who saw that God was incarnated again in the Nuclear Detonation on at the end of WWII!! My point is to exegtically study the writings of EGW and let her say what she actually understood and meant and not impose our various understandings on her.

So in short here, I understand sin to inceptively be a mind that has strayed apart from the Truth of God and this comes to have tangible effects upon the body as they are naturally or deliberately, physically acted out. In terms of the tangible sickness, disease and death that is the result of sin, I see that this all comes from mortal man no longer being able to maintain and restore himself to health through the Tree of Life. This will all first be remedied by Christ when, at the resurrection/translation, we will be given brand new bodies. We will then maintain this perfect “therapeutically” by the tree of life.