Seems strait forward and clear. Finishing the paragraph:

I would also say, to heal the mind, the body must be healed. The Adventist health message is a very significant part of the plan of salvation.

As you said, the body, mind and soul are one unit. Death is always physical ultimately. With the death of the body, the mind is gone.

As for the tree - it does indeed appear that it could perpetuate life. But Satan's plan was to perpetuate a life of sin. That life would have been a life of misery. The Tree of Life is just that, a tree that perpetuates life. It can not undo all the damage. That is the plan of salvation.

It is one thing to have degeneration. It is another to have a manifest all out attack. And attack that can literally completely destroy portions of the DNA. This would cause a loss of Information which is not retrievable without some kind of supernatural re-infusion of information. And the restoration (healing; salvation) must be done is such a way as to maintain an individual's character.

Seed in Genesis 3:15 is in Hebrew Zera. Which can mean, children, posterity, offspring, semen, sowing. Or simply, genetic material.

EGW says that God communications via the electrical impulses in the brain. What is the underlying hardware has been tampered with and changed. God has put enmity with Satan in order to maintain a channel to man. If the underlying hardware is damaged, then there needs to be interference with Satan's work at the biochemical level. And indeed, we find "interfering RNA" molecules that lock up and shut down a lot of the added DNA.

I still see that this “all out attack” could have all occurred at the moment when the “supernatural powers” of the tree of life were no longer present to prevent this from happening. That’s is a source/origin hypothesis that I find more implicit Biblical corroboration, even then saying that Satan himself inject this information in man through the Banned Fruit. Or was it God Himself since he had created that banned Fruit??



I am not denying these literal meaning, I am just seeing that this enmity is being figuratively spoken of here and is a cultivated nature aided by God for those who desire it. To say that this is a literal seed, is also to say that some people are destined, even doomed, to be wicked people and other are destined, even forced to be good. That goes against established Theology on this issue. Furthermore all of these offspring came from Eve, so she is the one who would birth these two different seeds. And even if it is claimed that Abel was the good seed and Cain was the evil seed, this evil seed was clearly lost at the flood since only the descendants of the good seed in Noah and his sons, survived. From where/How then did another “evil seed” come to take root from the flood. To me this only comes to freely be the case through developed/cultivated nature which is either greatly influence by God’s Spirit or by the one of devils and evil angels. Also I read of “sons/daughters of men” vs. “sons/daughters of God” and not “sons/daughters of Satan” per se, i.e., except figuratively, as one lives/acts like the Devil (e.g., John 8:44). To me that pits this dichotomy between men who choose to live according to their own will vs. those who adhere to God’s will.

I recommend you do an SOP study on Gen 3:15 (see Scriptural Index) 1 SM 254-256 is a good place to start as EGW shows there that this seed is indeed in one’s nature and is a cultivated hatred for sin. She also speaks of it in a supernatural sense only with the incarnate Jesus, through the Divine side of His dual nature which had this ‘perfect hatred for sin’ since that was indeed the very nature of a perfect God.



I think you are here again reading too much into EGW’s statement here. Again she understood the enmity to be from a “naturally” cultivated nature. To say that this is a “hardware adjustment” is really to make man part androids. Who then is really free? That in itself would be a virus. One the other hand, the more one strive to live godly, the more and the easier it is for them to hate sin in any form. However the perfect enmity was only realizable or even hardwired in the incarnate Christ, still, fairly, since He indeed was God, so He was fully entitled to also have that perfect nature.

The reason I believe "There shall be no more death" means sin and death will never happen again is because of the context - "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." The promise says there shall be no death, no crying, no sorrow, no pain. If God killed someone because they sinned I don't see how it could happen without pain, crying, and sorrow on the part of the guilty party and on the part of those who witness it.

Tom, please don't overlook 131526 and 131527.

First, if sure does feel like you are denying the literal meaning. And if Gen 3:15 is not literal, then what else is not literal? Gen 3:22? Second, you have missed the whole point all together. The serpent's seed is that which he added to the system, the transposable elements. So we all have them! To say Able had good seed and Cain had bad seed misses the point. To say that the flood wiped out the bad seed misses the point. Clearly the bad seed also was preserved by the flood.
I suggest you read MR No. 1201. Yes, the seed in one's nature, the whole nature, including the physiology. And it was not confined to just between Christ and Satan. The Great Controversy is being waged in each one of us.

Really? If I took out your frontal lobes, would you be the same? Do you required hardware in order to be you? If we need hardware, then does that make you an androids. NO! We are flesh and blood. This is what we are. Created by God. Our nature was corrupted by Satan, and it is not just caused by an altered thought process in an otherwise perfect brain that Adam and Eve had (and we do not!). The engineering what went into the system was corrupted. Our whole nature has been changes.

Yes, God is like that. Which begs the three questions listed above. What else can you tell us about Jesus that can help us understand the three actions named above?

This way of putting things almost sounds like God is subservient to the tree.

It seems to me that God, out of mercy, did not want their life prolonged, similarly to how He permitted the eating of meat after the flood to shorten man's life.



Scripture should be compared with Scripture to obtain a proper understanding of things. You can't just pick one text, and make it "boss," and not consider other things which have been written on a subject.

It seems to me incontrovertible that eternal life comes through faith in Christ. Do you disagree? If I understand your viewpoint correctly, it is:

1.Eternal life comes to us through a tree.
2.Jesus Christ is instrumental because He gives us access to the tree.
3.Eternal life does not come through Jesus Christ, except indirectly (because He gives us access to the tree).
4.The many times in Scripture that speak of our receiving life through Jesus Christ (or representing Jesus Christ as "the life", "the life and the resurrection," etc.) implicitly mean that He is such because He gives us access to the tree of life.

I see the tree of life as of minimal importance when compared to Jesus Christ. My understanding of Scripture is that Jesus Christ is all important, and that we receive life by receiving Him. For example, "He that has the Son, has life." This life that we receive, eternal life, is dependent upon Jesus Christ.



You have a unique view of how these passages should be "plainly read." Given that it's unique, to claim this is how the passage plainly read needs to be considered in that context. That is, it is how it plainly reads to you, but clearly not to everyone.

On the other hand, that Jesus Christ is preeminent in Scripture, and has a crucial role in our salvation, beyond granting us access to a tree, is not a view uniquely held by me.

Also, it's not simply a matter of how this one passage is understood, but there's the rest of Scripture to take into account. From my point of view, it's not simply that you're understanding one given passage in a certain way, but you're not giving due weight to other passages. Scripture must be understood as a whole.

For example, I brought out the passage from the SOP saying that when one looks to the cross, one comes to the conviction that the sure result of sin is death. I stated that no one would look to the cross and come to the conviction that if one doesn't partake of the tree of life, one will die. You disagreed with this stating that that this is what you though. I pointed out to you that you were unique with this, and challenged you to point out any other writer who has expressed this idea, to which you responded that truth is not determined by popular consensus, to which I responded that I was not looking for a popular consensus, but a consensus of one (other than yourself).

The point here is that you are taking a view point which is unique to yourself, and expressing dismay when I disagree with it. That doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable reaction.

If I have a point of view which is unusual, or unique, then I understand that the onus of proof will be on me, and much patience will be required, to try to persuade others to see things as I do, or even, an objective much easier to try to achieve (but still challenging), to get others to at least understand what my point of view is.



This has been my point. I think you're overemphasizing one passage, a passage which you interpret uniquely. I don't think trying to deal with our disagreement by challenging your interpretation of this one passage has any chance of success. That's why I'm trying to discuss things from the perspective of the Great Controversy, or Plan of Salvation, as a whole.

I provided a brief summary as to how I see the Great Controversy, and asked for you to do the same. I've been extremely busy, and have tried to do the best I can keeping up with this thread (and appreciate all the time and effort you've put into it), but may have missed your response to this request. If you responded, please point me to where.



Statements like this may be taken as self-serving and rather off-putting. It may give the impression that you are dispersing truth from on high, as opposed to being a fellow seeker, who has seen some things, but not others, and has things to learn, like the rest of us. And I'm speaking as one who shares (it appears to me) your point of view on this question.

The reason you believe in the "Foreplanning View" is because this is what you *perceive* the Bible teaches. And this is the same reason everybody, who accepts the Bible as authoritative, believes what they believe.



Yes, indeed! We need to be open to viewpoints other than our own, willing to see things in another way, willing to admit error. That is, being open-minded and flexible in our thinking our necessary traits.