T:...since there was no entropy.

APL:If there is no entropy, then there is no metabolism.

There would be no need to eat anything.

Adam and Eve were to tend the garden. What is there to tend if there is no entropy.

I hope the originators of this hypothesis will write a book - soon!

Today, genetic engineering is done via transposable elements. These things can be designed to target very specific regions of the DNA. Human DNA is full of them. Plant DNA is full of them. Animal DNA - the same. If all creation groans together (Romans 8:22) and it is caused by sin, then how does this happen? Genetic engineering fits for Genesis 3:18. "Seed" in Genesis 3:15 fits genetics, in perhaps multiple ways.

Tom - entropy is a reordering of energy. Less order from greater order. You manicured garden example is and example of going fro less order to greater order with Adam and Eve adding energy to the system. A phase change from ice, to liquid to gas is an increase in entropy. Breaking sugars down to more elementary componest, CO2 and H20, is a change in entropy, thus metabolism changes entropy. On earth, sunlight add energy to the system allowing synthesis of sugars. We eat them, and the go back to simple compounds and the cycle continues. I think entropy will still be in the earth made new. I doubt however that we will see the disasters we see today.

M:Here's an excerpt from the quote you posted, "The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan."

In the Bible it says, "And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD."

Ellen wrote, "God consumed them by fire for their positive disregard of His express directions. {RH, March 25, 1875 par. 2} "Fire from his presence destroyed them in their sin. {4aSG 125.1} "A fire blazed out from the holy of holies and consumed them. {Te 280.1}

You seem to be suggesting the "fire" that "blazed out" from the "presence" of God in "the holy of holies" and "consumed" Nadab and Abihu in reality was employed by Satan. Is this what you believe Ellen had in mind? If so, doesn't that imply she believed Satan was standing beside God in the most holy place when he employed fire to kill them?

Do you know of even one passage where Ellen plainly says, God withdrew His protection and permitted Satan to employ fire to kill Nadab and Abihu?

We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown.

We've discussed Nadab and Abihu at great length. To respond briefly, what I said is think the same principles articulated in GC 35-37 apply, where she speaks about how Israel destroyed itself by persistently resisting the Spirit of God, giving itself over to sin/Satan.

There are thousands of dangers from which God protects us constantly, by various means, including the Holy Spirit, holy angels, for example. We can be destroyed by natural causes, that God permits to happen, by evil beings (whether angelic or human) when God permits, or we can destroy ourselves by things we do (all of a sudden or over time). Destruction can be accidental, or planned.

The Destruction of Jerusalem explains in great detail how one such destruction took place. While the Bible uses language which clearly identifies God as the One responsible, the SOP draws away the curtain, and we see, despite the clear Biblical language apparently to the contrary, that it was not God who was responsible, but Satan. I believe many principles articulated here are general principles, and shouldn't be limited to Jerusalem. For example:



I think these principles apply to destruction by means of violent death that occurs, whether accidental or planned. Every such death comes about as the result of sin/Satan, and is not according to the plan of God. As Jesus explained, when urged to destroy His enemies with fire, He did not come to destroy but to save. Destruction is the work of "Apollyon," the destroyer. Violence/torture/cruelty/compelling power are not principles of God's government.

He doesn't hold a big stick over our heads, and say, "It's my way or the highway!" and smash us over the head if we don't do what He says. Rather, He warns us, as a kind, wise, heavenly Father, of the consequences of fooling setting aside His counsel.