The eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is what caused the fall. As I quoted from EGW, Eve believed the lies of Satan, and this LED to her fall. Believing the lie was not her fall.

As for nature falling apart because of the removal of the Tree of Life does not fit. Yes, the TOL could have continued to support life. But that life would be of a sinner.
I get the feeling from your replies about the Tree of Life, that if Adam and Eve could have eaten from that tree, they would have been able to be restored to perfection. But if so, the why do they need a savior?

You are right in that I do see the genetic tie-in all over EGW's writings. It is every where. But if you do not have genetic glasses, you will never see it.

In studying this genetic issue, I have found transposable elements responsible for many diseases. The extreme hypothesis is that all disease is caused by them. I could go down the line of so many diseases the I have found to as their underlying cause transposable elements.

Messiah took on our sicknesses, and he came to remove our burden of disease. If disease is caused by TEs, then one of the goal of His mission was to find a solution to the TE problem.
With genetic glasses, TEs are the work of the devil.

The Tree of Life could have perpetuated life, but a sinner would have had a life of misery. And there is more. A sinner could not come into the presence of God, because to them God would be a consuming fire. And there is good scientific evidence that could explain why from a TE point of view. TEs weaken DNA, change the shape, make is susceptible to ionizing radiation. Take Nadab and Abihu. They came into the presence of God without the proper preparation. The fire of God consumed them. I do not see this as an arbitrarily imposed sentence against them. But as a natural consequence of a sinner being exposed to God's presence. Their TEs disintegrate, killing the sinner. I don't see the Tree of Life solving this problem, from a science point of view. TEs can cause whole segments of information to be lost. This can only be solved by putting the information back. This also explains why only Christ can come and solve the sin problem. It is so much more that just excising the defective part. Solving the sin problem is probably orders of magnitude harder than the original creation in that the remedy has to be individual specific, and it is ever changing. And it has to be solved and yet maintain the character of the individual.

Affliction will not rise again because the experiment has been done. If you mess with the way God has designed life to work, it will destroy it. The system is how ever not so fragile that just a doubt in the mind will crash the system. It was more. And this also explains how in the book Great Controversy, page 495, Satan is telling lies about God, a clear violation of the moral law! And yet had not yet sworn off allegiance to God. He had not yet so damaged himself that it could have been unwound.

Just to make sure you are reading and understanding me correctly here are my views in the light of your responses:

-I do not see that the fall came from something tangible in the banned fruit.

-When I speak of “nature” I am referring to Creation and not “human nature”.

-I never said that sinful Adam or Eve eating the fruit would restore them to perfection, especially in term of human nature. It would however perpetuate their life.

-I agree with your genetic view except for ‘seeing it everywhere through genetics glasses. To me that is not necessary. Of course all of the evils in the world can be traced back to genetic malfunctions, however that does not have to, nor come to, mean that ‘EGW knew and wrote about this throughout her writings.’ That is classical eisegesis on her writings. She was not knowledgeable to this level of science which probably did not even exist then, nor was she given revelations on this. So this view has to be externally imposed on her writings, and the “proof” of that only subjectively lies with the “beholder”.



-Genetics does not trump man free will. So it does not come to force man to live perfectly forever in the future (i.e., after the second coming) That is a deliberate choice that all will have to knowingly and freely make. In you view, how then did sin originate in Heaven where all was perfect, indeed even more than what will be in the future since e.g., our characters will have to be improved upon and Jesus will have his human form.

NJK, regarding post 131748, thank you for answering my questions. I've never met anyone who believes as you described above.

Agreed that freewill is maintained. And in the New Earth, there will not be the temptation of evil. However, one must eat of the Tree of Life in order to maintain immortality. We won't have evil any longer, but we will still have a choice to live or not.

OK - then how do you explain all the disease we see around us and in all life? It can not be lack of access to the Tree of Life because the "Information" that the system is telling us is that there is two antagonistic authors reflected in the DNA.

It is true, she had no knowledge of DNA. That does not mean she did not understand heredity. Today we can decode the writing in the DNA. But she was very aware of the effects of heredity.

EGW did not know about DNA. But she knew about inheritance. There are several aspects in inheritance. There are epigenetic changes which change gene expression without changing the underlying DNA code. Epigenetic changes are what is used to control the underlying DNA. And there are the transposable elements which can modify gene expression, destroy genes, and bring in new genes via horizontal transfer. These changes caused by transposable elements may be responsible for ALL disease as the underlying cause. Epigenetics are influenced by our thoughts, habits, diets, etc. is what turns on or all the ill effects of the TEs. Thus the Adventist health message is not a trivial part in the Gospel, being as EGW says, the right arm.

Sin is not just bad thinking, or believing lies. The acting on these beliefs is what pulls the trigger. Eve believed lies about God, this was not her fall. It led to her fall.
So, yes, she did not know heredity to the level of science we have today. But that does not mean she did not have understanding of the issues as pertaining to genetics. And I have not mentioned her "amalgamation" comments for which has received so much flack.

I have many more quotes of EGW that support a genetic view. You call it eisegesis. It is only eisegesis on my part if she is not talking about genetics and I say she is.

That won’t be our only choice. It is manifestly because you believe that sin/evil can only tangibly come from a banned fruit that you make this conclusion. How then did iniquity form in Lucifer’s “perfect” heart (Ezek 28:15). What banned fruit did he eat?? You did not answer that question in my prior post! As long as God’s Created Being will be free, this possibility of them devising sin in their heart, (i.e., thoughts/mind and, logically/factually, not the physical pumping organ) will always be present.



(a) I was referring to ‘everywhere in EGW’s writings’;
(b) as I went on to explanatorily say: “Of course all of the evils in the world can be traced back to genetic malfunctions, ...’”

I just don’t see a “proof” of your, let’s be honest, “scientifically, at best, still hypothetical view” that this harm was done by Satan (or God??) himself having written a corrupting “DNA code” in some, and addictive, ingredient in the banned fruit. Really you first need to work on moving your view from scientifically being a hypothesis, to proven science or else it is no better than arguing for life on Pluto, and morevover, claiming that it was Satan who had originally created them!!



That is indeed true, however I still do not see a reason to go eisegetically overboard as you have and “see genetics everywhere” including, as you staunchly claimed before, in the Legislative Law of God that Satan sought to amendment. Where else are you falsely/eisegetically ‘seeing genetics’. When EGW makes explicit or substantively allusive statements on heredity, then I’ll concede that it involves some form of genetics, otherwise requiring ‘rose-colored “genetic glasses”’ instead of such substantive exegesis is not my approach to understanding the writings of EGW, let alone the Bible. So if you want to convince me, substantiate your claims exegetically and also avoid making conclusory jumps as in: ‘since she said ‘heredity’ in this passage, then she must have understood TE’s and DNA in that other unrelated passage where the term is not even mentioned.’



To be quite honest with you, I really have no problem with your genetics look at the effects of sin problem, (there indeed is ample scientific and even Biblical support for it), except for attributing it as a source to the banned fruit of life. The fact that man physically degenerated when they stopped eating of the fruit of life, is proof enough to me that it was its “supernatural powers” that were preventing this genetics corruption. And still that was not an act of God, but a natural consequence, just like it is not your doctor, nor your sworn enemy, who injected you with a sickness when it breaks out in you because you stopped taking the pills that were keeping it from even ever beginning to develop. That in itself is highly speculative, Theologically unsound and thus outright eisegesis.



Sin indeed “is not just bad thinking, or believing lies” however that is the very place that it all always begins, hence its only source. It also takes and entirely distinct process to turn a simple thought (e.g., temptation) into a sin in the mind. And, as I said before, if Eve’s sin came from an external and addictive source, then this whole GC has been an unfair act of God and that impeaches His Just, Fair and Loving Character.

I've given my view in the discussion. Ezekiel 28:15 AKJV You were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, till iniquity was found in you.

"iniquity was found in you". What does this mean? Of course there was no Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in heaven. But are you not an engineer by training? EE? Certainly you have designed something in the past. How did it come about? First you needed to understand how the system components worked, and how they all worked together. Then you had a goal as to what you wanted to achieve. You then used existing components and built up your design and tested it. Satan sought to add an amendment to the law in heaven (quoting EGW). If that law is codified in the DNA of his very being, then your poke at the lack of a bad tree in heaven is not relevant. Satan "is the author of sin". (GC 422). I read this literally. You read it figuratively.

Here is one of the issues. You can't accept this because to you God's law is just a legal law, is that what you are saying in the following quote of yours?
So God's law is legislative, a legal declaration. I'm saying that God's law is codified in all the law of nature, including DNA. If you mess with that coding, that is sin. EGW even talks about "defacing the image of God" in man by the use of amalgamation. This is genetic engineering. And she has gotten a lot of flack for that comment.

I read this view in scripture and in EGW. And it makes sense. It presents and interesting view of the plan of salvation. It explains, in a non-legal way how the sins of the world can be placed on Christ, how he can actually bear the sins of the world. It puts emphasis on God as the Creator and his Creation.

And unfair act on God's part? He had warned Adam and Eve of the consequences of eating from the Tree.

But there is more to the genetic story which I have not discussed in this thread. TEs make up 50-90% of human DNA. About 40% of the DNA is locked up, suppressed. Genesis 3:15 says that there will be enmity between the serpent's seed and the woman's seed. Why only the woman and not Adam? There is good genetic answer, but I digress. With 40% of the DNA locked down, Satan can claim, "not fair". His experiment has been tampered with. At the cross, the "enmity" was removed. And it killed Christ. In the garden before the crucifixion, Jesus was dying, sweating blood. His physiology was falling coming apart. Isaiah 52:13-15 comes to mind. When was the last time you heard a sermon on those verses?

EGW in Great Controversy makes the following comment: It is Satan's constant effort to misrepresent the character of God, the nature of sin, and the real issues at stake in the great controversy. {GC 569.1}

So what is the "nature of sin" that the devil is misrepresenting?

Sorry but I do not see Electrical Engineering explaining this Theological issue. Nor does it actually illustrate it as for it to apply here, it would have to be said that Satan invented the electrons that then make all of that future engineering work. As I understand it, Satan does not have that originally creating power (John 1:3). Why do you think he was so jealous of Christ and God planning the creation of man without consulting him if he could create even anything on his own. If I have the money and some friends of mine decide to leave me out of their planned group trip to the Super Bowl, I be upset yes, but I’ll just go and by my own tickets there.



EGW also had this notion of the Law of Nature, but in that passage she is solely referring to the 10 Commandments, which the Papacy also sought to similarly “amend”.




You first need to show that the Law of Nature is synonymous with the 10 Commandments. To me they are distinct, though both contributive to God’s perfection.



Indeed he literally is. He was the first to come up with what was sin in Heaven. However that does not mean, nor need to mean, that he is the one who inceptive, actively corrupted the perfect state of man by injecting something in the banned life. The removal of Tree of Life cause this inceptive corruption, indeed opening the door for Satan’s subsequent active corruptive means. Still I read of this tangibly being done to/in animals and nature, and not actually humans.

And if it was the case that the banned fruit was Satan’s “sin/TE poison” addicitive pill, why did EGW say anything of the sort on such a key and foundational point as she did with the Fruit of Life in stating that it contained “supernatural powers”.



Interesting way of “legalistically” putting it. I know that God’s Law is multifaceted. It does include nature. All I said was that in that EGW quote she was pointedly and solely referring to the Legislative/10 Commandment Law, which she also said was what was at issue in Heaven at Lucifer’s rebellion. Any other view needs to ignore that context, and thus is eisegetical.



There are different aspect to God’s Law for different/distinct aspects of His Creation.



You may have an angle here....



In my theological view, Jesus only had to pay for the sins committed by man. Just like, because man sinned, God removed his protection from creation allowing it to become corrupt, and be (second-handedly) corrupted (i.e., through the sowing of ‘noxious mixes’ and “amalgamations”, in the same way, when man’s sin is paid for, which all started in the mind/psyche, all of these sins and their effects will naturally be overturned, and unlike man, in especially regards to his psyche/character, that will be done by completely wiping the slate clean and starting all over. In the same way our bodies will not be remade from what had been, but will be entirely new ones. So God does not have to somehow impose on Christ all of the genetical malfunctions of the entire creation. As far as I see it, it was the sinful psyche that was the main issue that needed to be atoned at the cross so that it could be purged for the redeemed.



Fair enough..., in isolative part. It is however your “addictive” addition to this act that really makes it unfair. Adam and Eve wanted to repent from this sin, but it was too late. They had crossed the line where the Ultimate Price for even that single sin had to be paid. However for this to have suddenly corrupted their DNA to make sin a now hereditary craving, I do not Theologically see it. To me it was the subsequent removal of the Tree of Life that started this, even spiritual, degeneration. If not then, how did God say that a sinful person can live forever?? We try to lessen that statement by saying that this is not what he really meant, and that man would eventually die, however that is not what God literally said, nor meant. That is why I understand that the first of Life has the supernatural power to preserve physical perfection, and that includes man’s genetics.



Well, you’ll need to present that “good genetic answer” because seed could only mean “descendants/offspring”. And it was the woman through whom sin originated in mankind!



As I understand enmity here (i.e., a hatred for sin), I would have to understand here that the Divine, and even sinless human nature of Jesus came to “love sin”. I do not see any Biblical support for this view. If that because the case, his atonement would be made void. It was because he resisted sin to the end that he can be our perfect substitute.



I do not recall exactly the last time I heard it but, e.g., just reading the SDABC points me to places where other people have sweat blood because of such agony!



It does not take much linguistic/colloquial understanding to see that, in that context the “nature of sin” here simply refers to how evil/dangerous/deadly sin actually is. Just look around our world/society today and you see this realization with sin, in its various manifestations being wholeheartedly and/or indifferently lauded and celebrated by most. Indeed just as the character of God and the GC issues are being misrepresented.


You’re a fully entitled to your views. I am just saying that your proof of it is not convincing to me, and that mainly because I see it as being eisegetical. So we may just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Do EEs invent electrons? NO. Do they invent the laws of physics on which electronics work? NO. Do they use the reasoning powers to intelligently construct circuits that function? YES. Did Satan invent the electron? NO. Did Satan invent DNA? NO. Could Satan put DNA into a specific order? Why not? Is this creative power akin to God? NO. Is Satan a creator? Only in the same sense that an engineer is a creator. He used existing laws to change the way life works, just as an engineer uses existing laws to make electrical components and devices.

Yes, the quote in question had to do with the Pope. But you did not answer how you add an "amendment" to the law. What did he want to amend? But there are other quotes. The following is an example:

The context is "God's Law". The "law" is written on our inward parts.

Hello!!! DNA.
If you corrupt that law, it leads to misery and death.

Synonymous with the 10C. Hmm, was there a Sabbath in heaven? Was there a need for the command to not commit adultery? I think not. EGW says the law was added because of transgression. (see {1SM 233.1}) Transgression of what? The law. Sin is transgression of the law. We need to sort out the laws here are one can quickly get into circular definitions.

Again - were the "10C" in place in heaven? Are the 10C "legislative" as you put it, or are they descriptive of one who is in harmony with the way they were designed (created)?

And just exactly how does Jesus make the "payment" and to whom is it paid? Is this a legal requirement?

This is part of it. But it can be shown that many psychiatric diseases are directly related to the underlying hardware.


What made it too late? Read Great Controversy, chapter 29, and page 495 in particular. Satan is telling LIES about God! Clearly a violation of the 10C, but he had not gone too far. to be restored, all he needed to do was to confess and submit. What was the difference? There was a point where Satan had gone too far. EGW talks about that. And, there was NO REMEDY. WHY? What is your answer? The genomic view has an answer.

Adam's sin was MUCH WORSE than Eve's. Eve was deceived. Adam was not. Put Adam's sin in view of the idea that sin originates in solely in the mind. it is harder to explain it that way.

As for the seed (offspring, genetic material) being of the woman, what does a man contribute to the offspring? 23 chromosomes surrounded by a cap with a flagellum. That's it. The woman supplies the cell, the cytoplasm, but cellular machinery, and something much more interesting, small interfering RNA molecules. Without the sRNA molecules, you will never get a fetus. They are necessary to suppress the TEs in the male's DNA. There is lots of science to back this up. And it would take hours to explain. The Bible is right and right from a scientific point of view.

What you have to explain is why is sin so deadly. So far, your only explanation is that it is because God has barred the sinner from the Tree of Life. So, is sin deadly, or lack of eating from the Tree of Life the real issue?

Ok. So you're saying man was not created "naturally dying," but that this became his condition when he partook of the forbidden fruit. That's correct?

It can include this too, but the "this" has to include what was just being talked about. It can't be dealing with something unrelated to what she just said, which was, "the glory of Him who is love will destroy them." "This" is what they didn't understand.



That could be a possible interpretation, if she has something along these lines, but she didn't. Instead, she spoke of how the wicked receive the results of their choice.

The primary definition of "arbitrary" is:



In saying that the destruction of the wicked was not due to an arbitrary act of power on the part of God, but due to the choice of the wicked, she means their destruction is not dependent upon God's individual discretion, acting out the part of a judge, but is the result of their own choice. And the rest of the paragraph explains that.



She doesn't make this argument. Instead she explains that the destruction of the wicked is a result of their own choice. If she had in mind what you were saying, she would have had to have said something along the lines of "God is right to use an act of power to destroy the wicked, for this is just and righteous, because (list reasons). Instead she argues that the wicked are not destroyed by an act of power of God, but as a result of their own choice (she lists the reasons).



No, they didn't understand this until the cross. Remember, the second death is the context. It wasn't until the cross that the second death was understood, because nobody had experienced that death until then.



They needed the cross to understand. That is the "this" that they didn't understand in DA 764. She says precisely this, that the angels did not understand that the inevitable result of sin was death.



She nowhere says this in the passage. Instead she says had God "left" Satan and his follower to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished, but the angels would not have understood that their death was the inevitable result of sin. The cross is what made this clear.

There's no argument being made that it is just on God's part to destroy the wicked.



These are some things they understood. They also understood that the inevitable result of sin is death, and that when God eventually leaves Satan and his followers to suffer death, that this is what is happening, as opposed to their being destroyed by an arbitrary act of power on the part of God.



Yes, this is true. This is a portion of what the chapter discusses.

Particularly interesting here is her application of Rev. 12 to the cross (i.e., that there was a war in heaven, and Satan was "cast down").



This is too long a sentence. Could you break this up into several sentences please? It sounds like your idea is that Jesus Christ is temporarily playing the part of the Tree of Life(?)



This is difficult to follow. Scripture says that when one has Christ, one has life. Jesus Christ said, "I am the life." Also, "I am the resurrection and the life." Also "I am the way, the truth, and the life."

We receive life by receiving Christ. I've been saying this all along. What's "ethereal spiritual" about this?

What I've been asserting is that Scripture teaches that:

1.Death comes as a result of sin.
2.Eternal life is a gift of God, which one receives through faith in Christ.

Do you disagree that this is what Scripture teaches?

Also, I request a brief summary of the Great Controversy from your perspective, similar to what I provided. Did you write something up? My apologies if you did so and I missed it.