Forums118
Topics9,228
Posts196,137
Members1,325
|
Most Online5,850 Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
Re: The Science of Sin and Salvation - Study Series
[Re: asygo]
#160770
01/23/14 05:46 PM
01/23/14 05:46 PM
|
OP
SDA Active Member 2020
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,368
Western, USA
|
|
Adam - the eating of the fruit is what gave him the MGEs. No eating, no fall. But the MGEs did not come from the fruit itself? Or did they? Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge, which meant disobedience to God. Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. In the parable of the sower the question was asked the master, "Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? From whence then hath it tares?" The master answered, "An enemy hath done this." [ Matthew 13:27, 28.] All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares. {16MR 247.2}
Oh, that men might open their minds to know God as he is revealed in his Son! {ST, January 20, 1890}
|
|
|
Re: The Science of Sin and Salvation - Study Series
[Re: APL]
#160776
01/24/14 01:29 AM
01/24/14 01:29 AM
|
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,621
California, USA
|
|
So if the MGEs didn't come from the fruit itself, but "the eating of the fruit is what gave him the MGEs," what did eating the fruit have to do with MGEs/sin?
You also said, "Sinning does not create MGEs. Sinning activates and/or mobilizes them." But Adam had no MGEs when he ate the fruit. There was nothing to mobilize.
By God's grace, Arnold
1 John 5:11-13 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.
|
|
|
Re: The Science of Sin and Salvation - Study Series
[Re: asygo]
#160777
01/24/14 01:45 AM
01/24/14 01:45 AM
|
OP
SDA Active Member 2020
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,368
Western, USA
|
|
Did I say the MGEs were not in the fruit? In this paradigm, I take what EGW says, that they planted when Adam ate from the tree. Before his fall, Adam had none of them.
Oh, that men might open their minds to know God as he is revealed in his Son! {ST, January 20, 1890}
|
|
|
Re: The Science of Sin and Salvation - Study Series
[Re: APL]
#160797
01/25/14 12:26 AM
01/25/14 12:26 AM
|
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,621
California, USA
|
|
Did I say the MGEs were not in the fruit? Isn't that what you said in post #160770, 2 posts ago? In this paradigm, I take what EGW says, that they planted when Adam ate from the tree. Before his fall, Adam had none of them. And I want to know what the paradigm conjectures as the source of those MGEs. Either Adam ingested them from the fruit or he didn't. But saying that the fruit had MGEs would be problematic, I think. I would think that the original source of the MGEs would be a fundamental question. That they are in our genetic code now can be verified by research. But this paradigm postulates a whole new meaning to genetic elements, giving them fundamental spiritual properties. Hence, I ask about the genetic significance of the Original Sin, which has obvious spiritual significance.
By God's grace, Arnold
1 John 5:11-13 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.
|
|
|
Re: The Science of Sin and Salvation - Study Series
[Re: asygo]
#160798
01/25/14 12:36 AM
01/25/14 12:36 AM
|
OP
SDA Active Member 2020
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,368
Western, USA
|
|
Did I say the MGEs were not in the fruit? Isn't that what you said in post #160770, 2 posts ago? You mean when I said this? "Adam - the eating of the fruit is what gave him the MGEs. No eating, no fall." In this paradigm, I take what EGW says, that they planted when Adam ate from the tree. Before his fall, Adam had none of them. And I want to know what the paradigm conjectures as the source of those MGEs. Either Adam ingested them from the fruit or he didn't. But saying that the fruit had MGEs would be problematic, I think. What did EGW say? The seeds were planted when Satan tempted Adam to eat! No eating, no planting. It is quite simple. Understand that Satan was not out to kill Adam! On the contrary - he was trying to take him captive. This, MGEs can do! I would think that the original source of the MGEs would be a fundamental question. That they are in our genetic code now can be verified by research. But this paradigm postulates a whole new meaning to genetic elements, giving them fundamental spiritual properties. Hence, I ask about the genetic significance of the Original Sin, which has obvious spiritual significance. MGEs are the works the devil. MGEs are the cause of all sickness, all aging, and all death, exactly what sin does. The concept of "original sin" has taken the idea that we are guilty of Adam's sin. Ezekiel 18 squashes this idea completely.
Oh, that men might open their minds to know God as he is revealed in his Son! {ST, January 20, 1890}
|
|
|
Re: The Science of Sin and Salvation - Study Series
[Re: APL]
#160817
01/25/14 04:24 PM
01/25/14 04:24 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,621
California, USA
|
|
It seems it is premature to discuss this conjecture in any depth at this time. It still cannot say definitively if the fruit had MGEs or not. It relies on ambiguous answers that confuse even its staunchest advocates.
Furthermore, if MGEs=sin, and epigenetic changes are passed down through the genome, Ezekiel 18 would be a problem. Unto the 3rd and 4th generation, yes? Unless if guilt is a purely forensic matter. I don't remember Melashenko bringing up Ezek 18.
By God's grace, Arnold
1 John 5:11-13 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.
|
|
|
Re: The Science of Sin and Salvation - Study Series
[Re: asygo]
#160818
01/25/14 04:32 PM
01/25/14 04:32 PM
|
OP
SDA Active Member 2020
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,368
Western, USA
|
|
The MGEs were in the fruit. Is that ambiguous? What was in the fruit was not to cause death, that also is clear.
MGEs and epigentic switching being pass down the generations in real, not legal. But note - the MGE do not determine behavior, YOU DO. The MGE give the propensity to the behaviors we call sin. As the 10C says, to the 3rd and 4th generation, "OF THEM THAT HATE ME." Romans 5:19-21 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20 Moreover the law entered, that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin has reigned to death, even so might grace reign through righteousness to eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Oh, that men might open their minds to know God as he is revealed in his Son! {ST, January 20, 1890}
|
|
|
Re: The Science of Sin and Salvation - Study Series
[Re: APL]
#160837
01/26/14 05:33 AM
01/26/14 05:33 AM
|
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,621
California, USA
|
|
The MGEs were in the fruit. Is that ambiguous? What was in the fruit was not to cause death, that also is clear. Thank you. That is unambiguous. However, it is contradictory. Isn't it a postulate of this theory that MGEs are lethal? If there were MGEs in the fruit, then that would make the fruit deadly. Did I misunderstand the nature of MGEs?
By God's grace, Arnold
1 John 5:11-13 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.
|
|
|
Re: The Science of Sin and Salvation - Study Series
[Re: APL]
#160838
01/26/14 05:37 AM
01/26/14 05:37 AM
|
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,621
California, USA
|
|
MGEs and epigentic switching being pass down the generations in real, not legal. But note - the MGE do not determine behavior, YOU DO. The MGE give the propensity to the behaviors we call sin. But didn't Melashenko say that even if all our actions were OK, the fact that we have MGEs/propensities is the main problem God has to solve? So, a person whose actions are perfect will still die eternally if his MGEs are not healed.
By God's grace, Arnold
1 John 5:11-13 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.
|
|
|
Re: The Science of Sin and Salvation - Study Series
[Re: asygo]
#160846
01/26/14 03:41 PM
01/26/14 03:41 PM
|
OP
SDA Active Member 2020
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,368
Western, USA
|
|
The MGEs were in the fruit. Is that ambiguous? What was in the fruit was not to cause death, that also is clear. Thank you. That is unambiguous. However, it is contradictory. Isn't it a postulate of this theory that MGEs are lethal? If there were MGEs in the fruit, then that would make the fruit deadly. Did I misunderstand the nature of MGEs? What was in the fruit did not need to be lethal! BUT - what was in the fruit could have been devices to block cellular defense mechanisms, where by Satan could then implant other weapons, opening the door as it were. We do know that soon after eating, Adam and Eve changed. And what ever happened, it also affects their posterity - it was in the genetics.
Oh, that men might open their minds to know God as he is revealed in his Son! {ST, January 20, 1890}
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|