Magus55

I never said man was not mortal, I just said there was no death. Had Adam and Eve stayed in the garden , they would have eaten from the tree of life and gained immortality, thus death would have never set in. Its not like there was anything in the Garden to kill them.

personal comments removed to maintain the level of discourse expected in an upper forum

Javaman

Maybe you should 'splain this better.
So God was going to let them eat from it later?
response to personal comments removed since it would not make sense without the quote

Magus55

Whats there to explain?

The Tree of life wasn't forbidden, so yes obviously Adam would have eaten from it sooner or later.

comments on the board removed

Calzaer

The key definition of "mortal" has something to do with experiencing death. If you're not going to die, you're not mortal. If you ate going to die, you're mortal. Can't have it both ways.

This "the tree of life was not forbidden" thing boggles my mind too. Are you putting words in God's mouth again?

judge

Augustine went to considerable lengths to try to explain the state of adam prior to the fall and said in Latin non imposse mori sed posse non mori It was not impossible for him to die but it was psooible for him not to die.

This has been the patristic view that Adam was not immortal (in a state where death was impossible) nor was he mortal (a state where death was inevitable) but was rather in a state where he NEED not die. He could die but he need not.

Through obedience he was to have been clothed with immortality and go to the eternal world . If he disobeyed he would die like the beasts and be the slave of appetite.

Jack the Bodiless

There is no "Book of Augustine" in the Bible. And even if there was, it wouldn't change what the author of Genesis actually said.

You're still talking about the later introduction of doctrines that are not supported by Genesis.

There is no indication whatsoever that Adam and Eve would have been immortal, and the text plainly states that the actual reason they were expelled from Eden was to PREVENT them BECOMING immortal. It is actually the ONLY reason given: that their immortality would make them TOO POWERFUL, powerful enough to rival the gods themselves.

As it is the ONLY reason, it's a blatant distortion for later apologists to pretend that an entirely different reason is actually the MAIN reason.

The "Fall" wasn't due to "sin". It was due to God's fear of the power we were about to take. This is plainly stated in Genesis. It won't go away just because it's inconsistent with a much later concept of God.

judge

I don't follow you here. Can you restate?
Adam would only have been immortal (unable to die) if he was granted this by access to the tree of life.

Prior oto the fall he was not mortal (destined to die) other wise death could not be a sanction.

But he was not immortal either otherwise he would not have been able to become mortal and die. An immortal can never die, it is impossible.

He was capable of becoming either.

Jack the Bodiless

Yes.
Does not follow.

A mortal can still be threatened by imminent death. You are a mortal, right? If a mugger pointed a gun at you and demanded that you hand over your cash: you'd be threatened, right? Even though you're going to die anyhow, eventually?

And, sure enough, God specifically threatens Adam with immediate death. "For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." This threat is particulary serious given the apparent lack of an afterlife belief at the time, and the enormous lifespan that Adam had ahead of him (930 years).

Dean Anderson

You're just playing word games, now.

You are saying that Adam was not mortal (because he might not die), but not immortal (because he might die) - sort of Shroedinger's Human...

Well, that's an interesting theory. It's completely unbiblical, of course.

There is no 'third' state. Adam is mortal. IF he eats from the tree of life then he will become immortal - but as of his creation he was in the default mortal state for humans and animals.

Let me give you a simple analogy. If I have a red car, there is a possibility that I can in the future paint it yellow. That does not mean that the car is orange - because it could be red or yellow in the future. It means that it is red. The fact that it may change in the future does not alter its current state.

Let's have a look at the end of Genesis 3, shall we...

Notice that God uses exactly the same language to describe the mortal man and the mortal snake. Adam will die like the beasts, contrary to what you said in your previous post.

Notice that God says here that Adam is mortal. He doesn't curse Adam with mortality, he curses Adam with having to struggle for food until his natural death.

God doesn't want Adam to eat from the tree of life because it will make him immortal - not because it will sustain his existing immortality.

l-bow

How do Jews interpret that part of Genesis?