Warcraft3

The TKGE was simply the object that God used to give A&E choice. The TOLwas the object to give man immortality. I see much in the text implying death before the fall, except for the special case of A&E in the garden. Thus, I do not think the fact that they were given the TKGE and told not to eat of it really makes a connection with the TOL. They are two very different things.

It is no more reasonable than assuming that they were not doing it all along.

Is there any reason to assume he did not, since his access to firearms was not an issue prior to the beating?

I think your example, while well thought out, fails to prove your point.



Russ

GunnerJ

Think about the implications of this choice in Christian theology. Would you leave a handgun in a nursery just to see if the todlers make the right choice? Especially if you were omniscient and knew what the choice would be anyway?

Except there's no mention of that being it's purpose! The TOL is simply said to have the ability to grant immortality, not that it was regularly used for that purpose. Just saying that it serves no purpose unless that was it's use isn't good enough, as things which A&E weren't supposed to use were also present. That's the point of my questions.

Of course they're different things. But you tried to argue that unless A&E were eating from the TOL, there's no reason for it to be there. There is, similarly, no good reason for the TKGE to be there either, given that any choice A&E would have made with repect to the TKGE would have been known beforehand by an omniscient god. (And would an omnibenevolent god really allow all humanity to be damned because they made wrong choice he knew they would make in advance?)

...except that no mention is made of it. If it's an important point that A&E were kept immortal by the TOL, you'd expect it to be mentiuoned. It isn't. In addition, God's statement that A&E should be thrown out of the garden "lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever," doesn't fit with the idea of them eating it all along. What would fit is a statement to the effect of "lest they continue to be immortal by continuing to eat from the tree fo life." The words actually used convey a sense of finality and singularity: if he eats it, just once, he will live forever. Period. No continued ingestion requried.

Yes. It was never mentioned that he did. What is known about a character is only known through information from the author. Without informationf rom the author, there is no reason to assume that somehting is true. You, however, do assume that it's true that A&E regularly ate from the TOL to stay immortal, despite the fact that the only mention of A&E eating from the TOL is hypothetical, and after the point in the story where they were supposed to have been eating from it all along.

I fail to see how this helps you. Access to firearms wasn't an issue before the beatings beacuse the boy wasn't violent before. No one was worried about him becoming another Columbine kid.

Really? So you'd assume, without any cues from the author, that the character was a regular sport shooter before the beating, even though the concern about what he could do with a gun only became relevent when he was shown to be violent, and was only used in the hypothetical? Interesting way of reading, but oh well.

I'd like to see the reason why you say that you think A&E were a "special case" that were immortal before the fall, BTW.

GunnerJ

Also, I know I'm as much to blame for this as anyone, but the discussion is getting a bit off the topic for this forum, and thus, might I suggest that you reply in a new topic in BC&A?

Warcraft3

Sure I will respond in that thread. Let me state several views I have though so you know where I am coming from.
* I do not believe the God of the Bible exhaustively knows the future.
*I do believe there was both animal and plant death before the fall.
*I believe the earth was basically operating as it is today with the exception of the garden of eden.
*I believe it was a supernatural place where man was protected and life was made very easy.
*I believe the six days in Genesis are not 24 hour days, but are long periods of time


I know many Christians do not hold these views, but I find that many things in scripture are problematic if one does not have such views. I also believe my views are supported by scripture and have fewer anomalies than other views.

Anyway......I will continue our discussion later on today (I hope) in the section you mentioned.



Russ

GunnerJ

Actually, I think that based on your views, it would be sort of a waste of time. If you don't accept an omniscient deity, then a lot of the problems for your model go away. In addition, the subject was only raised in response to the idea that there was no death (period) before the fall, esp. in relation to creationism, which would have to include animal and plant death. Since you believe that animals and plants died before the fall, it's really not worth it.

I am, however, still interested in why you think A&E were immortal.

Oolon Colluphid

Hi Russ
So you think it was a real place? Where? When? Evidence please.

And what ‘man’ was protected, exactly? What species was he? Homo sapiens? H ergaster? H erectus, rudolfensis, habilis?

You see, with evolution -- which I thought you accepted? -- there is an unbroken chain of ancestors-descendants, all the way back to our split from chimpanzees, all the way back to our split from reptiles, from fish, from worms, from single-celled creatures, to the first self-replicating molecule that got successful. And there’s not a single ‘man’, but interbreeding populations, all the way back too. A protected population of... what, when, and how do you know?

So how does this protected-man-in-a-supernatural-place stuff fit?

Oh no, don’t tell me: it’s a metaphor again. Well, I’m still waiting for your answer to my points on that matter in that other thread... (‘Server busy’ atm, will link to it once I can find it again.) But meanwhile, “I believe it was a supernatural place where...” doesn’t sound exactly metaphorical. If it’s a metaphor, you don’t need to qualify it with ‘supernatural’: it can ‘be’ however you want it, to make your point.

TTFN, Oolon

Warcraft3

Oolon:
I do plan on responding to your post later on today (hopefully), but I did want to make a few quick comments. First of all, as was stated before, I am sort of looking at three views right now. OEC, ID, and Theistic Evolution. I am not convinced these views are necessarily completely incompatible, and I am still forming my exact position. For the OEC side, I find some of Hugh Ross's views to be interesting. For the ID side I find some of Mike Genes views to be interesting. And for the TE side I find some of Glenn Mortons views to be interesting. So I am not really nailed down yet as to the exact details of how the events of Genesis actually played out. With that said, I do think the framework theory does have some good evidence, but I currently do not take Genesis as metaphor or symbolism. I say this to answer a statement you made......

Now Oolon, I do get the feeling that you are ready to jump down my throat here in an attempt to prove me wrong. I feel like you are very eager to show me how wrong my position is. Do not fear, you will get your chance to show how foolish I am, but for now be patient since I am going away for two weeks this weekend.

I will try to respond to the rest of the post later on today.


Russ

Warcraft3

**Notice**
This will be my last post in this thread until sometime after June 22. I have to go away with the Reserves for two weeks and I need tonight and tomorrow to pack and get ready. So I will see you all when I get back.


Russ