Were Adam and Eve mortal before the fall?

How about an easier guess?

Maybe it just had wings....

or maybe it had ...

But we do know from Rev 12 that Satan is the one who was the "serpent of old" -

Whether He appeared in that form - or simply had a serpent used as a "puppet" to communicate with Eve without scaring her off -- we do not know.

I am waiting for the video to come out.

The idea that Eve would think of animals (beasts of the field) as being equal to intelligence to humans - is far beyond the pale of reason. And that includes the most "subtle" of them all - the serpent.

The serpent was not "evil".

The Bible does not say the "Serpent was the most evil creature of all the beasts of the field".

Details sir.

Bingo.

In Gen two they have access to ALL trees EVEN the forbidden tree.

The idea that "they had nothing to eat all that time EXCEPT for the forbidden fruit" is not in scripture at all.

And you think it strange that they had to eat something each day to be healthy?

just where do you draw the line in that imagination station?

A - not necessarily conntected to B not necessarily resulting in C and yet you go there anyway.

There goes that imagination station again ...

The Bible says the tree of life has 12 fruits - one for each month. It is reasonable to assume that the fruit fell off the tree at some point.

AS for "immortal animals" -- maybe they were that way due to access to the tree. Or maybe the fact that in heaven the tree of life is on either side of the water of life - means that the whole earth would be benefitted by that water.

All of this is just conjecture and certainly no basis for rejecting the Word of God "as it reads".

The "imagination station" may be good - but it is not scripture. You keep appealing to it as though it has the weight of scripture or evidence.

In Christ,

Bob

 

however - back to my question that I am still waiting for you to answer.

What is the reasoning - the logic and motive being used by the snake in his argument to Eve?

What would you have done in that scenario?

(And imagining that the scenario did not exist is not a solution)

In Christ,

Bob

 

I just can't believe that this idea of "eating" every day is such a big road block for you XD.

Yes. And Rev 2 and 21 show us the Tree of Life giving its fruit in that place.

Christ Himself says "I will not drink of this cup again until I drink it with you anew" --

Paradise "restored" is taking humans BACK to the paradise lost -

When it comes to "spirit" and "making stuff up" people go wild -- then they take their own wild assumptions and pretend they are "Bible fact".

The spiritual body of 2Cor 5 and 1Cor 15 are REAL physical bodies and as Christ shows after His resurrection in His own EATING FOOD with the disciples - they EAT.

All that "imagination" is nothing more than "imagination" it is not Bible, not fact - it is simply "speculation".

Why on earth people treat speculation as "Bible fact" is beyond me.

That is the "mystery" that I can not explain. Though you keep asking me to.

[

Can you "imagine" the function of the robes of light worn by the Angels?

Can you "imagine" how they must function? How they provide insulation from cold, the ability to survive space, water, manage temp etc?

Can you "imagine" what it would have been like to have one of those "Robes of light" instead of standing around "just naked" every day?

The point is that God "could do a lot of things" -- and I seriously doubt that Adam and Eve were walking around without a kind of robe of light - I doubt that we will be walking around naked in heaven.

I doubt that the disciples saw Moses and Elijah standing naked as they spoke with Christ in Matt 17.

Having only a fraction of the data - you can not simply go off into left field about "nobody in heaven".

No Bible text says that.

No text says that we have no blood in heaven. All we know is that this decaying, dying body is not the one that is taken to heaven for "our bodies will be TRANSFORMED" Phil 3:21. And we shall "be like Him" for we shall "SEE HIM as HE IS" 1John 3.


In Christ,

Bob

 

Let's stick with the most apparent and obvious part of the story for answering the question.

God told them not to eat of the forbidden Tree. Eve "clearly knows it" since she states it clearly in chapter 3.

But Satan is trying to convince Eve that God lied. HOW does He do it? What is his argument based on?

Exactly right.

And that is exactly Satan's argument with Eve - that either God did not mean what He said OR that what HE said would be the result of rebellion is not LITERALLY what will be the result of rebellion in real life.

The SAME arguments we hear today - every day.

But then Satan PROVES His point by showing a talking snake - "apparently" given the power to talk by the forbidden fruit.

So "apparently" the fruit does not "kill on contact" as Eve thought it might.

Satan was "disproving god" using data - fact - experiment "proof" -- "science".

I am sure that would have had a huge impact on them. No doubt!

But it would not have given enough "distance" to protect free will.

Now you are talking! The same mechanism that Adam and Eve took to get to utter failure is exactly what we tend to do ourselves -- and it is exactly what we must fight.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Ge 1:14
¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Ge 1:15
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Ge 1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Ge 1:17
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Ge 1:18
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Ge 1:19
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


BobRyan;
You biblical comprehension and prowess is astounding!!!

What part of "He made the stars also" do you not understand here?
this happened on DAY FOUR!!!!!
Duh.

 

The part where He numbers them as "TWO" instead of "a zillion and two"

ON day Four "God made TWO great lights"

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Ge 1:15
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Ge 1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

 

God seems to have allowed Eve to come to a point where the only successful course was to say "I do not fully understand how you are able to do what you are doing mr snake - but I am going to stay faithful to God's Word - ANYWAY - I will continue to trust the Word of my Creator".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Which account of creation? Genesis 1 or Genesis 2?

 

There is only God's account of creation. :saint:

 

Ummm... no, there are two. One is found in Genesis 1, and the second begins in Genesis 2. Read it, you'll see.

So... agreeing that both accounts are theologically true, which one is historically and scientifically accurate?

 

The FIRST is the ONE AND ONLY chronological SEQUENCE where the actual TIME for each event AS well as its sequence is presented.

The SECOND PRESUMES the first and INSERTS into that the institution of marriage and the "rules" that are later tested in the "fall of mankind".

An obvious solution if you are not married to evolutionism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Well said. To place faith in the Bible over the myths and junk-science of atheist humanism is the essence of what it means to turn from darkness to light.

In Romans 1 God declares that even the godless pagans are made aware of this fact as they SEE the invisible attributes of God in what HAS BEEN MADE.

In Christ,

Bob

 

OK, OK, so if I think (as most Biblical scholars) that there are two accounts, and that they are hymnal and not scientific/historical in nature, I'm a Godless evolutionist.

:tonofbricks:

At least I know what kind of "thinker" I'm speaking with.

 

Dumping bricks on your head for making that kind of post is very appropriate - now back to the topic.

By NOT "glossing over the detail" that the Gen 1-2:3 is a "CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE" and Gen 2:4-end "is NOT" we get to a very strong Biblically sound position that does not marry itself to Richard Dawkin's atheist darwinism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

And, I suppose, we get to insulate ourselves from having to actually understand Scripture in its historical context, thus making it whatever we are most comfortable with.

I don't know (or, for that matter, care) who Richard Dawkins is. I do, however, care that Scripture is treated with dignity. Shoving it into a little "it has to be my way or no way at all" box is not treating it with dignity.

Why is the only defense of your position "If you don't think my way you believe humans descended from monkeys?"

 

No serious Bible student ever corrupted the text of Genesis "enough" to imagine that it does not actually reference the 7 evenings and mornings that it SAYS it references!!

No serious Bible student could ever read the SUMMARY of Gen 1-2:3 as GIVEN in Exodus 20:8-11 "FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE... and rested the seventh day" - and come away with anything but the BIBLE position on "7 evenings and mornings".

Once we admit to the glaringly obvious on that point.

Then we go on to allow ourselves to notice the incredibly obvious point that Gen 1-2:3 IS a CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE - with events framed in time units well known and REFERENECE in summary in Exodus 20:8-11.

Gen 2:5 through the end "by contrast" does NOT provide a chronological sequence with events framed inside of clear time boundaries --

Incredibly obvious to even the most disinterested readers of God's Word.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Sure, Bob, writing words in all caps convinces me of your rightness...

Plenty of serious Bible students have read Genesis 1-3 exactly as I have described. The fact that you disagree with us does not make us less han serious, it merely makes us different.

You really should learn to have fun from time to time.

 

Sure make wild claims that you are allowed to gloss over these inconvenient Bible facts (inconvenient if one is trying to ignore the text) - because "some others do it".

But - in the end - that does nothing to sustain your argument - the Bible deteails so inconvenient to what you have proposed -- remain.

The "Chronological sequence" IS as scientific as one could wish without actually having a "laboratory zipped back in time". When God says that He did something in exactly one evening and morning - we can "trust him" without saying "Atheist darwinist must also agree to that fact or else I am going to ignore it as pure --- hymnal".

In Christ,

Bob

 

I haven't followed this thread ... why is it you two are at each throat? To me it looks from this last page you both believe in the omnipotence of God?