Men as trees walking

[vagabond]

Hi all, it's been a long time since I've posted. I'm sure some will remember me. I found a study online, a view of the human body and how it compares to scripture. I am simply fascinated by it and wanted to share it with you folks and examine any responses. Here's the link: http://www.gem-international.org/dayspring/Men%20as%20Trees%20Walking.pdf

I hope posting this was okay.....enjoy.

[a.baker]

hmmm interesting. I don't know. I see symbolism but interpretations are hard to trust if thats the way it is. I'm too new to studying scripture so I better back away. But thanks for sharing.

[CoreIssue]

When you go to the main site you find beliefs of our spirits being preexistent and and mention of God being in all things plus many other errors.

This is not Christian, it is more metaphysical in nature, actually gnostic.

Not good.

I am moving it to your forum in. It isn't news or an article, it is a belief system.

[vagabond]

Hi A.baker,
hmmm interesting. I don't know. I see symbolism but interpretations are hard to trust if thats the way it is. I'm too new to studying scripture so I better back away. But thanks for sharing.


Yeah, I haven't had a chance to dissect it completly myself. I carefully used the word "simply" fascinating, because it hasn't been tried yet, atleast by myself. Sometimes sharing things with different folk helps to shed light on a matter.

My main fascination is, how fearfully and wonderfully made man is. The Father sure seemed to take his time to create mankind as a very "fitting" vessel.

[vagabond]

When you go to the main site you find beliefs of our spirits being preexistent and and mention of God being in all things plus many other errors.

This is not Christian, it is more metaphysical in nature, actually gnostic.

Not good.

I am moving it to your forum in. It isn't news or an article, it is a belief system.


I was interested in the study of the human nervous system in comparison to scripture. After checking out their main site, I could see Cores concerns. However neither their belief, nor Cores beliefs can change the facts. So I did some further research on the human brain and nervous system, challenging this particular study for it's validity. So far the science is "Bang-on".

Of course then their is the "symbolisms" suggested when compared to the bible.

Man is created in the image of God, separate from other animals. Yet science shows much evidence in similarities between man and say, "apes", or "chimps". However the greatest separation is how the brain works, especially in the "way" it receives knowledge, via the nervous system.

Here is a link to an obvious non-christian site, http://web.me.com/wm_sharp/I-Mammal/Mammal_Brain.html

Warning this is a secular site, it's creation view and the views of the religious site provided in the original post may not reflect your views. To be used as refernce to a scientific study.

Here's a quote taken from above link:
Mammals inherited the brain of a reptile and added on to it. Reptiles are good at surviving, but not at playing well with others. Reptiles can’t stand each others’ company because their brains perceive others as potential predators. Mammals evolved a new brain system that releases feel-good chemicals in response to fellow mammals. Not just any fellow, of course. A mammal has the reptilian good sense to recognize a predator in order to survive. The genius of the mammal brain is its ability to distinguish friend from foe. We can release either happy chemicals or danger chemicals depending on how a new experience fits what we’ve learned from past experience


This site, unlike the original site I provided, is doing all it can to keep the human and mammal brain as similar as possible. And though there are many similarities, there is no similarity in the "way" the human brain funtions.

Here's a lquote from original site:

The human brain has three major divisions.
The large dome shaped

cerebrum (the upper brain) is responsible for intelligence and reasoning
and is unique to man. The smaller, somewhat spherical cerebellum
(midbrain) helps to maintain balance and controls body
movement. The cerebrum is present in animals. The medulla or pons
is the lower brain and is responsible for maintaining respiration and
is a gateway for electrical impulses to and from the body via the 31
spinal cord nerves. This lower brain is sometimes called the reptilian
brain, because it is the only brain configuration present in reptiles.




So, strangely enough, science has recognized the reptile serpent that imposes itself right in the midst of
the mind. For what science sees in the lower brain is that brain system which is seen in reptiles. Those
of mankind who dwell primarily in the thoughts of the flesh and lower brain are very cold hearted and
unloving. So, if our land or earth is being controlled by either the reptilian and animal realms of the


brain, we have a war on our hands to reclaim it.



What I haven't shown, but will at a later date, is the two nervous systems, AKA TREES, used to receive and relay messages to and from the brain. One system is exclusive to animals the other for humans. However humans have the ability to pull from either source.

Enjoy.

[CoreIssue]

Of course a sole architect will have similarities. And the nervous system is complex.

But there are no comparisons between such and the Bible. None. You cannot attach freewill, salvation, emotion and the rest to 'Trees.'

God is a God of order, not chaos. So all he does will have organization and flow to it.

[vagabond]

But there are no comparisons between such and the Bible. None. You cannot attach freewill, salvation, emotion and the rest to 'Trees.'


That would seem a "two part" challenge.

The first part:
"There are no comparisons between such and the bible". None.

I have to assume you haven't studied out the evidence.

The comparisons have been given in the link provided.

It would be much more interesting discussion if you were to challenge one of the many comparisons provided in the study.

As for the second part of the challenge:You cannot attach freewill, salvation, emotion and the rest to 'Trees.'

The Bible has already attached, freewill, salvation and emotion to 'trees'.
i.e the tree of life, the tree of knowledge, the cross and more.

[CoreIssue]

But there are no comparisons between such and the Bible. None. You cannot attach freewill, salvation, emotion and the rest to 'Trees.'
That would seem a "two part" challenge.

The first part:
"There are no comparisons between such and the bible". None.

I have to assume you haven't studied out the evidence.
You assume incorrectly.
The comparisons have been given in the link provided.
Based on assumptions of meaning that are not there.
It would be much more interesting discussion if you were to challenge one of the many comparisons provided in the study.
The base assumption is wrong. you cannot reduce the Biblical issues to a tree system analysis of that nature.
As for the second part of the challenge:You cannot attach freewill, salvation, emotion and the rest to 'Trees.'The Bible has already attached, freewill, salvation and emotion to 'trees'.
i.e the tree of life, the tree of knowledge, the cross and more.
No, it has not. You can add 'tree' to concepts all over the place and that does not make it so.

Good grief, wood, stone and mud were the common construction materials of the day. What else would they have made the cross out of?

The cross was not a concept cooked up for Christ, it was one of the most painful death tools the Romans had been using for a very long time.

Freewill didn't come from the Tree of Life. It was breathed directly in by God at Adam's creation.

Eve was not a tree limb from Adam. Adam was divided from her. Both were the same but different. Trees do not become different.

That is three examples that simply refute you claims.

[vagabond]

To say,


But there are no comparisons between such and the Bible. None.


Here's a definition of the word comparison,http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/comparison

You are wrong by definition.

Perhaps you mean to say there are no similarities, if so, you'd still be wrong.

To say, You cannot attach freewill, salvation, emotion and the rest to 'Trees.'

seems a bit hastey.

If Adam was to partake of the tree of life he would live forever, hence salvation from death.

The tree of knowledge was pleasant to look at (creating an emotion) and eating the fruit caused their eyes to open to their nakedness causing "shame" another emotion.

Looks like you are wrong on both counts.

I suggest chewing your food, so to speak. You don't care for the concept of the study, I can accept that and move on. But to say there is not one comparison at all? None?:scratch:

[CoreIssue]

To say,


But there are no comparisons between such and the Bible. None.
Here's a definition of the word comparison,http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/comparison

You are wrong by definition.

Perhaps you mean to say there are no similarities, if so, you'd still be wrong.
I disagree.
To say, You cannot attach freewill, salvation, emotion and the rest to 'Trees.'seems a bit hastey.
After 48 years of study I hardly think that statement applies.
If Adam was to partake of the tree of life he would live forever, hence salvation from death.
Nope. That is not salvation. Don't confuse physical life and death with spiritual life and death. The Tree was about physical, not spiritual, and thus why they were thrown out of the Garden. God was not going to let sinners live forever controlling the earth.

They had NO way of salvation back then. That only comes through Christ.
The tree of knowledge was pleasant to look at (creating an emotion) and eating the fruit caused their eyes to open to their nakedness causing "shame" another emotion.
Nope.
Looks like you are wrong on both counts.
Nope.
I suggest chewing your food, so to speak. You don't care for the concept of the study, I can accept that and move on. But to say there is not one comparison at all? None?:scratch:
Yep. No comparison.

Vagabond, I am not a novice or a beginner in these issues. I have asked questions and studied issues you have not even thought of yet.

[vagabond]

I disagree.


Doesn't change the meaning, or the facts.

Quote:
If Adam was to partake of the tree of life he would live forever, hence salvation from death.
Nope. That is not salvation. Don't confuse physical life and death with spiritual life and death. The Tree was about physical, not spiritual, and thus why they were thrown out of the Garden. God was not going to let sinners live forever controlling the earth.

They had NO way of salvation back then. That only comes through Christ.



My position was not a doctrinal one, I was responding to: You cannot attach freewill, salvation, emotion and the rest to 'Trees.'


I'm simply providing evidence to the contrary. To say one cannot attach freewill, salvation, or emotion to 'trees', is suggesting that the tree of knowledge and the tree of life are not physical and did not have the abilities that the Bible describes.

I'm confident it's not necessary, but let me show scripture:
Genesis 3:22 (http://christiantalkzone.net/passage/?search=Genesis+3:22&version=AMP)
And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us [the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit], to know [how to distinguish between] good and evil and blessing and calamity; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever--

This clearly shows that I can, by using the bible, attach salvation to a 'tree'. That was part of the challenge.

Quote:
The tree of knowledge was pleasant to look at (creating an emotion) and eating the fruit caused their eyes to open to their nakedness causing "shame" another emotion.
Nope.
Quote:
Looks like you are wrong on both counts.
Nope.
Quote:
I suggest chewing your food, so to speak. You don't care for the concept of the study, I can accept that and move on. But to say there is not one comparison at all? None?:scratch:
Yep. No comparison.



Then you should provide your own definition to the word 'compare', as I have.

I'm a bit surprised that you don't think the human brain and nervous system, which scientist to this day still claim to be the most complex thing they have ever investigated in the universe, that was created in a being that was created in the image of God, can in no way be compared to scripture.

Is this a valid scripture?: Rom 1:20) For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],

Vagabond, I am not a novice or a beginner in these issues. I have asked questions and studied issues you have not even thought of yet.


Are you asking me to stand down because you are superior?
I have a lot of respect for your knowledge and research.
However facts are facts.

[CoreIssue]

Vagabond, I am telling you that your 'facts' are not 'facts' but 'symbolic theory' that does conform to the Bible.

Man had freewill before the Trees of Life and Knowledge. Living forever physically would not have been salvation. You really need to learn word meanings and what is being talked about before merging such issues.

Show me where it ever says eating the fruit = salvation. Justify your assumption.

Satan and the Fallen Angels cannot physically die, so do they have salvation?

The Tree of Life was about physical existence, not spiritual.

The human nervous system has nothing to do in comparison with issues of salvation, knowledge, creation of Adam and Eve or any of that. You are attempting to roll spiritual and physical issues into on issue, which cannot be done.

I am not telling you to stand down, I am telling you to knock off the statements where you keep trying to lower my studies and knowledge to your levels, that we are somehow equals in knowledge. We are not.

[vagabond]

Vagabond, I am telling you that your 'facts' are not 'facts' but 'symbolic theory' that does conform to the Bible.


You stated that I cannot compare anything from the study to scripture. The word compare is a fairly general term. In fact there doesn't have to even be similarities between two things for one to 'compare' them with each other. You seemed very anxious to dismiss the entire study right from the beginning. And that is fine, I have no problem with that. However the study is based on scientific fact and I see some very interesting comparisons. I could pretty much guarantee you that if I and those who provided the study were to discuss our doctrinal views we would be at great odds. I'm not promoting them, I'm looking with intrest at their study and fishing for comments. You don't want to comment in particular and I'm good with that. Is it so terrible to you that I find this interesting?

Man had freewill before the Trees of Life and Knowledge. Living forever physically would not have been salvation. You really need to learn word meanings and what is being talked about before merging such issues.


I have not claimed that it gave free will, because I agree that it doesn't. You threww freewill in with salvation and emotions. Here it is again:You cannot attach freewill, salvation, emotion and the rest to 'Trees.'


It would have saved them from perishing. I'm glad that they weren't allowed to eat or we'd all have been doomed. However it is a form of salvation, even if it's not the form intended. Let's not forget the challenge, I simply need to show a comparison. My job is easy.

Show me where it ever says eating the fruit = salvation. Justify your assumption.


The question isn't that it provides salvation, it obviously does. The question is, 'salvation from what'? Or, 'what salvation'?

Satan and the Fallen Angels cannot physically die, so do they have salvation?


Were they ever in jeapourdy of death?

The Tree of Life was about physical existence, not spiritual.


And Adam would have been saved from a "Physical" death. How many people would be satisfied with that type of salvation? In their ignorance perhaps, but they still would call it salvation. This study shows how the human mind draws from different parts of the body. Science has shown that people who more often think from the lowest 'reptilian' brain are more anti-social and cold towards others. Learning how the brain works in comparison to scripture, if that's possible, could lead to some major breakthroughs. Could it be a new way to get into heaven? Even I'm not that foolish, but just as some enjoy studying types and shadows, or the bible code, I enjoy the similarities of the brain. The two hemispheres, the four regions, the three levels, the lowest for serpents, the next for animals and the highest for man. Even Noahs ark was set up in three stages separating animals. Or the three heavens and there occupants. Or the depths of the tabernacle of Moses.

Man is fearfully and wonerfully made, I see no harm in taking a look and even comparing it to scripture.

The human nervous system has nothing to do in comparison with issues of salvation, knowledge, creation of Adam and Eve or any of that. You are attempting to roll spiritual and physical issues into on issue, which cannot be done.


Well let me take the easy challenge, if I may?
"knowledge", the nervous system has everything to do with knowledge and how we receive it. People receive their knowledge through the nervous system and to the brain through two separate nerve trees (the dendrite). The character of a person depends soley on which nervous system is feeding their brain the most. There are three levels of the brain and each level sends and receives information through one or the other of these nervous systems.

Let's face it, man is made in the image of God. Now I and others are starting to see just how much in his image we are made.

Here's a thought, when Adam and Eve partook of the tree of knowledge, their eyes were opened. It matters not which eyes that is referring to, it only matters that they were 'aware' of a different knowledge. God thought something of it, he stated, now man has become as one of us. I wonder just what changes may have happened to them. What did this fruit of knowledge wake up in them, physically?

I am not telling you to stand down, I am telling you to knock off the statements where you keep trying to lower my studies and knowledge to your levels, that we are somehow equals in knowledge. We are not.

Please adress this accusation directly, I made statements lowering "YOUR" studies (plural or singular) to my lower level? Please provide an example.

As to your boast about our knowledge level I quickly and happily concede. You have much, much more knowledge. However, according to scripture, that is not necessarily a good thing. And to be fair, it's not necessarily a bad thing either, I think.:scratch:

[CoreIssue]

Sigh, not all things are comparable, likes the old saying, "Apples and oranges."

Salvation has a restricted meaning in the Bible. What you are talking about isn't it.

Angels and Satan did suffer death, spiritual, in the meaning of separated from God, not ceasing to exist. But never physical.

When Adam and Eve sinned they died spiritually. Nothing changed physically, the spiritual death disrupted the physical perfection and they began to age, etc. Eating from the tree would not have given them spiritual life, but kept them going physically. So they could not have been 'saved' in the Biblical meaning of the word. They would have been like those of the Second Resurrection, in the flesh, walking around, but most assuredly spiritually dead.

You have to be careful what words you use when they have special use meanings in the Bible.

And the mind is NOT based on the flesh alone. It cannot exist without the spiritual component, which blows your tree comparison out the window.

As for that old garbage of the reptile brain and such. Pure nonsense based on evolution, which never happened.

The nervous system does not have everything to do with knowledge and has nothing to do with wisdom. We are triune beings, flesh, spirit and mind. You are reducing us to physical beings like animals.

Finally, I was not boasting. Just making it real clear you needed to get over telling me how I needed to be open to new thoughts and learning when the levels you are talking about I moved passed over 30 years ago. One does learn with time unless they are stagnate or not 'open minded' to new considerations.

Before you start even trying to do these symbolic analysis you need to first firmly get a good grasp on the Bible, 'literally,' not symbolically.

[vagabond]

Sigh, not all things are comparable, likes the old saying, "Apples and oranges."


You just compared them and confirmed they are not alike. Get a dictionary and follow the meaning.

Salvation has a restricted meaning in the Bible. What you are talking about isn't it.


Never said it didn't, in fact I made that clear. I noticed you have stopped using the quote method. Makes it a lot easier to twist and turn I suppose.

Angels and Satan did suffer death, spiritual, in the meaning of separated from God, not ceasing to exist. But never physical.


Again, you introduced this, I did not. Never said it, have never made the claim. You are evading the issue.

When Adam and Eve sinned they died spiritually. Nothing changed physically, the spiritual death disrupted the physical perfection and they began to age, etc. Eating from the tree would not have given them spiritual life, but kept them going physically. So they could not have been 'saved' in the Biblical meaning of the word. They would have been like those of the Second Resurrection, in the flesh, walking around, but most assuredly spiritually dead.



Nothing changed physically, the spiritual death disrupted the physical perfection and they began to age, etc.


You contridicted yourself in this sentence. Nothing physical changed, but they began to die?:scratch:

Obvious changes happened after they partook of the tree of knowledge,
1. their eyes were opened (physical change)
2. they saw their nakedness (if they were not aware of it before this would constitute quite a change in their new awareness.
3. they were ashamed ( a new emotion).

You have to be careful what words you use when they have special use meanings in the Bible.


You chose the word, I gave the proper meaning and explanation. Refer back to the answers I provided. You are twisting again.

And the mind is NOT based on the flesh alone. It cannot exist without the spiritual component, which blows your tree comparison out the window.


An excellent observation! Looks as though I got you going through the study after all. It hurts to get you going, but if one is patience enough and is able to endure some long suffering, it's worth it.

Now for clarification, it 'cannot' or it 'would not'? The difference is very important, it could even explain why man began to die when the spiritual part of him did. You may have helped their claim far more then I.:tiphat:

And just for future reference, my claims have been duly noted, I have never claimed this study is full proof. I claimed it interested me, but needs to be tested.

As for that old garbage of the reptile brain and such. Pure nonsense based on evolution, which never happened.


Wrong again. Nothing to do with evolution, although many twist it that way. You are denying scientific evidence without any of your own. Provide any one scientist who claims we donot have the three brain system. Any scientist that claims that the lowest part of the human brain, referred to as 'reptolian' directly because reptiles have this brain. That is an irreputable claim and reminds me of someone stamping their feet to get their way.

The nervous system does not have everything to do with knowledge and has nothing to do with wisdom. We are triune beings, flesh, spirit and mind. You are reducing us to physical beings like animals.


Wrong again, it has everything to do with knowledge, even and especially what the spirit reveals. We know the spirit speaks to us, we are not exactly sure which channels, if any it may use to get to the brain. The Bible speaks often of the spirit dwelling in the heart of man. The nervous system is connected to the heart.

And wisdom is a balance of knowledge, not the accumulation of it. You have a lot of knowledge, no doubt. I'll leave your wisdom for God to judge. My current observations would only anger you.

Finally, I was not boasting. Just making it real clear you needed to get over telling me how I needed to be open to new thoughts and learning when the levels you are talking about I moved passed over 30 years ago. One does learn with time unless they are stagnate or not 'open minded' to new considerations.


Again, another false accusation. I have never told you to be open to new thoughts. I asked you to answer this accusation 'directly', show me where I told you this. Are you responding to the right post? Or are you mixing me up with someone else? Or can you show me where I said you need to be open to new thoughts?

Answering question in this manner, time and time again as you do, would get you a warning from a moderator on most forums I've been on.

Before you start even trying to do these symbolic analysis you need to first firmly get a good grasp on the Bible, 'literally,' not symbolically.

Accusing me of being a biblical illiterate doesn't change the facts at hand.

I would appreciate it if you would include a quote from me when you make accusations, such as are noted in this post.

[CoreIssue]

You are all over the place and obviously do not get the points I am making.

Example is your comment on the spirit in us and speaking in answering my comment. You showed a lack of knowledge there because before Pentecost the Holy Spirit dwelt in no one. I was talking about YOUR spirit being a part of YOUR mind, and it isn't physical, but you would not be alive without it.

And salvation is purely a spiritual issue in the Bible. Twist, spin and whatever you want to try you cannot make it physical.

Your flesh is not nor ever can be saved. It can be glorified, but not saved.

So, you really need to learn the basics before you try to do these studies. You are not ready.

[vagabond]

You are all over the place and obviously do not get the points I am making.



I'm all over the place? Hmmmm...

Example is your comment on the spirit in us and speaking in answering my comment. You showed a lack of knowledge there because before Pentecost the Holy Spirit dwelt in no one. I was talking about YOUR spirit being a part of YOUR mind, and it isn't physical, but you would not be alive without it.


So then, you are saying that Adam's spirit died when he ate the fruit of knowledge?
Yet you say the brain has a spirit and your not talking about the holy spirit?

I need some clarification on that.

And salvation is purely a spiritual issue in the Bible. Twist, spin and whatever you want to try you cannot make it physical.


And you obviously cannot show my spin, or you would have provided a quote.
The challenge was not 'what' salvation the tree of life provides. The challenge is it provides 'salvation'.

Your flesh is not nor ever can be saved. It can be glorified, but not saved.


Because I have no access to the tree of life?

Did the tree of life have the ability to 'save' Adam's flesh 'IF' he stayed in the garden and partook of it? Keep in mind, scripture clearly states why the Lord God removed man.

So, you really need to learn the basics before you try to do these studies. You are not ready.

Okay, thanks for your opinion.

I'll work hard on getting ready:D

[CoreIssue]

Example is your comment on the spirit in us and speaking in answering my comment. You showed a lack of knowledge there because before Pentecost the Holy Spirit dwelt in no one. I was talking about YOUR spirit being a part of YOUR mind, and it isn't physical, but you would not be alive without it.
So then, you are saying that Adam's spirit died when he ate the fruit of knowledge?
Yes.
Yet you say the brain has a spirit and your not talking about the holy spirit? No. The Brain does not have a spirit.

What is uniquely YOU is not physical, it is spirit in composition. God is a spirit, angels are spirits and you have a spirit. You body is a container, a vehicle and mobile suite or whatever you prefer.
I need some clarification on that. You need to learn the basics and top doing these odd ball research 'comprisons' until you do.
And salvation is purely a spiritual issue in the Bible. Twist, spin and whatever you want to try you cannot make it physical.
And you obviously cannot show my spin, or you would have provided a quote.
The challenge was not 'what' salvation the tree of life provides. The challenge is it provides 'salvation'.

Your flesh is not nor ever can be saved. It can be glorified, but not saved.
Because I have no access to the tree of life?Because only a personage can be saved. It is not personage, but a container.

When you die your spirit lives on, your flesh become dirt again.
Did the tree of life have the ability to 'save' Adam's flesh 'IF' he stayed in the garden and partook of it? Keep in mind, scripture clearly states why the Lord God removed man.OK, you insisting on using the word saved has been explained already why it is wrong.

I will not address it again since you obviously are ignoring the Biblical meaning of the word.

The Tree of Life was nothing to do with salvation.
So, you really need to learn the basics before you try to do these studies. You are not ready. Okay, thanks for your opinion.

I'll work hard on getting ready:D
Not an opinion, a fact. A student does not more on to advanced studies and research until he learns the fundamentals.

[vagabond]

Here is a quote from you:

I was talking about YOUR spirit being a part of YOUR mind, and it isn't physical, but you would not be alive without it.


Here is a quote in your next post:

No. The Brain does not have a spirit.


So the brain has a mind, your spirit is part of your mind, but not a part of your brain?

The Tree of Life was nothing to do with salvation.

Could you explain it's purpose?

When Adam and Eve sinned they died spiritually. Nothing changed physically, the spiritual death disrupted the physical perfection and they began to age, etc. Eating from the tree would not have given them spiritual life, but kept them going physically. So they could not have been 'saved' in the Biblical meaning of the word. They would have been like those of the Second Resurrection, in the flesh, walking around, but most assuredly spiritually dead.

Please explains specifically how they died spiritually.

Keeping in mind your quote above YOUR spirit being a part of YOUR mind, and it isn't physical, but you would not be alive without it. If this spirit didn't die what spirit died?

[CoreIssue]

Here is a quote from you:

I was talking about YOUR spirit being a part of YOUR mind, and it isn't physical, but you would not be alive without it.
Here is a quote in your next post:

No. The Brain does not have a spirit.
So the brain has a mind, your spirit is part of your mind, but not a part of your brain?
Your problem is you try to make everything physical.

Spirit is not physical in any way. The mind is the input of the flesh and the body. It is both but not centered in the brain. There is nothing physical that accounts for self, reasoning and personality. The mind acts through the brain in this world but is not created by the brain. It transcends flesh.

Your not going to be able to explain mind in a lab.
The Tree of Life was nothing to do with salvation.Could you explain it's purpose?Not dying physically.

There are trees of life in the New Jerusalem where we eat freely for eternity. Essential to ongoing existence, no, because we have pure spirits in pure bodies. Saved spirits and glorified bodies.

When they sinned the lost the right to eat the fruit.
When Adam and Eve sinned they died spiritually. Nothing changed physically, the spiritual death disrupted the physical perfection and they began to age, etc. Eating from the tree would not have given them spiritual life, but kept them going physically. So they could not have been 'saved' in the Biblical meaning of the word. They would have been like those of the Second Resurrection, in the flesh, walking around, but most assuredly spiritually dead.Please explains specifically how they died spiritually. It means they lost their relationship with God and thus all the good he gives.

Notice no sex or birth until then? Birth comes from death. They didn't face death until the sinned.
Keeping in mind your quote above YOUR spirit being a part of YOUR mind, and it isn't physical, but you would not be alive without it. If this spirit didn't die what spirit died?
Spiritual death does not mean cease to exist.

[vagabond]

Your problem is you try to make everything physical.

Actually I've never in my life considered the spirit or the mind as physical. I was trying to follow your train of thought.

Quote:
Quote:
The Tree of Life was nothing to do with salvation.
Could you explain it's purpose?
Not dying physically.



Are you saying Adam would have to eat from this tree or he would have died, even if he hadn't taken of the tree of knowledge? If yes, then how often? Once, or on a regular basis?

There are trees of life in the New Jerusalem where we eat freely for eternity. Essential to ongoing existence, no, because we have pure spirits in pure bodies. Saved spirits and glorified bodies.



Trees we eat from for pleasure, or of neccesity?

You mention trees as a plural, so there is more then one?

Birth comes from death.

Do you consider this a fundamental truth, a "principal"? Or does it depend on what is giving birth? ie. spirit, mankind, animals, fish...etc?

[CoreIssue]

Your problem is you try to make everything physical.Actually I've never in my life considered the spirit or the mind as physical. I was trying to follow your train of thought.
But like it or not your 'theory' did just that.
Quote:
Quote:
The Tree of Life was nothing to do with salvation.
Could you explain it's purpose?
Not dying physically.

Are you saying Adam would have to eat from this tree or he would have died, even if he hadn't taken of the tree of knowledge? If yes, then how often? Once, or on a regular basis?[/QUOTE]
No. You are not paying attention to all I said.

Once he ate from the Tree of Knowledge he had to eat from the Tree of Life or he would age and die. God disallowed that.
There are trees of life in the New Jerusalem where we eat freely for eternity. Essential to ongoing existence, no, because we have pure spirits in pure bodies. Saved spirits and glorified bodies.

Trees we eat from for pleasure, or of neccesity?I said not of necessity? Are you reading what I said??
You mention trees as a plural, so there is more then one?In the NJ they line the streets.
Birth comes from death.Do you consider this a fundamental truth, a "principal"? Or does it depend on what is giving birth? ie. spirit, mankind, animals, fish...etc?[/QUOTE]
Fundamental truth for flesh beings. Our spirits have not nor ever will give birth. Nor do angels, demons or the still perfect Pre-Adamic Company.

[vagabond]

Once he ate from the Tree of Knowledge he had to eat from the Tree of Life or he would age and die. God disallowed that.


So the tree of life has one sole purpose, it was there incase Adam ate from the tree of knowledge, but if he partook of the tree of knowledge he wouldn't be allowed the other?


I said not of necessity? Are you reading what I said??


No offence intended, I often repeat what I think you're saying back to you in question form, so as to get confirmation.


Our spirits have not nor ever will give birth. Nor do angels, demons or the still perfect Pre-Adamic Company.


I'm thinking more along the lines of of:
Gen 1:20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "[B]I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

Doesn't this suggest that animals gave birth and the trees had seed for reproducing purposes?

[CoreIssue]

But reproduce WHEN?

God made Adam and Eve man and women but there was no reproduction until the Fall.

The animals were not meat eaters, but vegetarians, before the Fall, so what they ate regrew.

Trees of Life in Heaven one can eat from but the fruit just regrows as well.

See the pattern?

[vagabond]

But reproduce WHEN?


No conditions are given, so go with the obvious.

God made Adam and Eve man and women but there was no reproduction until the Fall.


Before the tree of knowledge they had no such desire's or instincts of the flesh. Seeing their nakedness for the first time woke new desires and lusts, they never knew before. Their 'eyes' were open, I've asked you this before, what eyes?

The animals were not meat eaters, but vegetarians, before the Fall, so what they ate regrew.


This is a very common mistake made by many, let's look at the verse you most likely make this assumption from:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/gifs/copyChkboxOn.gifGen 1:29 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=1&v=29&t=KJV#29)And God 430 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H430&t=KJV) said 559 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H559&t=KJV) , Behold 2009 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2009&t=KJV), I have given 5414 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5414&t=KJV) you every herb 6212 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6212&t=KJV) bearing 2232 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2232&t=KJV) seed 2233 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2233&t=KJV), which [is] upon the face 6440 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6440&t=KJV) of all the earth 776 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H776&t=KJV), and every tree 6086 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6086&t=KJV), in the which [is] the fruit 6529 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6529&t=KJV) of a tree 6086 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6086&t=KJV) yielding 2232 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2232&t=KJV) seed 2233 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2233&t=KJV); to you it shall be 1961 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1961&t=KJV) for meat 402 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H402&t=KJV). http://www.blueletterbible.org/gifs/copyChkboxOn.gifGen 1:30 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=1&v=30&t=KJV#30)And to every beast 2416 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2416&t=KJV) of the earth 776 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H776&t=KJV), and to every fowl 5775 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5775&t=KJV) of the air 8064 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8064&t=KJV), and to every thing that creepeth 7430 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7430&t=KJV) upon the earth 776 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H776&t=KJV), wherein [there is] life 2416 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2416&t=KJV) 5315 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5315&t=KJV), [I have given] every green 3418 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3418&t=KJV) herb 6212 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6212&t=KJV) for meat 402 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H402&t=KJV): and it was so.

The added word 'to' every beast, and to every fowl, and to everything that creepeth changes the whole context. Verse 30 is a continuation of verse 29 explaining what was given man for food.

Read the thought without the word 'to' added:
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; it shall be for meat.
30And every beast of the earth, and every fowl of the air, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

If you were to add the word 'to' in verse 29 as was done in verse 30, it would appear as if God was directing his words 'to' the herb bearing seed, and 'to' every tree.

Take the one two letter word 'to' out from where it doesn't belong and everything is back to it's own kind. A lion is a lion again, a wolf is a wolf, a dove is a dove.

Remember, Adam named the animals in the garden. Giving something a name is extremely important to God. He calls something 'exactly' as it is. The 'name' indicates the 'nature' by definition. If your claim was correct they would all have to be renamed according to their new nature.

Another problem would be their digestive system, their build for speed, strength, abilities of stealth, this list would go on and on. Their instinct as a predator or prey. Talk about physical changes!

And all this because the word 'to' was added to scripture.

No. Scripture, context, and common sense, denies this claim. Verse 29 and 30 are both explaining 'all' plants and animals were given man for meat.

Trees of Life in Heaven one can eat from but the fruit just regrows as well.

An assumption based to fit your personel beliefs.

See the pattern?

[CoreIssue]

But reproduce WHEN?
No conditions are given, so go with the obvious.
Yep, they didn't reproduce until the Fall.
God made Adam and Eve man and women but there was no reproduction until the Fall.
Before the tree of knowledge they had no such desire's or instincts of the flesh. Seeing their nakedness for the first time woke new desires and lusts, they never knew before. Their 'eyes' were open, I've asked you this before, what eyes?Already told you.
The animals were not meat eaters, but vegetarians, before the Fall, so what they ate regrew.This is a very common mistake made by many, let's look at the verse you most likely make this assumption from:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/gifs/copyChkboxOn.gifGen 1:29 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=1&v=29&t=KJV#29)And God 430 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H430&t=KJV) said 559 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H559&t=KJV) , Behold 2009 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2009&t=KJV), I have given 5414 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5414&t=KJV) you every herb 6212 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6212&t=KJV) bearing 2232 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2232&t=KJV) seed 2233 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2233&t=KJV), which [is] upon the face 6440 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6440&t=KJV) of all the earth 776 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H776&t=KJV), and every tree 6086 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6086&t=KJV), in the which [is] the fruit 6529 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6529&t=KJV) of a tree 6086 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6086&t=KJV) yielding 2232 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2232&t=KJV) seed 2233 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2233&t=KJV); to you it shall be 1961 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1961&t=KJV) for meat 402 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H402&t=KJV). http://www.blueletterbible.org/gifs/copyChkboxOn.gifGen 1:30 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=1&v=30&t=KJV#30)And to every beast 2416 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2416&t=KJV) of the earth 776 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H776&t=KJV), and to every fowl 5775 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5775&t=KJV) of the air 8064 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8064&t=KJV), and to every thing that creepeth 7430 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7430&t=KJV) upon the earth 776 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H776&t=KJV), wherein [there is] life 2416 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2416&t=KJV) 5315 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5315&t=KJV), [I have given] every green 3418 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3418&t=KJV) herb 6212 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6212&t=KJV) for meat 402 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H402&t=KJV): and it was so.

The added word 'to' every beast, and to every fowl, and to everything that creepeth changes the whole context. Verse 30 is a continuation of verse 29 explaining what was given man for food.

Read the thought without the word 'to' added:
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; it shall be for meat.
30And every beast of the earth, and every fowl of the air, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. Gee. Now you are smarter than all the linquists. Yea, right.
If you were to add the word 'to' in verse 29 as was done in verse 30, it would appear as if God was directing his words 'to' the herb bearing seed, and 'to' every tree. Where do you get this nonsense from?
Take the one two letter word 'to' out from where it doesn't belong and everything is back to it's own kind. A lion is a lion again, a wolf is a wolf, a dove is a dove. Any you, again, are trying to force now upon then.

You must love dealing with age spans up to 1,000 back the. Oh, yea, they go back up during the MK as well.
Remember, Adam named the animals in the garden. Giving something a name is extremely important to God. He calls something 'exactly' as it is. The 'name' indicates the 'nature' by definition. If your claim was correct they would all have to be renamed according to their new nature.
Or did the natures and diets change so the names evolved to match? Have you never heard of language evolution?

English has changes a lot in the last 100 years alone.

With or without 'to' it still says fruit, etc, not flesh, as meat. Your the one changing meanings.
Another problem would be their digestive system, their build for speed, strength, abilities of stealth, this list would go on and on. Their instinct as a predator or prey. No. They were physically perfect. The need for meat was not there yet.

You have no idea what their instincts were then. Not a clue.

And prophecy shoots your thinking in the head as well. In the future the lion and lamb ill lie down together and the snakes won't bite.
Talk about physical changes!No, talk about dietary change. An unused ability, like reproduction, does not mean the ability is not already there.

You make really bad assumptions.

Adam and Eve were male and female before they ever had sex. Their natures changes but they did not change physically to have sex.

Same with food. To be able to eat something does not mean you actually eat it.
And all this because the word 'to' was added to scripture.Again, linguists are wrong and you are right. Hmmmm.
No. Scripture, context, and common sense, denies this claim. Verse 29 and 30 are both explaining 'all' plants and animals were given man for meat. And again you have to rewrite the passage to get to that statement.

Trees of Life in Heaven one can eat from but the fruit just regrows as well.An assumption based to fit your personel beliefs. No. Based on the Bible, there are 12 crops a year stated.

Study before you comment on such things.
See the pattern?Obviously you don't.

And let me add, no animal flesh in the NJ. Hmmmm.

[vagabond]

Quote:
Quote:
The animals were not meat eaters, but vegetarians, before the Fall, so what they ate regrew.
This is a very common mistake made by many, let's look at the verse you most likely make this assumption from:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/gifs/copyChkboxOn.gifGen 1:29 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=1&v=29&t=KJV#29)And God 430 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H430&t=KJV) said 559 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H559&t=KJV) , Behold 2009 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2009&t=KJV), I have given 5414 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5414&t=KJV) you every herb 6212 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6212&t=KJV) bearing 2232 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2232&t=KJV) seed 2233 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2233&t=KJV), which [is] upon the face 6440 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6440&t=KJV) of all the earth 776 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H776&t=KJV), and every tree 6086 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6086&t=KJV), in the which [is] the fruit 6529 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6529&t=KJV) of a tree 6086 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6086&t=KJV) yielding 2232 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2232&t=KJV) seed 2233 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2233&t=KJV); to you it shall be 1961 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1961&t=KJV) for meat 402 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H402&t=KJV). http://www.blueletterbible.org/gifs/copyChkboxOn.gifGen 1:30 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=1&v=30&t=KJV#30)And to every beast 2416 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2416&t=KJV) of the earth 776 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H776&t=KJV), and to every fowl 5775 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5775&t=KJV) of the air 8064 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8064&t=KJV), and to every thing that creepeth 7430 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7430&t=KJV) upon the earth 776 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H776&t=KJV), wherein [there is] life 2416 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2416&t=KJV) 5315 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5315&t=KJV), [I have given] every green 3418 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3418&t=KJV) herb 6212 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6212&t=KJV) for meat 402 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H402&t=KJV): and it was so.

The added word 'to' every beast, and to every fowl, and to everything that creepeth changes the whole context. Verse 30 is a continuation of verse 29 explaining what was given man for food.

Read the thought without the word 'to' added:
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; it shall be for meat.
30And every beast of the earth, and every fowl of the air, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Gee. Now you are smarter than all the linquists. Yea, right.


Let's examine the flow of words and context.
In verse 28 God is telling man to have dominion over all the earth, to subdue everything that moves.
In verse 29 God begans explaining what he has given them for food.
In verse 30 It doesn't start with "and God said', it only continues describing things man has been given for food.

Saying I'm smarter then 'all' the linquist is wrong. The word of God without their additions is correct. Leaning on linquist for answers is the same as leaning on the arm of flesh.

The NIV may have come close to seeing it, in the bible search tool it shows the NIV putting both verses as one. They must have noticed that verse 30 doesn't start out with 'and God said'. Too bad they hadn't noticed the err of the previously adopted word 'to'.

Let's look at the verses with only the Hebrew words present:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/gifs/copyChkboxOn.gifGen 1:29 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=1&v=29&t=KJV#29)God 430 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H430&t=KJV) said 559 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H559&t=KJV) , Behold 2009 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2009&t=KJV), I give 5414 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5414&t=KJV) herb 6212 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6212&t=KJV) bearing 2232 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2232&t=KJV) seed 2233 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2233&t=KJV), upon the face 6440 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6440&t=KJV) of the whole earth 776 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H776&t=KJV), trees 6086 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6086&t=KJV), fruit 6529 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6529&t=KJV) of trees 6086 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6086&t=KJV) sowing 2232 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2232&t=KJV) seed 2233 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2233&t=KJV); shall be 1961 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1961&t=KJV) for meat 402 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H402&t=KJV). http://www.blueletterbible.org/gifs/copyChkboxOn.gifGen 1:30 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=1&v=30&t=KJV#30)every living creature 2416 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2416&t=KJV) of the earth 776 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H776&t=KJV), every fowl 5775 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5775&t=KJV) of the air 8064 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8064&t=KJV), and every thing that creepeth 7430 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7430&t=KJV) of the earth 776 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H776&t=KJV), wherein [there is] life 2416 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2416&t=KJV) 5315 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5315&t=KJV), every green 3418 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3418&t=KJV) herb 6212 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6212&t=KJV) for meat 402 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H402&t=KJV): and it was so.


The word of God is very clear when we see it without the additions.

Quote:
If you were to add the word 'to' in verse 29 as was done in verse 30, it would appear as if God was directing his words 'to' the herb bearing seed, and 'to' every tree.
Where do you get this nonsense from?


Exactly! If I was to add the word 'to' in verse 29, as it was added in verse 30. It would give a whole new meaning to the verse. Exactly what happened in verse 30. Adding the word 'to', makes it seem as if God is addressing the living creatures.

You called it 'nonsense' when I did it, and I agree, it's nonsense. In verse 30, God is not suddenly addressing animals as to what they have been given for food. That is ridiculous, he's obviously still talking to man, explainging what they have for food.

Any you, again, are trying to force now upon then.

I didn't write the scriptures, I'm reading them without all the additions and sub-tractions man has made with all his infinite wisdom.

You must love dealing with age spans up to 1,000 back the. Oh, yea, they go back up during the MK as well.


Not sure I understand the challenge here.

Or did the natures and diets change so the names evolved to match? Have you never heard of language evolution?


Weak. It's not just the 'diet' that would have to change. The teeth, jaws, digestive system and especially their survival instincts.

Your asking for a lot of changes to fit one verse with the added word 'to' in it.

Think about it, what scriptures support your theory that animals and vegetation DID NOT bear fruit before the fall?

With or without 'to' it still says fruit, etc, not flesh, as meat. Your the one changing meanings.

Actually I changed not one meaning, I ommitted the added word 'to' from one verse in the bible. It kept it's context, meaning, flow of scripture and common sense. It clearly names, beasts and birds are for food. One added word 'to' makes your assumption.

Think about it, your entire doctrine hangs on one two letter word 'to' that was added to scripture out of context. What if the linquists hadn't added that word, what would you base your doctrine on?


Quote:
And all this because the word 'to' was added to scripture.
Again, linguists are wrong and you are right. Hmmmm.


No. Again, linquist are wrong and the word of God is right. Hmmmm. I wonder if that's happened before?

Adam and Eve were male and female before they ever had sex. Their natures changes but they did not change physically to have sex.


Never said they did. They never noticed their nakedness before their eyes were opened. The desire for sex wasn't aroused.

Look at this verse and explain: http://www.blueletterbible.org/gifs/copyChkboxOn.gifGen 1:29 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=1&v=29&t=KJV#29)And God 430 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H430&t=KJV) said 559 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H559&t=KJV) , Behold 2009 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2009&t=KJV), I have given 5414 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5414&t=KJV) you every herb 6212 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6212&t=KJV) bearing 2232 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2232&t=KJV) seed 2233 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2233&t=KJV), which [is] upon the face 6440 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6440&t=KJV) of all the earth 776 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H776&t=KJV), and every tree 6086 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6086&t=KJV), in the which [is] the fruit 6529 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6529&t=KJV) of a tree 6086 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6086&t=KJV) yielding 2232 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2232&t=KJV) seed 2233 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2233&t=KJV); to you it shall be 1961 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1961&t=KJV) for meat 402 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H402&t=KJV).

The words 'yeilding' and 'seed'. the first is a verb, an action, to sow, the second is self explanatory. This is the only condition put on which trees they were to eat from, trees sowing seed!

I'm still waiting for a response on this: So the tree of life has one sole purpose, it was there incase Adam ate from the tree of knowledge, but if he partook of the tree of knowledge he wouldn't be allowed the other?

[CoreIssue]

Quote:
Saying I'm smarter then 'all' the linquist is wrong. The word of God without their additions is correct. Leaning on linquist for answers is the same as leaning on the arm of flesh.
Then tell me the linquists that agree with you and their religious associations.

Fascinating that by you all of them that did Bible translations, including the KJV from 1611 and Jewish JPS Bible, got it wrong.
The NIV may have come close to seeing it, in the bible search tool it shows the NIV putting both verses as one. They must have noticed that verse 30 doesn't start out with 'and God said'. Too bad they hadn't noticed the err of the previously adopted word 'to'.
No error to notice.

Let's look at the verses with only the Hebrew words present:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/gifs/copyChkboxOn.gifGen 1:29 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=1&v=29&t=KJV#29)God 430 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H430&t=KJV) said 559 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H559&t=KJV) , Behold 2009 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2009&t=KJV), I give 5414 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5414&t=KJV) herb 6212 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6212&t=KJV) bearing 2232 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2232&t=KJV) seed 2233 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2233&t=KJV), upon the face 6440 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6440&t=KJV) of the whole earth 776 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H776&t=KJV), trees 6086 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6086&t=KJV), fruit 6529 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6529&t=KJV) of trees 6086 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6086&t=KJV) sowing 2232 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2232&t=KJV) seed 2233 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2233&t=KJV); shall be 1961 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1961&t=KJV) for meat 402 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H402&t=KJV). http://www.blueletterbible.org/gifs/copyChkboxOn.gifGen 1:30 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=1&v=30&t=KJV#30)every living creature 2416 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2416&t=KJV) of the earth 776 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H776&t=KJV), every fowl 5775 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5775&t=KJV) of the air 8064 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8064&t=KJV), and every thing that creepeth 7430 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7430&t=KJV) of the earth 776 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H776&t=KJV), wherein [there is] life 2416 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2416&t=KJV) 5315 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5315&t=KJV), every green 3418 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3418&t=KJV) herb 6212 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6212&t=KJV) for meat 402 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H402&t=KJV): and it was so.


The word of God is very clear when we see it without the additions.

No it is not. You don't have a clue how language works for you to make that statement.
The rest is repeating your opinion and argument. State the linquists that agree with you and their religious association.
[QUOTE]You must love dealing with age spans up to 1,000 back the. Oh, yea, they go back up during the MK as well.
Not sure I understand the challenge here.

Think about it. We don't live 1,000 years now, they approached it before the Flood and will do so again. Stomps all over the bases for you physical change argument.
Or did the natures and diets change so the names evolved to match? Have you never heard of language evolution?
Weak. It's not just the 'diet' that would have to change. The teeth, jaws, digestive system and especially their survival instincts.

False. You assume differences before. Again disproven by the MK.
Your asking for a lot of changes to fit one verse with the added word 'to' in it.
Think about it, what scriptures support your theory that animals and vegetation DID NOT bear fruit before the fall?
Already gave it. Your not paying attention yet again.
Think about it, your entire doctrine hangs on one two letter word 'to' that was added to scripture out of context. What if the linquists hadn't added that word, what would you base your doctrine on?
OK. Go do some study. Your trying to hinge a whole theory within a few verses in one chapter. I already pointed you to other texts and this issue and you are not considering them.

Sorry, until you learn the basics and study a lot more of the Bible your not prepared to make the demands you are making here.

Go study.
Adam and Eve were male and female before they ever had sex. Their natures changes but they did not change physically to have sex.
Never said they did. They never noticed their nakedness before their eyes were opened. The desire for sex wasn't aroused.
Ah, that argument is okay for sex but not food eaten. Make up your mind which way it is.

On the Tree you have been answered multiple times. I am not going repeat it over and over simply because you don't like it.

Yet another area you need to study more of the Bible about.

[vagabond]

Then tell me the linquists that agree with you and their religious associations.



LOL, okay saying I'm smarter then the linquist is right if all I have to do is catch one err they over-look. The strongs exhaustive concordance agrees with me and the original written word is in agreement.

Don't compare your linquist with me core, compare them to the word of God.

As far as the religious associations go, you can have them. I know the JW's agree with you on this matter. Hmmm...nothing to brag about there though.


Fascinating that by you all of them that did Bible translations, including the KJV from 1611 and Jewish JPS Bible, got it wrong.



Broad is the way core, but no matter hpw hard you stomp your feet the word was added. I clearly showed you the scripture in original form, as given by strongs.

Think about it. We don't live 1,000 years now, they approached it before the Flood and will do so again. Stomps all over the bases for you physical change argument.

In what way? Adam began to die because his physical body began changing. It didn't happen at once, but as soon as he began using the lower animal and reptilian brain he was drawing from the wrong tree and began to die. The condition got progessively worse, each generation from Adam on. Some went so far as to use the lower reptilian brain that their thoughts were evil continually.

OK. Go do some study. Your trying to hinge a whole theory within a few verses in one chapter. I already pointed you to other texts and this issue and you are not considering them.

Good advice, were you looking in a mirror when you said that?

Sorry, until you learn the basics and study a lot more of the Bible your not prepared to make the demands you are making here.

Learn your basics you mean. Just accept them as you do, inspite the untampered word given by God. No thanks.

Ah, that argument is okay for sex but not food eaten. Make up your mind which way it is.


Not sure your point here, I don't need to be 'aroused' to know when I'm hungry. So I'd eat food.

On the Tree you have been answered multiple times. I am not going repeat it over and over simply because you don't like it.


So God made a tree that Adam could eat from in case he ate from another tree? Except when Adam needed the tree he wasn't allowed to have it? You in all your wisdom have just completly negated the tree of life in the garden. According to you it is and was completly useless.

Your take is, the tree of life has never been eaten from and never will be, correct?

I do thank you for your time Core. :tiphat:

[CoreIssue]

Go study, vagabond.

[CTZonEdit]

Vagabond,

There was only ONE tree that Adam and Eve could not eat from. One. God allowed them to eat from any of the other trees. If you actually studied you would know this simple fact.

Core is right. If you cant even see this simple issue with trees then you need to stop making other claims that have no foundation and return to the basics.