The first 3 chapters of Genesis

That is certainly what the story seems to say.As I have said, IMHO the Garden of Eden tale is a Just So story. The Tree of Life must play an important part, it is specifically mentioned early in the story and occupies a central place.So why was it included? Why bring it up early, and then make it a a key part, why add the guard with the Flaming Sword?The quest for immortality was a key part of most early religions. The Epic of Gilgamesh revolves around that question and it is Gilgamesh learning that he must acknowledge his mortality and learning to enjoy his life that is a key. It is likely that the Tree of Life also plays that part in the Garden of Eden story.One of the key values of the GOE story is that it explains life. One key thing that is different about the Judaic theology is a total lack of the search for immortality, at least in this life. Instead the Judaic and later the Christian theology concentrates on how to live this life.By writing out immortality as a possibility in this life very early in the story, the redactors and likely the original storytellers were able to move beyond that and to concentrate on how to live this life, and what some future life must be. In Judaism the afterlife is not fully developed, Christianity takes that further.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Apparently they were at first. The story is not clear:1. Maybe you have to eat from KGE before the immortalizing effects of the Tree of Life will work. You have to know good and evil before you can be immortal. So they had been eating from it all along, but it had no effect.
2. Maybe they were working their way around the garden slowly and hadn't gotten to it yet, not knowing of its importance.
3. Maybe the Tree of Life had fruit that didn't look very appetizing, and they passed it by.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

this could be, many stories from the area seem to indicate the importance of knowledge being part of being a god, so this maybe why god didn't want them to eat from it i think that they may have not known what the tree of life was at all not sure since the story is very undetailedi think one of the problems is the way the translators setup how to read it, since hebrew doesn't really have line-breaks many of the things we think would be the end of the story arn't really
look at the begining of genesis 2 as jar has pointed out its part of genesis one, the translaters did this on purpose to link the two stories togethereven the last line before adam and eve are removed from eden shows that someone didn't do a good job editing it the way its edited makes it harder to figure out how the story is suppose to flow, though i have read that many critics think that someone hacked something out
of course 3:23 is to explain why man isn't in eden and 3:24 is why he can't get back in if you read this, why does god put angels in the garden? to guard the tree of life. why? because god did not want man to become like god, immortal
thats why they were kicked from eden, god didn't want adam and eve to get a shot at the tree of life and to be immortal.
knowing something means you might act on it

Here's where science can help out. If the sin of Adam and Eve is inherited by their descendants, we should be able to locate the Original Sin gene.YEC research indicates that human beings today, though, will have much less original sin than their ancestors. Adam and Eve packed 'super-genomes' filled with walloping amounts of genetic information. They had truckloads of original sin they could pass on. Today our world is genetically depleted, which means our species carries much less original sin.As devolution continues we will become less and less guilty with each generation. It could even be that by now we only inherit some of Adam's original sin and none of Eve's. Or vice versa.In fact, genetic depletion could mean that original sin is already non-existant. If we fail to locate the gene it is probably because of this.Top YEC geneticists are no doubt working on these issues as we speak. It will be fascinating to find out what they discover!.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Original Sin itself is inherited spiritually, the propensity to sin; but some of its effects* would be inherited physically in the form of genetic diseases or vulnerability to disease for instance, very gradually accumulating over time.===============
Edit: * I say "some" because we are accident prone or subject to all kinds of things of a purely spiritual nature too. Not all of this is built into the genome.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Adam wasn't sinful until Eve tempted him. So it seems likely that Eve was the originator of the original sin gene. Her passing of the apple to Adam is a metaphor for lateral gene transfer.Amongst these findings, YEC geneticsts have also shown that Adam didn't have mitochondria, since he had no mother. The original sin gene is hence inherited matrilineally, carried by the mitochondrion, which is why women are known as being the most sinful sex.Mick

Mick writes: I knew it! This reasoning is airtight. Absolutely.Adam and Eve also had (1) no navels and (2) no clothes. We may therefore conclude that no belly-button lint existed before The Fall.Off topic, I know. I just wanted to mention that for the logical beauty of it. Indeed they are. And that reminds me...YEC genetics explains why a global catastrophic Flood would occur in Noah's day instead of ours. People were much more badly behaved then because of their engorged super-genomes filled to bursting with huge amounts of original sin.Remember there was greater genetic variety in Noah's day as well. This means people would have been sinning in a greater variety of ways than they do today.YEC geneticists have evidence of this decadence. The Bible says people were having sex with angels.You've got to admit, that's kinky. In our modern, genetically depleted age people just don't behave that way.Certainly no one I've slept with is an angel..._Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Equal time for Eve.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Faith, we are discussing the first 3 chapters of Genesis. No where in there is there ANY indication of some inheritable spiritual sin.If you believe it is there, please provide chapter and verse so that we can discuss it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

evidence of this please, i don't even think paul or augustine would agree with you on that one faith. plus if we have vulnerability to disease why are some folks more resistent to things that should kill them, that their is no real treatment for like HIV?please show where it says in any part of the OT or NT that its a disease of some sorti find it funny that YECs and fundies need to co-opt evolution and germ theory to make this nonsense workEdited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.

I think you missed my point, even though I agree with what you have said.What I am getting at is what action prompted a punishment from God?I believe it was eating the fruit that did it, but Rob has posted something of yours that claims it wasn't?I thought it was clear they were punished for eating the fruit, and that being kept away from the tree of life was part of the punishment.Am I missing something?Brian.

Couple of wee problems.We don't know what type of fruit it was, and in the eyes of Christians Adam is responsible for his wife and as she was subordinate to him, he should have made sure that she didn't do anything wrong.Thus, original sin was Adam's fault because he failed to keep his wife under control.As silly as it sounds, I am being serious!Brian.

But you asked specifically about the Tree of Life. That is a different question entirely.Let me see if I can better explain my views based on what is written, as well as my understanding of what it means. I would answer that with a yes and no. They are punished and while being kept from the Tree of Lif is a result of their behavior, it is not part of the punishment.Here begineth a feeble attempt at elucidation.The story of the Garden of Eden is a poetic and metaphorical picture of relationships.God creates a world for all, particularly man. In the stories (and there are several indications that even here more than one version is included) God tells Adam that he can eat from any of the trees in the garden EXCEPT the tree of Knowledge.Adam, with the input of Eve, disobeys and eats from the Tree of Knowledge.Only then, once Adam and Eve gain the capability to tell right from wrong do they realize that they have done wrong, are naked and so remorseful.God punishes them for the disobedience and the specific punishments are detailed. God punishes Adam, Eve and the environment. God also punishes the serpent, not for the act itself, but for instigating their disobedience.God then show that He forgives Adam and Eve, by clothing them for their needs. He does not remove the punishment, but starts afresh. It is a classic parent child story, kid disobeys, is punished, but the parent continues to love and care for the child.Now we come to the part about the expulsion. God acknowledges that Man has become "like one of us, knowing Good from Evil".As a result of Man becoming more God-like, GOD sends them away from the Tree of Life and bars access to physical immortality forever.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To which jar replied: To which you replied: Which is a ridiculous position, as Jar went on to point out. There's also an additional contradiction. If eating once from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil conferred that knowledge forever, then eating once from the Tree of Life would have conferred immortality forever.There is no possible way to reasonably insist that there is only one single correct interpretation of the story. Both you and Jar assume that God issued no stricture against eating of the Tree of Life. Well, maybe he did and maybe he didn't.You assume Adam and Eve had already been eating from the Tree of Life. Well, maybe they did and maybe they didn't.You also assume the benefits of eating from the Tree of Life were temporary. Well, maybe they were and maybe they weren't.Jar assumes that Adam and Eve didn't eat of the Tree of Life from sheer dumb bad luck. Well, maybe it happened that way and maybe it didn't.Jar also assumes that the Garden of Eden was as affected by God's cursing of the ground as the rest of the world. Well, maybe it was and maybe it wasn't.Jar concludes that God banished Adam and Eve from Eden to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life. This seems unarguable: One thing you can say for certain, God punished Adam and Eve for eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. There is insufficient information to conclude that the banishment from Eden was part of that punishment.--Percy

That was my main point in the OP. Jar has denied this.

Are you daft? He said just the opposite in the message just prior to mine (Message 207): You and Jar agree much more than you disagree.--Percy