Adam and Eve did eat of the tree of life. I don't know if that is actually stated in the Bible but I think it does state that they could eat of any tree in the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and evil, so one would have to assume that they did eat of the tree of life.

In the Urantia book they spoke of the tree of life and how eating of it on a regular basis would extend anyone's life indefinitely, but if they stopped eating of it, they would grow old like everyone else.

When Adam and Eve were put out of the garden they no longer had access to the tree of life therefore they did grow old and die.

JB

No it doesn't state that they ate of it anywhere in the book, so the most one can do as i is presume they didn't, or you presume they did.

outside sorces prove nothing more unless the urantia book is an eye witness acount?

but to go a little deeper, why would the fruit of one tree only have to be eaten one time to gain knowledge and the other have to be eaten daily or continously to keep from aging? why would he have created to diff. types of scenarios/results?

god did not state that "lest they >continue< to eat of the tree" he stated " lest they "eat" of the tree, meaning to me that they had not as of then correct?

that is just a symbolism.
the theological principle would have been the same if God would have said: "Don't open that door."
It's just the fact that man was given an instruction which he didn't follow.

i'm wel aware of that theological priciple miguel,thnx, but some will always take genisis to be literal - you know that. so here's the problem:

we both try to look at it from our own perspectives. both are using logic and reason. i am using mine to look at a story which i concider at most to be a an attempt to purvey a moral issue like you stated. others, are using their logic and reason to prove it's the infallible word of god without question.

when i then try to look or perceive it as a thing of word for word truth, then i have to enter into it with that logic and reason. which is how i'm discussing it here.

My logic and reason from that perspective then see's an illogical story about an inept god who is neither all knowing or all wise. he makes statements like turning to the rest of the godhead and saying we have to kick A&E out of here lest they eat of the tree of life. to me i see worry or concern from god over this issue, also an absence of being all knowledgeable, in the sense he has to say to the rest of the god head what should be done to make sure they dont gain eternal life.like they would not be or were not aware of what was taking place or they didn't know?? >>>surpriseeeeeeeeee guy's, guess what HS and Jesus, they ate from the tree, thought you might like to know, and now that they have maybe we should kick them out of here before they eat from the other tree and live forever! - not.

Since we seem to be on level ground on the idea of God here (though in my understanding - God is found to be Triune - Father Son and Holy Spirit), and Him/THey being the author of creation - the method by which is beyond our ability to comprehend, I can accept the two statements in your premise - to a certain degree.

I believe the first is an absolute in Christianty. It is part of the "definition" of God - if you will, based on our understandng of what the scriptures inform us about him.

Moving on to point two - however, brings up reasonable doubt. I will agree that evil - for the most part - is more subjective than not. Especially in terms of self evaluation and the human population at large. Given that even thos ewho are blind can comprehend evil - it is not limited to that which is seen. Most of creation can be viewed with a sense of balance. That - for the most part, every idea or concept, or for the most part, within matter, has an antithesis.
Hot - cold, good - evil, black - white, the list goes on. So the argument over "who" created evil seems a moot one. However it does not follow that the extension of human qualities be reverted back to God due to his creating man. Man is created in God's image - not the other way around. Not of course to those who create an idea of God for the pure intention of discrediting Him - or proving Him not to exist, or for the appeasement of the particular lifestyles they chose to maintain. These "God's" exist as well - enen if only but in the imagination of some. So to look at the world around us - see that there is evil, and assume that there must be evil in God is man seeing God with human eyes. This Pantheistic view is cxontradictory to the scriptures themselves, which for a Christian - is where the definition of God is derived in the first place. Since your premises are based on the God that Christians believe in, your premises in part two are unsubstanciated. There is no evil in God. God is not the author of evil. Evil can largely be described as an action, though in some cases - inaction can be percieved as evil - and actions eminate from what man does here, on this planet.

Though the tree in the garden can be responsible for the source of the evil we see on earth. It, in and of itself, is not evil. It does nothing that can be attributed to evil, for it does not hold the responsibility of those who partake of it. It is only in the court system of America where this could be assumed - but that does not make it a truth, just an afterthought. Man has to have SOMETHING - or SOMEONE to blame, for surely - He himself is blameless. Forget the idea that he has the freedom to chose. It's "the abuse excuse" coming into play. Man does evil - so it has to be God's fault - because he created it. However, evil is merely the antithesis of Godd. God need only create truth, give man the option to chose - and out of this choice, evil is born. So - did God create the evil that exists - or the balance of a universe that could hardly survive without it. But that is because we view the universe with the experience of being human.

If there universe did not exist - what need would there be for evil? It serves no other purpose but to maintain a sort of balance - if you will. A method of "thinning out the herd", or in most cases the measure by which man determines his worth to himself, and others - and a measure of oue perception of others. God does not need evil to determine how Good he is. If he is all Good - there is no need for evil. That is only man's perception in how he choses to view God, as he assess him through humanistic means. But they are mere subjective perceptions, as man does not have all the information on any thing, or event at his disposel to manke an informed decision as to the absolute of anything. Especially - God.

For this reason - a christian view of point 2 of your post - needs a little work, for it is not a true representation of what a christian believes, as it is with the first point.

Tribo you know the Bible better than I do. Isn't there a verse in it that tells Adam that of all the trees in the garden he may eat but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he must not eat?

As far as I am concerned that statement would include the tree of life, (assuming that tree was in the garden.)

Does the Bible mention anything about where the tree of life was located?

The Urantia book talks about it in detail. Have you ever read any of the Urantia book? It was supposedly written by a non-human intelligent life form.


JB

They did not eat of the tree of life. It is guarded by angels so that they could not - else they would live forever in their sin. And since there is no one walking around claiming to be either Adam or Eve, it is safe to assume that they did not eat of that tree.

But that was only AFTER they sinned and after they left the garden. Before that, they were to live forever or a long long time, and in order to do that, they were allowed to eat of the tree of life. That is according to the Urantia book.

JB

But the Urantia book has to establish a premise that God is not omniscient for this hypothesis to hold true. Though it remains possible that Adam and Eve >could< have eaten from it - it remains fact that they did not. Assuming of course that the existance of both tree's is a given. God already knew in what order they would eat of the tree's - if they had eaten of the tree of life first - angels would have surrounded the tree of Good and evil.

Even as humans - we can reason that out.

It is the infallible word of God in the sense that God is teaching that there is something called Divine Law, and another thing called free will. God is teaching that man inherently know this Divine Law because man is image and likeness of God, but also man has free will to follow Divine Law or not.

With regards logic of those who say that there was actually a tree and Adam and Eve were historic characters who actually ate that fruit from that tree, well I don't see that much logic in that.

If you were to read the Urantia book, I think you would see a different take on everything. I am not trying to say it is true. Nor do I hold that the Bible is literally true either.

Personally I don't hold that any of it is anything but symbolic stories, but there is information in there that is valid, I don't think it is anything but the attempt to form a religion.

I suspect that the Urantia book is a book that wants to replace the Bible for Christianity. I have met many Urantia Christians and they are all fired up about Jesus and their holy book is the Urantia book, not the Bible.

JB

yes there is a verse that states they could eat from >every < tree in the garden except for thr one of G&E, what i meant was there is no metion of them ever having done so in the book genisis.

no baby i have never read the urantia book never heard of it till you started talking of it. sorry.

i just always wondered till now what if they had eaten of it first. eljay says that it was guarded by angels but from what i read that was not till after they had sinned. so i don't know exactly where he gets that from - but it's eljay - the actor, screenwriter, playright, so he may have done a play based on his version i dont know to my knowledge it doesn't state anywhere that the tree of life was guarded by angels before the fall of man, he will have to give me that info, it seem's strange to me if it's so that god would say "every tree but" so we will see, and did you get an answer to my name from god yet larry?????

well not quite larry, Jb's stating that it's because they no longer had access to the tree is why they aged and died. so in her view it could mean that they ate from it daily or often without making god less omniscient correct?

I disagree Abra, You could say Hitlers parents created him by giving birth to him, but they are not respocible for his actions.

I would think that since god created everything he would have to be resposible for evrything but not on a pesonal basis. example:

he created the means for weather to exist correct? but once it was put into motion/ being, then it in it's own natural way became it's own thing producing naturally what it produces. It is acting no more or no less than it was intended to, so at most you can only blame mother nature for her own actions, the actions of the "moment by moment" weather is it's own phenomina. The only thing you could blame god for is creating it to begin with, but why would you? hmmmm? According to christian thought the weather along with every other thing in nature started out very good /excellent but not perfect - god never said it was perfect, that's man take on it i believe. unless someone can show me in the book where it actually states that he created everything perfectly?

I read somewhere in the bible that God created nature and cause natural catastrophes but I never read in the constitution that George Bush created America and liars

it's clearly in the bible that God create natural catastrophes so to deny this is to claim the bible as false..

the fury of nature if anything is the result from the misuse of the holy spirit by believers of the faith