The Science of Sin and Salvation - Study Series

A new study series titled, "The Science of Sin and Salvation" presented by Robert Melashenko, MD, and Michael Webster, MD, at the Kettering SDA Church, starting September 21, 2013. The Science of Sin and Salvation

I already like the topic!

I've been told that the lectures will be online - details still unknown.

The Science of Sin and Salvation
Robert Melashenko, M.D.
Michael Webster, M.D.

September 21 — Setting the Table - Dr. Melashenko
     Discussion of the assumptions, definitions (i.e. God’s Law), reference sources, and paradigm used as basis for the lectures. The Bible as a source of information explored.
September 28 — Introduction to Information Theory - Dr. Melashenko
     We live in an “Information Universe”, where everything is made of information—even ourselves. Introduction to the genome as the ultimate information system for human beings with correlations to Biblical statements. Introduction to Mobile Genetic Elements (MGE’s).
October 5 — Another Look at “Sin” I: Human Condition - Dr. Melashenko
     1. Aging
     2. Congenital Diseases
     3. Selfish Behavior
     4. Psychiatric Illnesses
     5. Cancer
     6. Somatic Illness
     7. “First Death”
October 12 — Another Look at “Sin” II: The Biome - Dr. Melashenko
     1. MGE’s in nature (plants, ocean, air, animals)
     2. Leprosy
     3. Alcohol and yeast
     4. Poisonous Snakes
October 19 — What Really Happened in the Garden? Information Theory looks at the “Fall” - Dr. Melashenko
     1. The “Real” temptation.
     2. Information Theory and the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
     3. Was there something in the fruit?
     4. “Between her seed and your seed”.
     5. The three curses.
     6. Cain’s curse
October 26 — Do you Believe the “Writings of Moses”? - Dr. Webster
     1. Asking really tough questions about Origins.
     2. The problems with “ancient” DNA.
     3. How to calibrate a genetic clock.
     4. The Down and Dirty.
November 2 — The Ten Commandments - Dr. Melashenko
     1. The “Law” revisited.
     2. Laundry list of “Don’ts”?
     3. A closer look at Adultery
     4. The Sabbath—is it arbitrary?
November 9 — The Plan of Salvation Part 1: His Life - Dr. Melashenko
     1. “In the fullness of time”.
     2. “Pre” or “Post” Fall nature?
     3. The temptations in the Wilderness
     4. The Parable of the Vine
     5. Does Christ’s Blood really “save” us?
November 16 — The Plan of Salvation Part 2: His Death and Resurrection - Dr. Melashenko
     1. The Story of Abraham and Isaac. God will provide a “Lamb”.
     2. Gethsemane—was it necessary?
     3. Why the Cross? What happened there?
     4. Was Christ’s death necessary for salvation?
     5. Christ tasted death for “every man”—how?
     6. The meaning of the Resurrection
November 23 — Game Theory and the Beatitudes - Dr. Webster
     1. The Dictator Game. Want to be a winner?
     2. The Beatitudes and depression.
     3. The twelve step programs. What is really going on?
     4. Laodicea, Simon and Mary. What’s Love got to do With it?
November 30 — “What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate” - Dr. Webster
     1. If Information is everything, how is your processor?
     2. Diet and Brain health.
     3. The Silver Tsunami.
     4. Diet, epigenetics, and behavior!
     5. Sadly, this is NOT new.
December 7 — Salvation - Dr. Melashenko
     1. Do we have a part to play in our Salvation?
     2. How and when are we “Changed”?
     3. Are temptations/trials necessary?
     4. What part does “Forgiveness” play—if any?
     5. Any need for an Investigative Judgment?
December 14 — The End of Sin and Sinners - Dr. Melashenko
     1. For those who turn down God: What about “Judgment” and “Punishment”?
     2. Why do the Wicked die?
     3. The “Second” Death—different from the “First”?
     4. Real Fire! (Maxwell’s Demon and the Landauer Principle)
     5. God’s Character Vindicated
     6. Why “Never again”?
     7. The “Grand Unifying Theory” of the Universe!

"The science of sin and salvation" makes it sound like an academic subject. Do you love God?
....
..

The theme of redemption is one that the angels desire to look into, 1 Peter 1:12. It will be the science and the song of the redeemed throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity! Is it not worthy of careful thought and study now?

You are misinterpreting the words of Peter. He was not speaking about an academic subject but about an experience. Here is the full quote:

"To [those of old] it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering THE THINGS which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven— THINGS which angels desire to look into."

The prophets had prophesied (past tense) of the Church, the children of God from among all people rejoicing in salvation. The angels rejoice with us and are endlessly fascinated with news of us. Jesus himself said, "I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance." (Luke 15:7) And again, for good measure, "Likewise, I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." (Luke 15:10)

It is not a science at all to them, but happiness at the prospect of sharing their home with us. In case you have not heard, I tell you, the angels of God love us, really, really love us. They were eyewitnesses to things we can only imagine and live, have always lived, in the full light of the wisdom and glory of God. They long for our redemption too. Only let us be kind, one to another, ever gracious and forgiving and we will finally see them face to face in the presence of our Father and Redeemer.
.....
...

Isaiah 53:4 Surely he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

PAST TENSE. Yet is was future. Matthew 8:17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bore our sicknesses.

Of course, what does it mean he carried our SICKNESS?

Jesus Christ shared our home, our very nature: of the dust. When therefore he will be carrying many into glory and one should stop him saying, "Where are you taking these?" He will say in that day, "They are MY brethren! The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Are these not a brand plucked from the fire?" (Mat. 24:31)
.....
..

Did you answer the question?

The first lecture is in:
https://kc.instructure.com/courses/871063

Lectures 1, 2 and 4 are posted. There has been an apparent technical glitch with lecture 3 which is an important lecture!

The lectures can be seen on YouTube here: http://is.gd/sss2013

For Audio only, see http://is.gd/sss2013audio

Thank you for posting those links and hopefully others as they become available.

Lecture 6 has been posted. The title of the lecture is "Do you believe the writing of Moses". The audio in MP3 is here: http://is.gd/sss2013audio.

The video is not on YouTube yet, but it is on the Kettering College website here:
https://kc.instructure.com/courses/871063

The lecture looks at the teaching of evolution and the compatibility with SDA church.

Lecture 5 is not yet available due to technical issues with the Kettering College audio system, though it has been captured and will be available hopefully in the near future. It is best to listen to the lectures in sequence as they build on each other.

My Android note does not take this

You are correct Johann, the Kettering site works on Windows ONLY. Sad. That is why the files have been transcoded and put on YouTube and in MP3 format. MP3 and YouTube will work on your Android device. You miss the slides with the MP3 files, and the YouTube files are delayed.

Lectures 7, 8 and 10 are now available. 9 and 11 hopefully this weekend. Video here: http://is.gd/sss2013

Lecture 7 looks at Science and the 10 Commandments.
Lecture 8 looks at Salvation and Christ's Life
Lecture 10 looks at the Sermon on the Mount and Game Theory Science.

Just finished #9. Is Satan so foolish as to "compete" against God by devising a system that kills its adherents virtually instantly unless God prevents their death?

Lectures 11, 12 and 13 are now posted.

Lecture 13 - The End of Sin and Sinners, should be of interest to most here. Yet, it is important to understand the back ground and hear the series from the beginning. Note - Lectures 3 and 5 are being re-recorded due to equipment failure in the recording system.

That is what sin is, transgression of the law, and the wages that sin pays is death.

Let's say you were a software company seeking to compete against Microsoft. Would you design an operating system that crashes upon boot if left to itself, and could survive only if a patch from Microsoft is installed? I could see how the paradigm works given that God keeps sinners alive artificially in order to show the universe how much suffering results from Satan's ways. But it seems to me that Satan would be wiser to make his attack more subtle - let death come from unplugging from the power source rather than a system failure.

I have another problem. If the solution is purely genetic, coming from Christ's physically restored blood, how does that physically get into our blood stream? The scion is still physically attached to the healed plant, even with the 30 cm extension. How are we physically attached to Christ's blood?

Do you believe that whatever MGEs Jesus may have had were solely from hereditary sources? If so, how did He get the MGEs we have from cultivating? If He didn't have them, He couldn't fix them.

asygo - you analogy does not fit. Put your metaphor in the framework of the Great Controversy. Satan accused the hardware/software manufacturer of being not fair, of making an inferior product. Why should Christ be higher than himself? Satan sought to "correct the law" in heaven, "to supply an amendment of his own" (see {ST, November 19, 1894 par. 2}) But what happened? Satan found out that his amendments were not improvements. "There was a time when Satan was in harmony with God, and it was his joy to execute the divine commands. His heart was filled with love and joy in serving his Creator, until he began to think that his wisdom was not derived from God, but was inherent in himself, and that he was as worthy as was God to receive honor and power. When he found that he could not be as God, he was filled with rebellion, and would not submit his will to the will of God." {ST, September 18, 1893 par. 1}

Was it Satan's plan to KILL everything? NO. He wanted to highjack humanity and use them in the rebellion. Satan desired that Adam and Eve would eat from the tree of life after their fall, see {PP 60}.

asgo: I have another problem. If the solution is purely genetic, coming from Christ's physically restored blood, how does that physically get into our blood stream? The scion is still physically attached to the healed plant, even with the 30 cm extension. How are we physically attached to Christ's blood?

John 3:3-8
3 Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus said to him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said to you, You must be born again.
8 The wind blows where it wants, and you hear the sound thereof, but can not tell from where it comes, and where it goes: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Just because you don't see the Spirit working does not mean it is not working.

asygo: Do you believe that whatever MGEs Jesus may have had were solely from hereditary sources? If so, how did He get the MGEs we have from cultivating? If He didn't have them, He couldn't fix them.

It is true, Christ did not participate in our sin. EGW: In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. {5BC 1131.3} MGEs are the source of all problems, the cause of all disease, the cause of all death. Cultivation only strengthens the abbarrent pathways. The problem is still getting rid of the sin, the MGEs. Christ was tempted in all ways as we are. He knows was we go through. EGW: Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man. In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon Him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points wherewith man would be assailed.--The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874. (also {1SM 267.3} )

So, it was not Satan who packaged sin and deah together. He wanted sin and life. I agree wih that.

That sin and death should go together is not a Satanic plan.

Are you saying the Holy Spirit performs a literal, physical transfusion of Christ's blood into us? How does Christ's genetic material get into my arteries?

Are you saying that succumbing to MGEs will not form new MGEs, but merely strengthen what is already there? How are new aberrant pathways formed?

asygo - HOW will participating in sin, create new novel DNA? Did you listen to the whole presentation including the coding for the 2 separate neural pathways? Using a particular neural pathway strengths that pathway, it does not create new forms of coding DNA. Participating in the sin strengths the sinful pathways, making it easier to repeat the same behavior and harder to suppress that behavior. Participation causes "hot spots" which can cause MGEs to multiply and jump, causing more damage, but not new MGEs.

So how do new MGEs ever appear? How did we get from Adam with 0% MGEs to us with 85% MGEs?

They are, the works of the devil. "In how short a time from the first sin of Adam did sin increase and spread like the leprosy. It is the nature of sin to increase. From generation to generation sin has spread like a contagious disease." {ST, December 20, 1877 par. 2} Even the air, upon which their life depended, bore the seeds of death. {Ed 26.3} Their offspring are compelled to be sufferers by disease transmitted to them. Thus disease has been perpetuated from generation to generation. And many charge all this weight of human misery upon God, when their wrong course of action has brought the sure result. They have thrown upon society an enfeebled race, and done their part to deteriorate the race, by rendering disease hereditary, and thus accumulating human suffering. {RH, July 4, 1899 par. 4} It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. {DA 48.5}

Those who through an intelligent understanding of the Scriptures view the cross aright, those who truly believe in Jesus, have a sure foundation for their faith. They have that faith which works by love and purifies the soul from all its hereditary and cultivated imperfections.--6T 238 (1900). {1MCP 146.3}

Epigenetics also comes into play, in either promoting or suppressing MGEs. And the epigenetic switches themselves can be inherited, in the next generation!

Also understand that there are a lot of MGEs that have been locked up. And MGEs can cross species. Think of the dietary laws...

Are you saying that MGEs are 100% hereditary? You don't get more by a life of sin?

I read your previous question, "So how do new MGEs ever appear?" as are new MGEs created by our actions. No, new MGEs are not created by us, but we accumulate MGEs over time. Here is a tremendous amount of lateral DNA transfer. A simple example is the flu virus. Or Hepatitis virus, or Herpes virus. There is exchange of DNA via intimate human contact. The rules for clean and unclear are not arbitrary. The rules in the NT for converts given in Acts 15 and 21 are not arbitrary; abstain from things strangled and blood, and fornication. These can all be explained via MGE and/or micro RNAs. So yeah, if you want to talk about cultivated, then yes we accumulate MGEs that way and strengthen them.

Back to my original question. Did Jesus have accumulated and strengthened MGEs? We all do by cultivatation, but He never cultivated. Were His MGEs as strong as mine? If so, how?

Christ lived on earth. Yes, He had MGEs and accumulated MGEs.
Even the air, upon which their life depended, bore the seeds of death. {Ed 26.3} They are everywhere. Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Hebrews 2:17-18 Why in all things it behooved him to be made like to his brothers, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted. 2 Corinthians 5:21 For he has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. 1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live to righteousness: by whose stripes you were healed.

He had to have had the same infection we have. He was the Sin Bearer.

Are you saying that there is no difference in the strength of MGEs between Jesus, who inherited MGEs and inhaled viruses but never indulged in sin, and us, who have cultivated sin by countless experiences of willful disobedience? That would mean that walking in sin does not make things worse for us.

asygo - you said you listened to lecture 9. I made the assumption, but it is clear I was wrong, that you had listened to the other lectures. If you had, then you would have the information needed to answer this question, particularly when the lectures speak about the neural pathways.

I listened to all the available audio files. But I guess I didn't catch the answers that are so obvious to you. It was my first time listening to these ideas, so I am sorry that I did not measure up to your lofty standards. Perhaps you would be so gracious as to humor a moron such as myself with an answer that is clearly beneath you. Kind sir...

Do you recall the part where the speak talked about neural pathways?

IIRC, using certain neural pathways makes it easier to use them again. Which leads to the question about Christ's neural pathways and how they relate to His temptations.

It is easier to transgress, than it is to press back against temptation. What did Christ do? The hard part! And every time we transgress, we make it easier to transgress again, until we no longer have any desire to resist. The unpardonable sin!

We are not to regard God as waiting to punish the sinner for his sin. The sinner brings the punishment upon himself. His own actions start a train of circumstances that bring the sure result. Every act of transgression reacts upon the sinner, works in him a change of character, and makes it more easy for him to transgress again. By choosing to sin, men separate themselves from God, cut themselves off from the channel of blessing, and the sure result is ruin and death. {1888 1576.1}

So it easier for is to transgress than it was for Jesus, since we have doe it already.

She speaks of a "change of character" in the transgressor. What is the physical carrier of that information?

EGW:"Adam found by sad experience that it was easier to transgress the commandments of God than to resist and press back the tide of moral wretchedness that was pressing in upon him." {RH, April 29, 1875 par. 5}

Christ never participated in sin. He took the hard route.

asygo:"What is the physical carrier of that [character] information?" That be us. Do you understand what epigenetics is?

So obviously, He did not walk in our footsteps. And whatever mud we may get on our feet by our chosen path, He did not get. Right?

No, I can't say I understand epigenetics. I have a better chance understanding wave-particle duality, and I don't understand that very well.

In any case, it seems then that if we carry that change of character genetically, Christ did not have the same genetics, for He never transgressed. Right?

Epigenetics involves the switching on and off genes in the genetic code. The actual base pairs of genetic code do not change, but how the code is read and expressed can change. These epigenetic switches can be inherited in the next generation. And, these switches can persist for 3 to 4 generations!

If you want to see an online description of epigenetics, see: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genes/mice-flash.html

These two mice are identical twin sisters. However, they have a difference in an epigenetic switch which gives them very different appearances.


EGW writes about how the thoughts and feelings of a mother influences the character of the unborn child. HOW does this happen? Answer: epigenetics. (also a key term - influences, does not determine)

So, did pre-fall Adam have the same base pairs as post-fall Adam?

NO! And THAT is the problem!

Tell me if I'm right so far:
1. Actively sinning does NOT change base pairs. It just turns switches on and off.
2. Adam's sin changed his base pairs.

Assuming that's correct:
1. It seems Adam's sin was qualitatively different from ours.
2. Did all changes to base pairs happen at Adam's sin, or were there more changes later?
3. If there were more changes, what kind of event effects this genetic change?

No, you are not correct.

Adam's base pairs were changed, this was the fall. There have been multiple falls! Each worse than the last. In this paradigm, "Sin" is the change in the genetic base pairs, the MGEs. We are on a downward spiral.

Epigenetics works on both normal and added, non-original DNA. In embryo genesis, you start with a single cell. As cell division progresses, cells differentiate into the various cell types. The genetic code contained in each cell is the same as the original. What has changed? The gene expression, and this is epigenetic switching of genes on and off. The non-original DNA is also under epigenetic control, Genesis 3:15. The choices we make, the exercise of our will, has an influence on our epigenetic switches. Drugs can cause epigenetic switching. One can become dependent on drugs. We can so damage ourselves by our choices that we will not respond to the Spirit's influence, this is the unpardonable sin.

We are accumulating MGEs from our environment, some by choice and some not by choice. The "seeds of death" in the air we breath. We pick up MGEs from the foods we eat, particularly animal products. There are some scary neurodegenerative diseases that slaughterhouse workers are afflicted with. These are MGE generated. HIV is a virus we acquire from the environment, often by certain behaviors we do. HIV is a type of MGE.

Given by the presenter in the lectures, proposed that all cancer is MGE originated. Melanoma being the first to be shown to be MGE. But you might ask, does not sun exposure "cause" melanoma? First, where does the Information that generates melanoma come from? The sun exposure does not create this new information. But what the excess sun does, is causes epigenetic switching to promote the transcription of the onco-genes that cause melanoma. The sun is a trigger, but the information that generates the melanoma was there before the trigger, it is the bullet.

All life is infected by Sin (mge) and suffers, Romans 8:22.

The problem is a very complex one. A war is being fought. We can see this in the cell with MGE as the body catalogs all this non-original DNA and attempts to get rid of it or lock it up (epigenetics). There is some much more to the story also...

You said a lot of things there. Let's slow it down.

Tell me if I'm right so far:
1. Actively sinning does NOT change base pairs. It just turns switches on and off.
2. Adam's sin changed his base pairs.

Which one of these is not correct?


What causes the base pairs to change? Didn't you say that acts of sin DO NOT change the base pairs? If that doesn't do it, what does?


In Adam's case, was biting the fruit = MGE?

OK - we have been attempting to keep this simple when it is far more complex. To quote EGW, the "seeds of death" were planted into the system when Satan tempted Adam to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. ( see {MH 229}, {ED 26.3}, {16MR 247.2} ) Satan was not out to kill Adam, the fruit was not poisonous, but Satan was out to take Adam captive. The seeds, the MGE changed Adam's base pairs.

When we choose to sin, several things can happen. We can have epigenetic changes. And we can also create what science calls, "hot spots", where MGE can be activated and mobilized into jumping. The jumping can cause changes in the base pairs. So several things can happen. Also selfish acts can bring us into contact with MGEs. So yes, our choices can cause MGE mobilization and changes in base pairs. But you can still have changes in the epigenome without changes in the base pairs. And there is a whole lot more.

What I said before, and let me clarify some, is that our acts of sinning, do not create new information per se, as I understand it, but can make us susceptible to MGEs, and cause the to mobilize. Sinning does not create MGEs. Sinning activates and/or mobilizes them. And the acts of sin, are the behaviors that SIN (MGEs) tempt us to commit. Thus, the acts of sin are the symptoms of the disease, SIN, and SIN is MGEs. To save us from this disease, it is called the plan of "Salvation", to salvage man. Salvation is healing, the ministry of healing, not the ministry of jurisprudence. Jeremiah 17:14 Heal me, O LORD, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved: for you are my praise.


Hebrews 2:3 HowG4459 shall weG2249 escape,G1628 if we neglectG272 so greatG5082 salvation;G4991 ...

G4991
so-tay-ree'-ah
Feminine of a derivative of G4990 as (properly abstract) noun; rescue or safety (physically or morally): - deliver, health, salvation, save, saving.

Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge, which meant disobedience to God. Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. In the parable of the sower the question was asked the master, "Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? From whence then hath it tares?" The master answered, "An enemy hath done this." [Matthew 13:27, 28.] All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares. {16MR 247.2}

So which came first, Adam eating the fruit or Adam having MGEs? Is there a cause and effect relationship between the two events? Which event made him a sinner? Which event doomed him to death?

At what point did Eve lose her robe of light?

Adam - the eating of the fruit is what gave him the MGEs. No eating, no fall. Their change in garments came as the MGEs started to affect their physiology, which with can be quick with certain MGEs.

Understand this is conjecture - surprised? Who is going to do scientific experiments on sin? Would they be ethical? Could you even design an such experiments? The hypothesis comes from what MGEs do. THEY are the cause of all disease, aging and death, that is what the science is showing. Exactly what SIN does. MGEs load the gun, often lifestyle pulls the trigger.

But the MGEs did not come from the fruit itself? Or did they?

Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge, which meant disobedience to God. Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. In the parable of the sower the question was asked the master, "Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? From whence then hath it tares?" The master answered, "An enemy hath done this." [Matthew 13:27, 28.] All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares. {16MR 247.2}

So if the MGEs didn't come from the fruit itself, but "the eating of the fruit is what gave him the MGEs," what did eating the fruit have to do with MGEs/sin?

You also said, "Sinning does not create MGEs. Sinning activates and/or mobilizes them." But Adam had no MGEs when he ate the fruit. There was nothing to mobilize.

Did I say the MGEs were not in the fruit? In this paradigm, I take what EGW says, that they planted when Adam ate from the tree. Before his fall, Adam had none of them.

Isn't that what you said in post #160770, 2 posts ago?


And I want to know what the paradigm conjectures as the source of those MGEs. Either Adam ingested them from the fruit or he didn't.

But saying that the fruit had MGEs would be problematic, I think.

I would think that the original source of the MGEs would be a fundamental question. That they are in our genetic code now can be verified by research. But this paradigm postulates a whole new meaning to genetic elements, giving them fundamental spiritual properties. Hence, I ask about the genetic significance of the Original Sin, which has obvious spiritual significance.

You mean when I said this? "Adam - the eating of the fruit is what gave him the MGEs. No eating, no fall."


What did EGW say? The seeds were planted when Satan tempted Adam to eat! No eating, no planting. It is quite simple.

Understand that Satan was not out to kill Adam! On the contrary - he was trying to take him captive. This, MGEs can do!

MGEs are the works the devil. MGEs are the cause of all sickness, all aging, and all death, exactly what sin does. The concept of "original sin" has taken the idea that we are guilty of Adam's sin. Ezekiel 18 squashes this idea completely.

It seems it is premature to discuss this conjecture in any depth at this time. It still cannot say definitively if the fruit had MGEs or not. It relies on ambiguous answers that confuse even its staunchest advocates.

Furthermore, if MGEs=sin, and epigenetic changes are passed down through the genome, Ezekiel 18 would be a problem. Unto the 3rd and 4th generation, yes? Unless if guilt is a purely forensic matter. I don't remember Melashenko bringing up Ezek 18.

The MGEs were in the fruit. Is that ambiguous? What was in the fruit was not to cause death, that also is clear.

MGEs and epigentic switching being pass down the generations in real, not legal. But note - the MGE do not determine behavior, YOU DO. The MGE give the propensity to the behaviors we call sin. As the 10C says, to the 3rd and 4th generation, "OF THEM THAT HATE ME." Romans 5:19-21 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20 Moreover the law entered, that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin has reigned to death, even so might grace reign through righteousness to eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Thank you. That is unambiguous.

However, it is contradictory. Isn't it a postulate of this theory that MGEs are lethal? If there were MGEs in the fruit, then that would make the fruit deadly. Did I misunderstand the nature of MGEs?

But didn't Melashenko say that even if all our actions were OK, the fact that we have MGEs/propensities is the main problem God has to solve? So, a person whose actions are perfect will still die eternally if his MGEs are not healed.

What was in the fruit did not need to be lethal! BUT - what was in the fruit could have been devices to block cellular defense mechanisms, where by Satan could then implant other weapons, opening the door as it were. We do know that soon after eating, Adam and Eve changed. And what ever happened, it also affects their posterity - it was in the genetics.

Yes! Our behavior is not the sin, they are only symptoms of the disease SIN. One's outward actions do not necessarily reveal the inner man. Think of the demoniacs! Paul, Romans 7, understood that it is not only in the actions, but not even the desire.

Matthew 5:27-28 You have heard that it was said by them of old time, You shall not commit adultery: 28 But I say to you, That whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Matthew 15:19-20 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashed hands defiles not a man.

Matthew 19:17-21 And he said to him, Why call you me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if you will enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He said to him, Which? Jesus said, You shall do no murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and your mother: and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 20 The young man said to him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said to him, If you will be perfect, go and sell that you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

1 John 2:9-11 He that said he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness even until now. 10 He that loves his brother stays in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. 11 But he that hates his brother is in darkness, and walks in darkness, and knows not where he goes, because that darkness has blinded his eyes.

1 John 3:14-16 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brothers. He that loves not his brother stays in death. 15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer: and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.

1 John 4:20-21 If a man say, I love God, and hates his brother, he is a liar: for he that loves not his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? 21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loves God love his brother also.

But if that was the case, then the fruit had in it MGEs that changed Adam's information system. And regardless of its immediate effects, this paradigm considers that change to be sin. Hence, the fruit contained sin, which ALWAYS kills.

There is no such thing as a harmless MGE, since MGEs=sin. Right?

But in this paradigm, MGEs and epigenetic switches are passed down from father to son. Therefore, sin and its inevitable death are passed from one generation to the next, Eze 18 notwithstanding.

Furthermore, the propensities/desires themselves are sins, regardless of one's actions.

If there was something in the fruit that suppressed Adam's cellular defense mechanisms, that's harmful, isn't it? That means that either God's perfect creation had harmful elements, or Satan was able to sow his evil seeds in Eden before Adam disobeyed. Both options are unpalatable.

I checked this morning, and lecture #3 has been posted so the Loma Linda presentation must have gone on without technical difficulties. The title, is "Another look at sin. Part 1: The Human Condition". Part 3 discusses the impact of mobile genetic elements on human health and disease.

Does it answer any of my recent questions?

Good point.

Was it poison, that would cause death? Nope. Was it Satan's goal to kill Adam and Eve? Nope.

Rosangela, I did not know you were listening to this series.

I'm not, as it's difficult for me to understand English by just listening (not watching). I'm just following the discussion in this thread.

Watching is definitely easier than listening, especially when he gets into some hairy details. But I recommend it for those who are able to put in the time and effort. He has some very good ideas.

Well, who put these suppressants in the fruit, God or Satan? Were these suppressants a nutritious part of their balanced diet? Were the suppressants harmful?

Serious questions - - right...

You, and others reading this, might fail to grasp the gravity of these questions, so let me give a synopsis.

Melashenko said: iniquity = mobile genetic elements (MGEs)
Melashenko said: sin = change in our information system
asygo asked: So which came first, Adam eating the fruit or Adam having MGEs?
APL said: Adam - the eating of the fruit is what gave him the MGEs.
APL said: MGEs are the works the devil. MGEs are the cause of all sickness, all aging, and all death, exactly what sin does.
APL said: The MGEs were in the fruit.
APL said: What was in the fruit did not need to be lethal! BUT - what was in the fruit could have been devices to block cellular defense mechanisms, where by Satan could then implant other weapons, opening the door as it were.
asygo said: But if that was the case, then the fruit had in it MGEs that changed Adam's information system. And regardless of its immediate effects, this paradigm considers that change to be sin. Hence, the fruit contained sin, which ALWAYS kills.
asygo said: If there was something in the fruit that suppressed Adam's cellular defense mechanisms, that's harmful, isn't it? That means that either God's perfect creation had harmful elements, or Satan was able to sow his evil seeds in Eden before Adam disobeyed. Both options are unpalatable.
APL said: Was it poison, that would cause death? Nope. Was it Satan's goal to kill Adam and Eve? Nope.
asygo said: Well, who put these suppressants in the fruit, God or Satan? Were these suppressants a nutritious part of their balanced diet? Were the suppressants harmful?
APL said: Serious questions - - right...

Yes, serious questions. This paradigm/theory/conjecture says that MGEs are sin and always lethal. Now, you say that MGEs were in the fruit BEFORE Adam sinned. That means:
1. God put in harmful substances in the fruit.
2. Satan was able to corrupt creation before sin entered.

To say that these MGEs were not lethal contradicts a whole lot of tenets of this theory.

If MGE are the work of the devil, then why do you ask if God put them in the fruit? That is what you just asked. Thus, is that a serious question? I think not! You have made one more extension for which is not necessarily true. That is, are MGEs "always" lethal. The MGEs being in the fruit or around the fruit does not mean that God put them there. The fallacy of your supposition also was that Satan was able to corrupt creation before Adam sin. In deed, EGW says it was when Adam at the fruit that Satan sewed the seeds into the system. What was in the fruit, we don't know, I was not there. We do know, that no eating of the fruit, no fall. And God is not arbitrary. Prohibiting the eating of the fruit was no arbitrary command, just as the Sabbath is no arbitrary commandment.

It was absolutely a serious question. You have proven harder to pin down than a wet fish. It's not easy trying to get you to say anything definitive. And since I don't want to misrepresent you, I'll ask very basic questions. And I note that you wrote an entire paragraph without answering Yes or No. You see why you are so easily misunderstood?


Didn't Melashenko say that sin = a change in the information system? Didn't he say that MGEs = iniquity? Didn't he say that if the MGEs are not fixed, a person cannot be saved?

How much more lethal do you want?


MGEs are "engineered" according to Melashenko; there's no evolutionary process to explain them. There are only two engineers to choose from: God or Satan. Hence, either God made them or Satan did. If you see another option, go ahead and put it in the hat.

Whether it was in, or on, or around, or near the fruit, it doesn't really matter. If Satan was able to add an MGE into Eden before sin, I think that's a problem.


There is something inherently wrong with breaking the Sabbath. Are you implying that there was something inherently wrong with the fruit?

If something is not good, then who made it? God or Satan? You see why it is your question is not a serious question? Do you really believe that God made something bad???

I'm sorry, but I find this statement very naive. Sin did not originate in the Garden of Eden on earth. It originated before the creation of the earth. Satan was ready to corrupt all of God's creation. EGW writes, The Lord has given me a view of other worlds. Wings were given me, and an angel attended me from the city to a place that was bright and glorious. The grass of the place was living green, and the birds there warbled a sweet song. The inhabitants of the place were of all sizes; they were noble, majestic, and lovely. They bore the express image of Jesus, and their countenances beamed with holy joy, expressive of the freedom and happiness of the place. I asked one of them why they were so much more lovely than those on the earth. The reply was, "We have lived in strict obedience to the commandments of God, and have not fallen by disobedience, like those on the earth." Then I saw two trees, one looked much like the tree of life in the city. The fruit of both looked beautiful, but of one they could not eat. They had power to eat of both, but were forbidden to eat of one. Then my attending angel said to me, "None in this place have tasted of the forbidden tree; but if they should eat, they would fall." {EW 39.3}

Had sin entered these other worlds? Only at their tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. If they had eaten of their tree, their whole creation would have also fallen as it did on earth.

Slippery indeed.

When God said that everything was "very good" after creation, was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil lethal to eat?

I'll let EGW answer that: "The fruit itself was harmless. If God had not forbidden Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, their action in taking it would not have been sinful. Up to the moment of God's prohibition, Adam might have eaten of the fruit of that tree without realizing any harm. But after God had said, Thou shalt not eat, the act became a crime of great magnitude."

God is not arbitrary. There was a reason why God commanded Adam not to eat of the tree. And we know what she said happened to all of creation when Adam ate the fruit.

EGW said: The fruit itself was harmless.
APL said: The MGEs were in the fruit.
Melashenko said: iniquity = MGEs

The logical conclusion is that at least some MGEs, and therefore some iniquity, are harmless. That doesn't sound right.

Sigh - - EGW said in the quote above, the fruit was harmless up to the moment God prohibited it.

It looks like it was God's prohibition that made it harmful to eat that fruit. But this paradigm says that the "harmfulness" comes from MGEs. How did God's command result in MGEs in the fruit?

OH - put the blame on God! Nice.

You might want to read your quote again: If God had not forbidden Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, their action in taking it would not have been sinful.

I was expecting your reaction, given your previous statements. In fact, I'm surprised you even brought up this quote, since it strikes down some of your most cherished beliefs.

But it seems pretty clear that without God's prohibition, the fruit would have been completely harmless. So the question is clear: How did God's command result in MGEs in the fruit?

I doubt you can answer that and still keep true to Melashenko's conjecture.

If a Father tells His son to not play in the street, has the Father now made the street a dangerous place? Is the Father to blame? I guess by your reasoning, YES! The Father is to be blamed. God was stating the truth, don't eat from that tree. God did not cause the problem, Satan did. God's command was to protect Adam and Eve, not cause them misery.

DA 58 paragraph 1, "In the judgment of the universe, God will stand clear of blame for the existence or continuance of evil. It will be demonstrated that the divine decrees are not accessory to sin. There was no defect in God's government, no cause for disaffection"

I think you've gone around the bush so many times you got dizzy. Let's keep a laser focus and see if we can make progress.

Did God forbid the fruit because it was harmful to eat? Or was the fruit harmful to eat because God forbade it? Which is the cause and which is the effect?

If you say the fruit was harmful and that's why God forbade it, that would seem to contradict your SOP quote. Furthermore, it would mean that something God had made was harmful even before sin entered.

If you say that God forbade it and that's why it's harmful, that would mean that disobedience is lethal even if the action itself is inherently harmless. That means disobeying God's command is the true culprit, not malicious genetic elements.

Now, you may question the causal relationship between God's command and harm from eating the fruit, but that would make God seem arbitrary.

You are right - it gets dizzying. "The fruit itself was harmless. If God had not forbidden Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, their action in taking it would not have been sinful. Up to the moment of God's prohibition, Adam might have eaten of the fruit of that tree without realizing any harm. But after God had said, Thou shalt not eat, the act became a crime of great magnitude."

Break it down.
1. The fruit was harmless when created
2. God then commanded to not eat of the fruit - - WHY? What was the reason that God commanded Adam and Eve to not eat from the fruit? That is the question.

What is arbitrary is God commanding not to eat of the fruit if it was no harm. As created, it was perfect. But Satan was limited to that tree only. He could not harass Adam and Eve anywhere else. What else do we know from the SOP?

Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge which meant disobedience to God. Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. In the parable of the sower the question was asked the master, "Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?" The master answered, "An enemy hath done this" (Matthew 13:27, 28). All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares. {2SM 288.2}

So no question that Satan unleashed his weapons when Adam ate from the tree. She goes on in this quote to tell us that it was genetic engineering, "ingenious methods of amalgamation". Fits Melashenko's hypothesis perfectly.

The Lord would not have them investigate the fruit of the tree of knowledge, for then they would be exposed to Satan masked. He knew that they would be perfectly safe if they touched not the fruit. {1SP 40.2}

There you have the reason for the first quote above. God commanded them to not eat the fruit so they would remain save. Maybe there was nothing in the fruit. I don't know, I was not there. However, but eating the fruit, they were in Satan's hands, and that is when Satan "planted the seeds of death in the system".

The Lord has given me a view of other worlds. Wings were given me, and an angel attended me from the city to a place that was bright and glorious. The grass of the place was living green, and the birds there warbled a sweet song. The inhabitants of the place were of all sizes; they were noble, majestic, and lovely. They bore the express image of Jesus, and their countenances beamed with holy joy, expressive of the freedom and happiness of the place. I asked one of them why they were so much more lovely than those on the earth. The reply was, "We have lived in strict obedience to the commandments of God, and have not fallen by disobedience, like those on the earth." Then I saw two trees, one looked much like the tree of life in the city. The fruit of both looked beautiful, but of one they could not eat. They had power to eat of both, but were forbidden to eat of one. Then my attending angel said to me, "None in this place have tasted of the forbidden tree; but if they should eat, they would fall." {EW 39.3}

No eating, no fall.

Adam was required to render perfect obedience to God, not only in his own behalf, but in behalf of his posterity. God promised him that if he would stand the test of temptation, preserving his allegiance to the Creator during the great trial to which he would be subjected, his obedience would ensure his acceptance and favor with God. He would then be forever established in holiness and happiness, and these blessings would extend to all his posterity. But Adam failed to bear the test. And because he revolted against God's law, all his descendants have been sinners. {9MR 229.1}

Adam's fall brought down his posterity. ALL of his descendants have been sinners. It is genetic.

Eve was told that there was nothing bad in the tree, that its fruit was of such a character as would give increased knowledge. Does not Satan come to us in just that way? Does he not present attractions, and try to make us believe that if we will pursue a certain course, contrary to the law of God, something will be gained by it? But after they had yielded to the temptations of Satan, Adam and Eve found that they had met with terrible loss, and so will everyone in our world who yields to the temptations of the enemy to indulge appetite, find that it is a fearful loss to them. {9MR 232.3}

So there was nothing bad in the tree, that is what Eve was told! But what do we see happened to them?

APL seems crystal clear to me, but then my weakness is that I lack the education of an engineer. My mind does not function so that I see the flaws in APL's arguments.

That, in itself, makes it even more clear to me. Do I need to be an engineer to see what God did wrong? Is such a knowledge essential to my eternal well being? Wasn't that just what Satan tempted Eve to discover?

Johann, if lack of education or inability to see logical flaws is required to accept a theory, I would fear that theory. There is no virtue in ignorance. Come, let us reason together.

So you are saying that God created a harmless fruit. Then something happened that made it harmful, so God told them not to eat it. And all of this happened BEFORE man sinned.

In your view, God's command was a reaction to Satan's amalgamation; amalgamation that occurred before sin entered. God was merely protecting them from the now-harmful fruit by telling them not to eat it.

But let's review: "If God had not forbidden Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, their action in taking it would not have been sinful."

She said that if God did not forbid it, there would have been no sin. That means there were no MGEs in the fruit, since MGEs = iniquity.

True or False - sin began before man sinned? Answer: True

God's command was in reaction to Satan yes, but whole earth was not corrupted until man sinned. As EGW says, "Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge". Satan was confined to one tree in the Garden.

God did not forbid the fruit arbitrarily. He had a reason for forbidding, do you agree? God would not forbid anything that was good for Adam and Eve. "Eve was told that there was nothing bad in the tree, that its fruit was of such a character as would give increased knowledge." Who told Eve that there was nothing bad in the tree? God? No, Satan. Was he telling the true or lying? The whole paragraph: Eve was told that there was nothing bad in the tree, that its fruit was of such a character as would give increased knowledge. Does not Satan come to us in just that way? Does he not present attractions, and try to make us believe that if we will pursue a certain course, contrary to the law of God, something will be gained by it? But after they had yielded to the temptations of Satan, Adam and Eve found that they had met with terrible loss, and so will everyone in our world who yields to the temptations of the enemy to indulge appetite, find that it is a fearful loss to them. {9MR 232.3} Adam and Eve had a terrible loss, and all of creation was now subject to corruption. Why? I believe the presenter of these lectures is on to something. That something causes all sickness, disease, aging, and ultimately death. The exact same thing that sin causes. Well, I guess not everyone believes that sin causes death, but I do.

"If God had not forbidden Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, their action in taking it would not have been sinful."

But you say if God had not forbidden it, A&E would still have died because Satan had messed with the fruit. Right?

Or are you saying that Satan only put "harmless" MGEs in the fruit? Didn't you say earlier that the fruit was not poisonous?

True or false: If God had not forbidden Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, their action in taking it would not have been fatal.

I say true. WDYT, APL?

A senior citizen "A", in good health for his age, had for years been living in a room by himself in a nursing home in our area. Then suddenly a very sick man "B" was taken to the nursing home and he was placed in the same room where "A" had been alone.

Recently a nurse (possibly a new one) brought medicine to these two men. By mistake she gave the strong medicine for "B" to "A".

When "A" got very sick a well equipped ambulance brought him to the hospital. When the para-medic saw the condition of the patient he called the hospital requesting permission to give the patient the antidote available in the ambulance.

The physician said "no". Later experts claimed it would have saved his life.

Who was responsible for the death of Mr. "A"?

Do you see any similarities in this to what you are discussing? How could the daily life giving medication for "B" be fatal to "A"?

The family has decided not to file charges.

asygo:But you say if God had not forbidden it, A&E would still have died because Satan had messed with the fruit. Right?

apl: NO.

asygo: If God had not forbidden Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, their action in taking it would not have been fatal.

apl: God would not have forbidden anything that was good.

Why do you (asygo) think God forbid eating of the fruit?

apl: God would not have forbidden anything that was good.

Tell me, then, why God forbid Samson's mother from eating any grapes? Are grapes bad?

I guess, APL, you better not eat grapes anymore--because it must be sinful to do so. God has forbidden them.

Consider what Samson's mother was told--"She may not eat of any thing that cometh of the vine" (Judges 13:14). Do you eat anything from the vine? Don't most pregnant women like a bit of grapes, grape juice, or raisins to help boost their iron levels for good blood during pregnancy? Why was this forbidden?

God sometimes forbids something, or commands something, to prove us--not because there is anything inherently evil about the thing forbidden.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. Let me try to restate your position.

You believe that if God had not forbidden it, A&E would still have died even though Satan had NOT messed with the fruit. Right?

No, I don't. Melashenko says that MGEs are always lethal, even when the one who has them is perfetly holy; they are 100% fatal, not good for anyone.

NO.

Was Satan's goal to kill Adam and Eve? No. While MGEs are indeed the cause of all disease, aging and death, and most are indeed ultimately fatal, the original attack's goal was not to kill be open the door.

My understanding is that Melashenko will be re-doing his 5th lecture, "What Really Happened in the Garden?" We won't know the contents of that talk until it is posted. Perhaps that will address this issue. Also recall, we still have Genesis 3:22.

Oops, misunderstood you again. Let's try another combination: You believe that if God had not forbidden it, A&E would NOT have died even though Satan HAD messed with the fruit. Right?

Melashenko said that anyone whose MGEs are not fixed cannot live in heaven, didn't he? I don't remember him talking about benign MGEs.

But I do remember him briefly touching upon the "break one law, break them all" doctrine. He said that if you let one MGE in, the rest will surely follow, which is why James said what he said. That seems to be exactly what you are suggesting as Satan's first MGE. so in the end, its lethality was inevitable.

Lecture 5 is now posted. Perhaps that will address your question.

I haven't read the lecture, just the comments in this thread.

So let's see if I can understand the theory.

1. Sin began in heaven when Satan came up with the idea that his way was better than God's ways. This raised some confusing questions in the minds of the angelic hosts and God in His wisdom will allow Satan to demonstrate his supposed better way, so all would see it wasn't better at all.

2. God creates a perfect world. Everything is perfect, including all the trees and their fruit. However due to the problem #1 a provision is made that gives Satan a very limited access to this perfect world. He is allowed to reside in one tree.

3. God, knowing what Satan would do in that one tree, warns Adam and Eve to stay away from it, and not eat of the fruit. The fruit doesn't become "bad" because of the command, but rather because Satan is allowed access there, and God's command is a warning that bad things will happen if they go there.

4. Now according to the theory, Satan injects the fruit with MGE's that aren't lethal in themselves, but contain some kind of element that would cause dissatisfaction with living according to God's law?
This is where things get a little fuzzy, as some statements seem to indicate that there were actual ingredients in the fruit that upon eating it, changed the human DNA and caused physical aging and degeneration to occur as well.

5. Once Adam and Eve partook of the fruit, it releases satan from the tree and he can inject his MGE's where ever he choses.

That's pretty close, I think. But APL hasn't clearly delineated the relationship among God's command, Adam's death, and Satan's work.

APL? Is not the topic about what is presented in the series?

Yes, but the series did not answer all questions. And since it claims to be the explanation to sin and salvation (and a radical one at that, claiming that sin does not merely HAVE a physical manifestation, but that it is a PURELY PHYSICAL phenomenon), it is reasonable to expect that it would have something to say about the entrance of sin in Eden. It is telling that its strongest proponent here, APL, has little more substantial to say about it than "I don't know because I wasn't there." One would think that the theory's authors would have at least considered it.

APL, I think you missed this post. A response would help clarify things:


Oops, misunderstood you again. Let's try another combination: You believe that if God had not forbidden it, A&E would NOT have died even though Satan HAD messed with the fruit. Right?

God would not have forbidden it if it were safe.

Logic may not be your strong point, but Ellen White had it right.

"There was nothing poisonous in the fruit of the tree of knowledge itself, nothing that would cause death in partaking of it. The tree had been placed in the garden to test their loyalty to God." -- Ellen White.

It was God's prohibition that made the fruit unsafe to eat. The fruit was perfectly good fruit, and would not have caused death of itself. What caused death was their sin in disobeying God's command. The fruit had nothing physical to do with it.

I firmly believe that had the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil been an exact clone of the Tree of Life, with the very same kind of fruit, the very same chemistry, DNA, etc., God's prohibition of its fruit would have resulted in the very same consequences (death) if consumed.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You have interesting logic. God's prohibition did not "make" the fruit unsafe. You firmly believe that God made an arbitrary prohibition of the tree.

"Eve was told that there was nothing bad in the tree, that its fruit was of such a character as would give increased knowledge. Does not Satan come to us in just that way? Does he not present attractions, and try to make us believe that if we will pursue a certain course, contrary to the law of God, something will be gained by it? But after they had yielded to the temptations of Satan, Adam and Eve found that they had met with terrible loss, and so will everyone in our world who yields to the temptations of the enemy to indulge appetite, find that it is a fearful loss to them." - Ellen White

APL,

Here is the logic:

1) The fruit was harmless, in and of itself, as attested by Mrs. White.
2) Mrs. White is clear that the fruit had nothing in it to cause death.
3) Therefore, God's prohibition is what made it unsafe to eat.

Whereas God had commanded them not to eat of the fruit; and
whereas disobeying a command of God is sin; and
whereas the salary of sin is death, which is not "safe";
Therefore: God's command caused the act of eating the fruit to be unsafe.

It was the act of disobedience that was unsafe. The fruit was but an innocent bystander to the equation. The fruit itself could not cause death.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It was an issue of trust and loyalty.

Would they trust God, who had given them everything, including life itself, or would they trust the antagonist who had given them nothing?

Those who see sin as only a "natural" cause and effect thing, miss the higher spiritual decision of trust and faith and loyalty.

That was the issue --
Would they trust God and be loyal to Him,
or would they trust satan and follow his suggestions.
Who would they choose?
And yes, when they chose satan who could give them only transitory pleasures followed by misery, instead of God Who could give them eternal joy and life, they suffered GREAT LOSS.

Yes, and Adam's sin not only brought down himself, but the whole creation, and God's second book has evidence for what that is and this is the topic of the series.

By EGW
But Satan came and insinuated doubts of God's wisdom. He accused Him, their heavenly Father and Sovereign of selfishness, because to test their loyalty, He had prohibited them of eating of the tree of knowledge....Adam...fell under the smallest test that the Lord could devise to test his obedience. p. 246 Christ Triumphant

"The knowledge of evil, the curse of sin, was all that the transgressors gained. There was nothing poisonous in the fruit itself, and the sin was not merely in yielding to appetite. It was distrust of God's goodness, disbelief of His word, and rejection of His authority, that made our first parents transgressors, and that brought into the world a knowledge of evil. It was this that opened the door to every species of falsehood and error. {Ed 25.2}

There was nothing poisonous in the fruit itself

So what opened the door to sin and evil?

Distrust of God's goodness
Disbelief of God's word
Rejection of His authority

That is what opened the door to Satan and like Pandora's box, that door could not be closed again -- only the plan of salvation could save mankind.

Amen, Dedication.

"It was distrust of God's goodness, disbelief of His word, and rejection of His authority, that made our first parents transgressors, and that brought into the world a knowledge of evil."

The fruit didn't do it. Thoughts and actions did it all. The fruit itself was "perfectly harmless" according to Ellen White.

Does APL believe this? Perhaps now. But there is no excuse to doubt it. Remember, doubting and distrusting God and His Word is sin.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The fruit was harmless "up to the moment of God's prohibition", quoting EGW.

Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge, which meant disobedience to God. Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. In the parable of the sower the question was asked the master, "Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? From whence then hath it tares?" The master answered, "An enemy hath done this." [Matthew 13:27, 28.] All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares. {16MR 247.2}

Man is God's property, and the ruin that has been made of the living habitation, the suffering caused by the seeds of death sown in the human system, are an offense to God.-- Letter 73, 1896. – Medical Ministry, page 229. {Te 87.5}

Hm - Christ did not plant the seeds of death in the system, Satan did. EGW tells us the seeds also affect plants.

Adam was required to render perfect obedience to God, not only in his own behalf, but in behalf of his posterity. God promised him that if he would stand the test of temptation, preserving his allegiance to the Creator during the great trial to which he would be subjected, his obedience would ensure his acceptance and favor with God. He would then be forever established in holiness and happiness, and these blessings would extend to all his posterity. But Adam failed to bear the test. And because he revolted against God's law, all his descendants have been sinners. {9MR 229.1}

What Adam did has affected all of his descendants, all have inherited mortality, it is genetic. It is in the DNA which contains the laws of how the body works. And not only humans, but all life has been affected. Romans 5:12 Why, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed on all men, for that all have sinned:

Eve was told that there was nothing bad in the tree, that its fruit was of such a character as would give increased knowledge. Does not Satan come to us in just that way? Does he not present attractions, and try to make us believe that if we will pursue a certain course, contrary to the law of God, something will be gained by it? But after they had yielded to the temptations of Satan, Adam and Eve found that they had met with terrible loss, and so will everyone in our world who yields to the temptations of the enemy to indulge appetite, find that it is a fearful loss to them. {9MR 232.3}

Although the earth was blighted with the curse, nature was still to be man's lesson book. It could not now represent goodness only; for evil was everywhere present, marring earth and sea and air with its defiling touch. Where once was written only the character of God, the knowledge of good, was now written also the character of Satan, the knowledge of evil. From nature, which now revealed the knowledge of good and evil, man was continually to receive warning as to the results of sin. {Ed 26.2}
In drooping flower and falling leaf Adam and his companion witnessed the first signs of decay. Vividly was brought to their minds the stern fact that every living thing must die. Even the air, upon which their life depended, bore the seeds of death. {Ed 26.3}

Continually they were reminded also of their lost dominion. Among the lower creatures Adam had stood as king, and so long as he remained loyal to God, all nature acknowledged his rule; but when he transgressed, this dominion was forfeited. The spirit of rebellion, to which he himself had given entrance, extended throughout the animal creation. Thus not only the life of man, but the nature of the beasts, the trees of the forest, the grass of the field, the very air he breathed, all told the sad lesson of the knowledge of evil. {Ed 26.4}

OK Green, dedication, please tell me what these seeds of death are, certainly you know. The seeds that have affected all nature, are in the very air we breath! These seeds which were planted when by Satan when Adam and Eve ate the fruit. Perhaps they were on the fruit not in it. Perhaps by eating the fruit Satan was freed up to inject them into the system. But these seeds are the cause of the curse, they are every where according to EGW. God's second book it telling us what they are, have you read it? Please! Tell us.

The crux of this series, and this debate, is what causes death.

One side says eternal death comes from disobedience, disloyalty, distrust, disbelief, rejection, etc. The other side says eternal death comes from malicious proteins that invade our genetic material.

One side says the problem is one of character, the other says it's one of chemistry.

The fruit was harmless "up to the moment of God's prohibition", quoting EGW.

Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge, which meant disobedience to God. Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. In the parable of the sower the question was asked the master, "Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? From whence then hath it tares?" The master answered, "An enemy hath done this." [Matthew 13:27, 28.] All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares. {16MR 247.2}

Man is God's property, and the ruin that has been made of the living habitation, the suffering caused by the seeds of death sown in the human system, are an offense to God.-- Letter 73, 1896. – Medical Ministry, page 229. {Te 87.5}

Hm - Christ did not plant the seeds of death in the system, Satan did. EGW tells us the seeds also affect plants.

Adam was required to render perfect obedience to God, not only in his own behalf, but in behalf of his posterity. God promised him that if he would stand the test of temptation, preserving his allegiance to the Creator during the great trial to which he would be subjected, his obedience would ensure his acceptance and favor with God. He would then be forever established in holiness and happiness, and these blessings would extend to all his posterity. But Adam failed to bear the test. And because he revolted against God's law, all his descendants have been sinners. {9MR 229.1}

What Adam did has affected all of his descendants, all have inherited mortality, it is genetic. It is in the DNA which contains the laws of how the body works. And not only humans, but all life has been affected. Romans 5:12 Why, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed on all men, for that all have sinned:

Eve was told that there was nothing bad in the tree, that its fruit was of such a character as would give increased knowledge. Does not Satan come to us in just that way? Does he not present attractions, and try to make us believe that if we will pursue a certain course, contrary to the law of God, something will be gained by it? But after they had yielded to the temptations of Satan, Adam and Eve found that they had met with terrible loss, and so will everyone in our world who yields to the temptations of the enemy to indulge appetite, find that it is a fearful loss to them. {9MR 232.3}

Although the earth was blighted with the curse, nature was still to be man's lesson book. It could not now represent goodness only; for evil was everywhere present, marring earth and sea and air with its defiling touch. Where once was written only the character of God, the knowledge of good, was now written also the character of Satan, the knowledge of evil. From nature, which now revealed the knowledge of good and evil, man was continually to receive warning as to the results of sin. {Ed 26.2}
In drooping flower and falling leaf Adam and his companion witnessed the first signs of decay. Vividly was brought to their minds the stern fact that every living thing must die. Even the air, upon which their life depended, bore the seeds of death. {Ed 26.3}

Continually they were reminded also of their lost dominion. Among the lower creatures Adam had stood as king, and so long as he remained loyal to God, all nature acknowledged his rule; but when he transgressed, this dominion was forfeited. The spirit of rebellion, to which he himself had given entrance, extended throughout the animal creation. Thus not only the life of man, but the nature of the beasts, the trees of the forest, the grass of the field, the very air he breathed, all told the sad lesson of the knowledge of evil. {Ed 26.4}

OK Green, dedication, please tell me what these seeds of death are, certainly you know. The seeds that have affected all nature, are in the very air we breath! These seeds which were planted when by Satan when Adam and Eve ate the fruit. Perhaps they were on the fruit not in it. Perhaps by eating the fruit Satan was freed up to inject them into the system. But these seeds are the cause of the curse, they are every where according to EGW. God's second book it telling us what they are, have you read it? Please! Tell us.

I was able to restore the last post here.

Actually, there are several sides to the story. Some say sin does not kill, but God does kill.

As to disobedience, disloyalty, distrust, disbelief, if you can, tell me how that causes animals to get cancer, plants to get cancer and disease. Answer, you can't. And note it is not proteins, but nucleic acid that is proposed to be the issue.

You divorce character from chemistry? Really? Please tell me how that works! What happens to character when one uses alcohol or smokes pot? Does chemistry affect character? The mystery is not chemistry, but free will. How did God design that into the system. And note, the only reason we still have a choice is by the grace of God as Satan has highjacked the system. "Dead in trespasses and sins;" "the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint;" "no soundness in it." We are held fast in the snare of Satan, "taken captive by him at his will." Ephesians 2:1; Isaiah 1:5, 6; 2 Timothy 2:26.

That's closer to misquoting Ellen White than to quoting. Here's a little more, for better understanding (italices supplied).



In other words, the fruit never was harmful. The act of disobedience in eating that which God had forbidden was harmful.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

When I teach young children it often surprises me how literal they take things. Expressions we use and understand in their intended meaning, these youngsters take literal.

A person might say "that's a real can of worms", and the little fellow will think you are talking about real worms.

Now how about the phrase "plant the seeds of...."?

Let's look at a few uses of that phrase by EGW:

"No longer cultivate your doubts by expressing them and pouring them into other minds, and thus becoming an agent of Satan to sow the seeds of doubt. Manuscript 42, 1890

Scientific research becomes misleading, because its discoveries are misinterpreted and perverted. The word of God is compared with the supposed teachings of science, and is made to appear uncertain and untrustworthy. Thus the seeds of doubt are planted in the minds of the youth, and in time of temptation they spring up. COL 41

There are those in responsible positions who, by their words and actions, sow seeds of doubt and unbelief. These seeds are called tares by our Lord; and those who sow it are under the guidance of evil angels.

The authors of these books, which have sown the seeds of doubt and infidelity broadcast over the world, have been under the training of the great enemy of God and man, the acknowledged head of principalities and powers, the ruler of the darkness of this world. CT 424

Poisoned with error themselves, they have watched every opportunity to sow the seeds of doubt in other minds. Nature is exalted above the God of nature, and the simplicity of faith is destroyed; for the foundation of faith is made to appear uncertain. Befogged in skepticism, the minds of those who doubt are left to beat on the rocks of infidelity.--The Youth's Instructor, January 31, 1895

There is nothing more precious in the sight of God than His ministers, who go forth into the waste places of the earth to sow the seeds of truth AA 369

We all need to sow the seeds of compassion, sympathy, and love; for we shall reap what we sow. COL 84

It is because the human heart is inclined to evil that it
is so dangerous to sow the seeds of skepticism in young minds. Whatever weakens faith in God robs the soul of power to resist temptation. It removes the only real safeguard against sin CT 377


Anyone can see these aren't literal seeds, but rather words and actions that "plant" wrong thoughts into minds.

It's using the planting harvesting routines as a means to convey how words can introduce wrong thoughts into people's minds which then "grow" into bigger thoughts in that persons mind choking out thoughts of faith.

Or in the positive -- "seeds of truth" or words and discussions of God's truth also "plant" thoughts in peoples minds that can grow and fill their minds with Gods' truth.

"Whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap
For he that sows to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that sows to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not." Gal.6:7-9

Also, if we sow healthy habits our chances reaping good health are good, if we sow unhealthy habits, our chances of reaping bad health are good.
However, we are also the products of 6000 years of sinning ancestors which has greatly weakened the human race, and we "reap" a bitter harvest due to someone else's "sowing".


Yes, when Adam and Eve sinned it "planted" the "seeds" of evil, but these weren't literal seeds, they were wrong thoughts of doubt, distrust, lack of faith, selfish, self defending "Not my fault it's that woman You gave me." "It's not my fault, it's that serpent you made". -- Blaming God? Talk about "seeds" (thoughts) of doubt and rebellion taking root in their minds due to their disobedience (not some chemical in the fruit)

And yes, wrong habits and wrong thoughts do affect us physically. But it is still the wrong thoughts and wrong habits that cause stress and imbalance in our bodies, its not an infusion of some acid.

We make our own hurtful "acid" by sinning.

AGREE

That's a different thread. The series under discussion raises the very important question: Is sin a matter of character or chemistry?


I wan't there, so I don't know. LOL

Seriously, you're not really getting on anyone's case about not answering questions, right? Really? Not from the one who can't clearly answer a question about the relationship among God's command, Adam's death, and MGEs in the fruit.

But your main confusion here, I think, is one of cause and effect. I believe physical problems are an effect of sin, which is a character issue. You jumble sin and character and physical problems all into the package of MGEs. And Adam's eating the forbidden fruit clearly shows a conceptual gap in the theory.


Yes, that's right. I stand corrected. I fail to see the substantive difference between sin as proteins or sin as nucleic acid, but you are right.


No, I don't divorce them; I distinguish between them. I know it's a subtle point, but crucial.

As for freewill, you don't believe in it if you believe that our actions and characters are governed by mere chemistry. Chemical reactions, including those of genetic material, are described by probabilistic expressions of the wavefunction (see Schrodinger's equation). There's no freewill in there; just numbers. As Melashenko points out, it's all in the numbers. So you can forget your freewill because it's all a matter of which MGEs you have. Assuming the theory is correct.

And if you happen to breathe in bad MGEs, it's not even your fault because choice has nothing to do with it.

And we haven't even touched the concept of the restored genetic material in Christ's blood being the agent of physical restoration in our bodies, leading to eternal life. What kind of physical explanation do you have for that?

Ditto.

asygo: And if you happen to breathe in bad MGEs, it's not even your fault because choice has nothing to do with it.

Romans 5:12 Why, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed on all men, for that all have sinned:

Our choice is not if we are going to sin, but if we are going to trust God to save us.

asygo:I wan't there, so I don't know. LOL

And there you have a problem. And your attempt to blow it off shows you can't or won't connect the dots in God's second book

asygo: That's a different thread. The series under discussion raises the very important question: Is sin a matter of character or chemistry?

NO - This is directly addressed by this thread. The subject is sin and salvation. Salvation from what?

And again, character and chemistry are combined, not separate. You are nothing without your body. There is not separate soul. As to your freewill, Satan is out to remove your freewill, God's design is to give it to us.

dedication in her accusations of being a child: please explain the following quote: "Even the air, upon which their life depended, bore the seeds of death." Are our thoughts just floating in the air? The next paragraph, "Thus not only the life of man, but the nature of the beasts, the trees of the forest, the grass of the field, the very air he breathed, all told the sad lesson of the knowledge of evil." Are trees thinking wrong? Please explain how the nature of trees and grass was affected by Adam's sin. Please!

EGW: "But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere."

Hm - probably not a literal statement, right dedication? There was not any "amalgamation", which defaced the image of God, right? It was just bad thinking.

As for thinking, there is no question that our thought do affect us. The question is what was this like in the pre-fall brain? Is God's design defective such that it will self-destruct? I don't think so. God is not responsible for the origination or continuation of sin.

Can any of you show how thinking can change the genetic code? Show the science. MGEs can and do.

dedication: have you listened to the lectures? I'm quote sure green has not.

You fail to see the flaw in your theory, which is easily seen when analyzing Adam's, which you steadfastly avoid. In your view, if God had placed a physical barrier to prevent physical access to the fruit, Adam could not have sinned. If God had shielded it with titanium, and Adam was working diligently to bypass the shield so he can get to the fruit, as long as he didn't actually eat it, he would have been fine. To you, Adam didn't commit sin, he ingested it.

LOL You totally missed the irony.

That was your answer that I just served up for you. That you now see it as a failed attempt to misdirect the discussion is a step in the right direction.

To answer your question, it is not hard to envision the possibility of Satan gaining the ability to wreak havoc on human nature after Adam enslaved himself by disobedience. Having chosen a new master, he lost the full protection of God. Furthermore, having become the ruler of the world, Satan could also mnipulate the rest of earth.

So I view all this, including MGE's, as a result of sin. This theory postulates that MGE's are the very definition of sin.

BTW, the theory's salvation concept of "physical blood transfusion through an unspecified action at a distance through a physical connection via the Holy Spirit" is questionable, to say the least.

Salvation from bad character or bad chemistry? Yes, that's a good question.

There's no question that chemistry and character are closely related, but you are wrong to say they are the same.

You might claim that you said no such thing. But your premises lead to that conclusion, even if you haven't realized it yet. Study Eden and it will become clearer.

This "theory" is beginning to sound a lot like pantheism. Don't we have some indication from Mrs. White that this sort of thing would come up again near the end of time?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Because is was a non-answer. One that chooses to ignore the evidence presented in the series.



Again - ignoring the evidence. Destroying the law of God which is written on every nerve, muscle and fiber is not sin in your oppinion. Sin is real, Satan is its AUTHOR. And where is this information encoded?



You are right - I am NOT saying they are the same, but they are indeed tightly linked. As I have quoted before:
But Christ has given us no assurance that to attain perfection of character is an easy matter. A noble, all-round character is not inherited. It does not come to us by accident. A noble character is earned by individual effort through the merits and grace of Christ. God gives the talents, the powers of the mind; we form the character. It is formed by hard, stern battles with self. Conflict after conflict must be waged against hereditary tendencies. We shall have to criticize ourselves closely, and allow not one unfavorable trait to remain uncorrected. {COL 331.1}

Where do these "hereditary tendencies" come from? It is genetic. It comes to us via Adam and Eve and their disobedience. HOW did that happen? dedication has no clue. You asygo, have been at least witness to some of the presentation from God's second book.

They should be made to understand that right physical habits promote mental superiority, intellectual power, physical strength, and that longevity depends on immutable laws; that there is no happen so, no chance about this matter. {PHJ, May 1, 1902 par. 2}

The physical significantly affects the character.

If those who speak so freely of perfection in the flesh, could see things in the true light, they would recoil with horror from their presumptuous ideas. ... {2SM 32.2} 

        The Scriptures teach us to seek for the sanctification to God of body, soul, and spirit. In this work we are to be laborers together with God. Much may be done to restore the moral image of God in man, to improve the physical, mental, and moral capabilities. Great changes can be made in the physical system by obeying the laws of God and bringing into the body nothing that defiles. And while we cannot claim perfection of the flesh, we may have Christian perfection of the soul. ... {2SM 32.3} 

... When human beings receive holy flesh, they will not remain on the earth, but will be taken to heaven. While sin is forgiven in this life, its results are not now wholly removed. It is at His coming that Christ is to "change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body" (Philippians 3:21). . . .  {2SM 33.3} 

Lest you presume to claim this is all about holy flesh, it is not. Christ came in sinful flesh and upheld the law of God and "developed a perfect character" which He offers to us. Our chemistry is waring against us. We are also nothing without our chemistry.

It's true we need to trust God to save us, and it was by NOT TRUSTING God that sin entered into the world and with it followed death.




Salvation from sin, -- we need a clean heart (not the blood pumper, but the emotions, desires and attitudes) -- a pure mind, as in pure and wholesome thoughts, right reasoning and godly plans.

Salvation from sin must take place now, and to the overcomers in Christ will be given life eternal.



It's true that without Christ's death upon the cross, which opened the door of redemption, and His Holy Spirit working upon our minds, we would have no choice, but thanks be to this matchless gift, -- we do have a choice.

Character affects the chemistry of our being, which in turn affects character, but they are not the same thing.
Disobedience, distrust, and taking the word of the antagonist against the Word of God, did result in chemical surges within the system hither to inexperienced. Negative emotions have a profound effect upon the system.
However that is different from chemistry being infused into the fruit etc.


I'm sorry you took that as an accusation -- it was meant to be an example. Somehow it made you totally miss all the examples I gave on how the phrase "the seeds of ....were planted" were used.




They were cast out of the Garden in which was the tree of life. They had lost their robe of light.



All nature groans because of man's sin.
All I have to do is read what people do to animals in their greed, cruelty and love for violence -- it's absolutely sickening.

There is no question that sinful thoughts, plans and actions of people have indeed polluted the very air we breath.



There's no question in my mind that preflood people had the know how to play with genetics -- scientists are now learning that knowledge once again.
But again that is character -- man's idea that they could improve on God's creation which ended up in making confusion.




It was bad thinking and bad motives, that caused pre-flood people to mess around with genetics thinking they could improve on God's creation.
Just as it is very bad thinking and bad motives that is causing people like Monsanto to force upon the world genetically modified seeds with all kinds of pesticides and inability to reproduce programed into them.



No it is not defective, but yes, it will self destruct if deprived of a very vital ingredient.

One thing that I haven't seen in this discussion is -- (maybe it was mentioned I just missed it) but that is
THE ROLE OF THE TREE OF LIFE.

Adam and Eve needed to partake of the tree of life in order to have unending life.

Why? -- Probably because created beings do not have immortality within themselves. Adam was created out of dust, and needed access to the tree of life to maintain youth and vigor in order to live forever.



From what I understand -- the cycles of life and death were never part of the garden of Eden which contained the tree of life. Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden and could not enter it. The country outside the garden was apparently also closed off from the Garden.
Later the garden was taken to heaven where it awaits the redeemed who will again have access to the tree of life.


Mankind is not immortal.
God alone has immortality within Himself.

1 Timothy 6:15-16 "the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality,

She disbelieved the words of God, and this was what led to her fall. {PP 55.2}

What the disbelief the fall, or is it what led to her fall? The latter.

IF you have been listening to the lectures, and that is not yet clear to me you have, then you would know the relationship of MGE to the mind and the association between them and their tendency to give selfish behavior, and indeed many (all?) mental illnesses. It is genetic.

Those who put their trust in Christ are not to be enslaved by any hereditary or cultivated habit or tendency. Instead of being held in bondage to the lower nature, they are to rule every appetite and passion. God has not left us to battle with evil in our own finite strength. Whatever may be our inherited or cultivated tendencies to wrong, we can overcome through the power that He is ready to impart. {MH 175.1}


Again - it is not evident you have listened to the series or to the science. What caused the fall? distrust or disobedience? You used both in the quote above. Which? EGW above said that diselief LED to her fall. The fall was by disobedience, and that disobedience was what? EATING of the fruit. No eating, no fall.


No, I did not miss them at all. I understand it as you stating it as truth, not an accusation. Read {2SM 288.2} again. These seeds of death also caused tares, noxious plants. How does this come from wrong thinking exactly? Please, provide the evidence.


OH - I SEE - animals only suffer because of what men do to them! Are you kidding me? Please explain noxious plants. Have you read Genesis 3 recently and the 3 curses? These curses are caused by sin. The science is clear, and you can hear this in the lecture series.


There is more from EGW which you may have missed or just do not know. Where do all the various species we now have come from? God?

Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men. {1SP 78.2}

Lets see, this was EGW writing in the 1800s. When did this amalgamation happen? After the flood and before the 20th century.


Again you need to know the series. Also concerning Monsanto, HOW does Monsanto inject genes into plants? MGEs.


Probably??? Guess what, we will need to eat of the Tree of Life in the world to come.

There is must more the series that has been discussed here. The information in the DNA caused by mobile genetic elemens has been a disaster to ALL life. This is my conjecture now, I don't have evidence for this, but after sin entered, if Adam and Eve had been able to eat the fruit of the tree of life, which is what Satan was hoping for, that salvation would not have been possible for the physiological effect of the tree of life, and it clearly has a real physiologic effect according to EGW, would have integrated the added information in the system such that it could not be removed and still keep you, you. Again, I admit this is my conjecture. What we do know, is that after sin, the TOL would have perpetuation a life of misery, not happiness. And if the idea of the series is correct, this would have multiplied with time. It was an act of mercy on God's part to stop access to the TOL.

In how short a time from the first sin of Adam did sin increase and spread like the leprosy. It is the nature of sin to increase. {ST, December 20, 1877 par. 2}

In order to possess an endless existence, man must continue to partake of the tree of life. Deprived of this, his vitality would gradually diminish until life should become extinct. It was Satan's plan that Adam and Eve should by disobedience incur God's displeasure; and then, if they failed to obtain forgiveness, he hoped that they would eat of the tree of life, and thus perpetuate an existence of sin and misery. But after man's fall, holy angels were immediately commissioned to guard the tree of life. Around these angels flashed beams of light having the appearance of a glittering sword. None of the family of Adam were permitted to pass the barrier to partake of the life-giving fruit; hence there is not an immortal sinner. {PP 60.3}



I agree! And not only is Mankind not immortal, all creatures of God are mortal. And that includes who? Satan and the angels. Therefore, why does God have to torture and kill sinners? Because they are immortal? No. God does not do this. God allows the nature effects of sin to go to completion. As EGW says of Satan, if he had reaped the consequence of sin in the beginning, the universe would not have understood this fact, and they would have served God from fear rather than love. At the end of the Great Controversy, this will be fully understood.

One of the fundamentals of our doctrines is at stake.

Welcome to what we experience whenever we ask you a question. LOL


Evidence? It's non-conclusive at best. Melashenko himself started the series by saying that he can't prove any of it, that it's a conjecture that sounds really good to him. Yet you regard it as evidence.

He presents many pieces of evidence. The conjecture is not pulled out of a hat. He pieces together the Bible and science. It fits. What he has purposely done is to not include EGW in his talks because of the target audience. But if he did, his case would be much stronger!

Stronger? It can't even address the fact that EGW said if God had not prohibited the fruit, there would have been no harm. The theory postulates that sin is a physical event, not a spiritual one.

The pieces might fit, but your underlying paradigm leads to the wrong picture.

Yes, stronger. In fact article upon article of EGW's fits together. And it is stronger when you take it all as a whole.

God prohibition - this has been addressed. Sorry you don't like it, I can't make you accept it.

The mistake is separating spiritual and physical. They are bound together. We are God workmanship. We are created beings. Is there a soul that is injected into the physical or separate from the physical? NO. But perhaps you think there is.

Eve would never have eaten the fruit if she won't have first distrusted God's Word and believed the lies of the antagonist.
True -- if she would have dismissed those doubts and said -- "no, I will believe God and obey Him", and walked away, all would have been fine. But she didn't dismiss them, instead she acted upon them and thus she fell. It was the DISTRUST of God, that enabled her to disobey and eat.


Exactly -- Adam and all his descendants (as well as all living creatures) were cut off from the tree of life.

Cut off from the tree of life -- meant they would die, they didn't need any MGE's in the fruit -- there was nothing wrong with the fruit itself.
They chose to listen to the antagonist instead of to the Creator and thus were "cut off" from the tree of life.


What happened afterward?
Once barriers in a person's mind and character against sin are broken down, the person looses the power to resist sin. We see that happening even today. How many lives are ruined because a young person was pressured to do a wrong act, something he didn't want to do and had no intentions of doing, but peer pressure pushed him into it and once that first breach was made, he soon finds himself deeper and deeper in that sin. Indeed "It is the nature of sin to increase".

There is no question that things got bad after the fall.



Though it seems strange that Adam and Eve had to have an MGE infusion through the fruit,
yet Satan would have "reaped the results of sin" (as in dropping dead from the poison of MGE's???) with no one to give him an MGE infusion?

To me the obvious answer is --
it's not the negative effect of MGE's, they are only another result of sin, not the cause of sin in the first place.

The cause of sin is distrusting God and believing the antagonist, the rest of the bad stuff follows.


James 1:15-16 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death.

Recall the parts on information theory. Melashenko says information is the key to everything. He said that sin is any change to the information system.

So what came first, Adam's information system being changed, or him eating the fruit? Despite all the evidence you can muster, one bad data point always send a good scientist back to the drawing board. You don't just keep repeating your favorite data points over and over. That's basic science.


Melashenko says information is always and only encoded on physical storage systems. And where is character stored? In the chemistry of the body.

Like I said, you probably haven't realized it yet, but this theory makes them one and the same. Look at Eden and try to fit the theory with the data; it will become clearer.

Your best answer was "I wasn't there so I don't know." You admit that's a non-answer. This is the level and quality of "addressed" that we have with this theory.

No, it is not the level of quality. There is much more evidence. Can I say precisely. No. And it may be a long time before we see past our dark glasses. However, the theory that man, the workmanship of God, can easily self-destruct also has no support. The evidence is that Devil is the "author" of sin and it is he that has attacked God's creation. And using God's second book, I do believe we can see evidence in what he did, and how he did it. I also see our hopelessness unless God intervenes.

Let me put it another way:

	God forbid	God NOT forbid
Satan damaged fruit	1. Adam dies? Yes / No	2. Adam dies? Yes / No
Satan NOT damaged fruit	3. Adam dies? Yes / No	4. Adam dies? Yes / No

As far as I can see, the theory cannot give a clear answer to any of this.

It should be fairly easy to see, actually: God gives life and upholds every aspect of His creation, and any disconnection from God results in lack of cohesion and life.

Adam self-destructed when he did that. So did Satan, one who was next to God. It works that way across the board.

God told us how to avoid that fate. There's a reason why they are not merely statements or suggestions, but commands. Any deviation necessarily ends in death.

The problem I see with this theory is that the "deviation" from God is defined as manipulation of genetic material. What I find in the Bible and SOP as deviation from God is founded on doubting God's love, distrusting God's word, disobeying God's commands. That's how it happened in Eden, and that's how it happens today.

Hm - any deviation ends in death - - not execution? I'm glad to see you are recognizing this part of the truth.

Adam self-destructed.. What was Adam's prohibition? Not to eat of the fruit. No eating, no fall. it is quite simple really. It was a EAT prohibition, not a THINK prohibition.

And if God did not forbid eating the fruit, could Adam have disobeyed?

I told you that long ago. I told you to listen to my sermon. But research might not be your strong point. Anyway, glad you've learned something new.

As for execution, that's one way death can come. Negligence is another. How you choose to think about it is up to you, as long as you believe that God is in control, not a hapless bystander.

The most important death for us creatures is the second death. God is not the executioner.

As for God is in control, then are you saying all rapes are God's will? God is in control, right?

Yes, God is in control. Always.

Are rapes God's will? Not ideally. But there are cases when it is better than the alternative. For example, is it God's will that Satan suffer all these millennia in his sin? No, but this is the best way to go.

Just because we don't know why rape may be better, doesn't mean God doesn't. Just because we don't know why killing the Amalekites is better, doesn't mean God doesn't. Just because we don't know why sinners suffering many days in fire is better, doesn't mean God doesn't. But we must trust that in the end, God does what's best even if we don't understand now. And God's options are not limited by our understanding.

Ah - are not the alternatives under God's control too? If God will in being done, then ALL bad things are God's will. But guess what, the Lord's Prayer shows that God's will is not being done on this earth all the time, for we must pray for it to happen.

God wants all to be saved, but that's not going to happen. Is He still in control or is He a hapless, impotent bystander as events pass before Him? Can't He force the issue and remove all the pain and suffering of sin? He can, but the price will be a sterile universe of loveless automatons. So, God chooses the more painful but more loving option. God is love, and that doesn't mean painless.

Just because God chooses options that are unpalatable or incomprehensible to sinful humans doesn't mean He has relinquished control.

Does everyone die at the same time? Isn't sin a quick killer? How does any sinner manage to make it to the 3rd coming?

What's the difference between the second death and any other death?

All die the first death, with a few notable exceptions. In consequence of Adam's sin, death passed upon the whole human race. And through the provisions of the plan of salvation, all are to be brought forth from their graves. The second death is the death that the wicked die for their own sin, Ezekiel 18:20, the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Bonus question - which death did Christ taste for all (Hebrews 2:9)

Aren't both types of death caused by genetic shortcomings?

Both are caused by sin.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? That could only be the second death.

How could any death be caused by anything else? Only Satan could be interested in any other idea.

That's what I said, but using this paradigm's language.

But if both the 1st and 2nd death have the same exact cause, how is it that God saves everyone from the 1st but not the 2nd? As Daryl asked, what's the difference?

Definitions from one of Melashenko's slides:

INIQUITY = TE's (MGE's)

SIN = THE UNSANCTIONED CHANGING OF GOD'S INFORMATION SYSTEM (GENOME) BY EITHER DELETING OR ADDING TO THE CODE WHICH LEADS TO ADDICTION IF NOT CONTROLLED.

I'm finally on part 5.

Melashenko said that the Tree of Life would have kept them alive. This was part of his argument that sin is a physical problem since a physical solution (eating of the Tree of Life) exists.

But if sin ALWAYS kills when left to itself, and the Tree of Life could prevent death, the logical conclusion is that eating of the Tree of Life eradicates sin. Then just should have just let Adam and Eve have this antidote to sin.

It is not an antidote to sin. It would not eradicate sin.

Had man after his fall been allowed free access to the tree of life, he would have lived forever, and thus sin would have been immortalized. {GC 533.3}

Eating from the tree of life, would have immortalized sin! No plan of redemption! And what kind of life would that have been? We see it in our lives now. We would live on in ever increasing misery.

I think we tend to compartmentalized with this first and second death idea.

As I wrote in another thread --
The wages of sin is death, and when Adam and Eve sinned, death passed on all men.
Few people seem to realize that death (the FIRST death)is the punishment of sin and it was final, with no hope. People would die the so called "first" death and that would be it for eternity.

BUT then Christ took our sins upon Himself and died upon the cross.

The question -- since the punishment of sin was death and that death was eternal-- would Christ remain in the tomb because He was carrying all our sins?

We are told that doubt was even in Jesus mind as he hung upon the cross.
The first death WAS FINAL and the question was huge -- would this be the end of Christ?

But because He Himself was totally without sin, sinless, the grave could not hold Him, and broke open the prison house of death. It is ONLY because Christ conquered this first death and burst forth from the tomb that there will be a resurrection.

Because of what Christ did, everyone resurrected -- everyone of us.

Christ will never die a second time, but those who rejected Christ's marvellous gift of life, will die again, because they rejected what Christ did for them.

In mercy God will not allow them to live in the agony of knowing what they have lost and die the slow death of aging and the shutting down of the body that people often experience in the first death. The end for them will be quick and complete.

And so God took away the tree of life so people would die. Pulled the plug to the life giving tree so people would die.
That was the punishment for their sin.

If this is done by the mercy of God (which I won't argue against)
why would one question the mercy of God in ending the increasing misery of sin caused by a group or nation whose "cup of iniquity" was full, as in sending fire to destroy Sodom, so others could live in a society more conducive for people accepting salvation and the ways of life and righteousness that God offered.

I see your point. If sin caused some kind of "rearrangement" of the DNA code (or whatever the scientific formula theorized) then eating from the tree of life should fix that messed up "rearrangement" and destroy those MGE invaders that were injected by eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge.
And since "the MGE give the propensity to the behaviors we call sin," then eating of the tree of life would be getting rid of those propensities that causes people to sin.

Therefore there would be no "increase of misery" because the chemical situation that causes sin would be no longer in our system.
The tree of life would indeed be the antidote to sin.

What is THE punishment for sin? The second death. All who die the first death will live again. Eating from the TOL as EGW says, immortalizes sin. There is no plan of redemption after that. It is in mercy that God withheld the fruit.

Did God kill Christ? That is your answer to how God is involved with the death of the sinful in the end. Christ died the sinner's death. And God did not touch Him. Sin is not a legal problem which required a legal solution to sove, break the rules, wack - your dead. No. Sin is transgression which bring death. IF the second death is God executing sinners, then there really is no free will.

So if they ate of the TOL, they wouldn't die but they would still have sin? The TOL could eliminate the wages of sin without eliminating sin itself?

That's what I said, but using this paradigm's language.

But if both the 1st and 2nd death have the same exact cause, how is it that God saves everyone from the 1st but not the 2nd? As Daryl asked, what's the difference?

That's where we differ --
The punishment for sin is death.

Why -- because the person has disconnected from life.

The deprived access to the tree of life made this more graphic to the pre-flood generations. They sinned, they were disconnected from life so they died slowly.

We are all suffering the result of sin.

If Christ would not have come and taken our sins and died that first death would have been final.
Without Christ's death upon the cross THERE WOULD BE NO CHOICE,

But even more -- if Christ had died and if He had any of His own sin upon Himself He would have remained in the grave.
And all our hopes of a resurrection would be in vain, the first death would still be final -- no life ever again,

The only reason there is a resurrection is because Christ was victorious over the tomb.

The lost already died once -- God doesn't owe them life, they rejected His gift of life. They made their choice -- why would you say there is no freedom of choice?

The very fact that Christ took our sins and took our punishment upon Himself opens wide the door of CHOICE! Without that there would be no choice as the first death would be the end.
But now there is a choice ---
Accept Him and live, reject him and you've rejected life.
Accept Him and we accept life for He is the source of life,
reject Him and we remain in the kingdom of death enslaved by sin.

Everyone is given that choice.

And yes, sin is not only a deadly problem in itself (as the first death demonstrates), it is also a legal problem. To say it isn't a legal problem is to say there is no king and there is no law, it reduces the controversy to sin being just a disease that needs to be cured.

But there is a King of Kings and there is a law. Thus there are legal implications.

Sin is more than a disease, sin is an attitude, it is rebellion, it is treason against the sovereign of the universe.

There is a lot of healing that we need, but there is also the legal aspect. Christ died so our sins are removed in a legal sense, (justification -- accounted as having no sin) His merits are credited to our account. In joy and gratitude we give our lives to Him to live in newness of life, guided by His Word and His Holy Spirit. Yes, the healing then takes place restoring us more and more into His image. But the legal aspect is very much part of the process.

The Great Controversy is over God's law and right to rule and it will show a people who want to live under God's rule and in His kingdom of life.

While others say "we will not have this man to rule over us" and God says OK, you've made your choice, here is how much I loved you and wanted you in my kingdom (and God shows them video of all that was done to save them) and then the fires come and consume all sin, and those who clung to sin and rejected Christ; the earth is made new, and God and the Lamb rule in that glorious new kingdom.

No, it is not exactly the same cause. All dies the first death because of Adam. All those will be raise to life again. Those that die the second death die for their own sin. Read Ezekiel 18. All that have not taken advantage of salvation, will suffer the consequences of their own sin, which is death, the second death. See the EGW quote above...

You are correct dedication - our views are very different. The result of sin is death. Sin is what killed Christ, sin is what causes the death. The sting of sin is death. Christ died not to pay a legal debt. Christ came to save us from our sins, not in our sins. Sin must be removed. Salvation is healing by definition. We do the ministry of healing, not the ministry of jurisprudence. We do not need a legal solution, we need a real solution. Being legally pardon does not change the sinner. We need a total transformation. The garments of Christ's righteousness are not a cloak for iniquity.

1 Corinthians 15:53-56 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory? 56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

Jeremiah 17:14 Heal me, O LORD, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved: for you are my praise.

I do recommend you listen to the whole series as it is not at all clear to me that you have listened to any of it by your comments.

Ezekiel 18 says that the father's sin does not transfer to the son. However, Melashenko says MGEs and damaged info systems certainly do transfer from father to son. They even transfer from inanimate objects to us, according to you. Or did I misunderstand the lectures?

According to the theory, MGEs cause all the problems: selfishness, sickness, suffering, 1st death, and 2nd death. Are you now saying that MGEs from Adam ONLY cause the 1st death, while the MGEs we get from eating pork can cause the 2nd death? I don't remember Melashenko making a distinction between 1st death MGEs and 2nd death MGEs.

Jesus never sinned Himself. Does that mean that He only died the equivalent of the 1st death? Didn't He also suffer and overcome the MGEs that cause the 2nd death?

According to the theory, sin is a genetic disorder. It is neither attitude nor rebellion nor treason. All those things are merely manifestations of a molecular malady.

According to the theory, even if A&E continually conversed with Satan, sympathized with him, and even attempted to forcibly gain access to the fruit, as long as they did not physically put the frut in their mouths, they would still be holy and sinless. That is, assuming I correctly understood Melashenko's definitions.

Ezekiel 18 says we die for our own sins. Is this speaking first death or second? Second. For all die because of Adam's sin.

All die the first death. If you are not "born again", if you do not work with God to remove your sin, then you die because of what you have done.

We have been over this ground before. All die the first death, Jesus tasted death for all men, it can't be the first death. Christ was suffering the death that was pronounced upon the transgressors of God's law. {BTS, September 1, 1915 par. 5} What is the death that is pronounced on transgressors? The second death. But you say, Jesus never sinned? He never did an act of sin, never a sinful bahavior, that is 100% correct! So then how do you answer this verse? 1 Peter 2:24 "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." How did Christ have our sins "in his body"? 2 Corinthians 5:21 "For he has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." He never did a sinful behavior, then how was he "made to be sin"? MGEs fit. EGW: By taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. He was subject to the infirmities and weaknesses of the flesh with which humanity is encompassed, "that it might be fulfilled that was spoken by the prophet Esaias, Himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses." He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And yet He was without a spot. {16MR 116.3}

Satan manipulating his information system is not rebellion or treason? Really? Interesting. You really should read what EGW has written about the problem, particularly the first part of Patriarchs and Prophets, a Great Controversy chapter 29. You will find some interesting facts. Satan is outright lying, that is an act of sin right? He is lying and yet all he needed to do is to confess and submit and he would have been reinstated to his high position. No blood sacrifice. No plan of redemption. And EGW makes an addition comment, Satan is lying, yet he had not yet sworn off allegience to God.

EGW: God in His great mercy bore long with Lucifer. He was not immediately degraded from his exalted station when he first indulged the spirit of discontent, nor even when he began to present his false claims before the loyal angels. Long was he retained in heaven. Again and again he was offered pardon on condition of repentance and submission. Such efforts as only infinite love and wisdom could devise were made to convince him of his error. The spirit of discontent had never before been known in heaven. Lucifer himself did not at first see whither he was drifting; he did not understand the real nature of his feelings. But as his dissatisfaction was proved to be without cause, Lucifer was convinced that he was in the wrong, that the divine claims were just, and that he ought to acknowledge them as such before all heaven. Had he done this, he might have saved himself and many angels. He had not at this time fully cast off his allegiance to God. . Though he had forsaken his position as covering cherub, yet if he had been willing to return to God, acknowledging the Creator's wisdom, and satisfied to fill the place appointed him in God's great plan, he would have been reinstated in his office. But pride forbade him to submit. He persistently defended his own course, maintained that he had no need of repentance, and fully committed himself, in the great controversy, against his Maker. {GC 495.3}

Continuing.. God in His wisdom permitted Satan to carry forward his work, until the spirit of disaffection ripened into active revolt. It was necessary for his plans to be fully developed, that their true nature and tendency might be seen by all. {GC 497.1} What work? Lying? No, messing with God's law, seeking to change it!

Satan had been so highly honored, and all his acts were so clothed with mystery, that it was difficult to disclose to the angels the true nature of his work. Until fully developed, sin would not appear the evil thing it was. Heretofore it had had no place in the universe of God, and holy beings had no conception of its nature and malignity. They could not discern the terrible consequences that would result from setting aside the divine law. Satan had, at first, concealed his work under a specious profession of loyalty to God. He claimed to be seeking to promote the honor of God, the stability of His government, and the good of all the inhabitants of heaven. While instilling discontent into the minds of the angels under him, he had artfully made it appear that he was seeking to remove dissatisfaction. When he urged that changes be made in the order and laws of God's government, it was under the pretense that these were necessary in order to preserve harmony in heaven. {GC 497.2} How do you make changes to God's law? What is God's law? In the SSS series, God's law is define as the information that each organism has which controls His creation.

This is not Melashenko's idea, is the the Bible's statement of truth. Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die. Does this verse say, in the day you think, you will die? In the day you touch you will die? EGW even says Eve misspoke when she said she was not to touch it. The prohibition given to Adam was the EATING of the fruit.

It's putting the horse before the cart to say attitude, rebellion etc is a manifestation of molecular malady.
Rather molecular malady is a result of rebellion, treason against God and wrong attitudes.

Actually society pretty much believes the molecular malady theory now -- children who don't obey or are rebellious are usually "diagnosed" with some kind of "malady" and given drugs to "correct" it. It's absolutely amazing how many kids are on some medicinal drugs to "normalize" their behavior.

True I only listened only to parts of various seminars, (it's very lengthy and a lot of technical stuff) but my main impression was -- "It's amazing we are alive at all with all the degeneration that has occurred in the living system!"
Indeed we are dying long before we actually die. There's no question that things are gone hay wire.

But like the theory of evolution which has been very active (not in progressing but in degenerating the systems of Creation) this new theory, by realizing the prevailing conditions, does not address origins correctly. It tells us what sin has done, not what caused sin, nor does it address the true issues why sin can't be allowed. For like already noted -- eating from the tree of life would have stopped the process of MGE's and their destructive activities within the human system. And the implications were made that these MGE's caused "rebellion" and bad attitude etc. so eating of the tree of life which would have neutralized the MGE's would have been a good antidote against both dying and sin.

But there is a legal aspect to sin as well that is being pushed aside.
Yet to deny it is to deny justification, and the wonderful gift of forgiveness.
Yes, sanctification follows justification; the two must go together.

But the gospel tells us that first we must come to Christ as we are, and he accepts us! When we confess our sins He forgives them -- wipes our record clean! That is the legal aspect made possible by Christ taking our place! He gives us a clean record, and He gives us His merits. This gives us the boldness to come to God as His son or daughter in prayer and daily fellowship. We are accepted by God in Christ.

This is the POWER of the gospel. By walking with Christ our minds are renewed, transformed. (see Romans 12:2) The MGE's in our body that are destroying cells etc. etc, are still there, and will be there till this mortal puts on immortality, this corruptible puts on incorruption at Christ's second coming. But by beholding Christ and filling our minds with His Word, our whole thinking patterns are transformed right here in our present lives.


As to sin and Lucifer --
FIRST there is the surmising concerning Satan's rebellion in heaven. The assumption that even though Satan was breaking God's commandments in heaven, yet he would have been re-instated just by saying he was sorry; that is pure assumption.
All we really know from inspired writings is that at that point Satan had not yet sinned the unpardonable sin and could have repented and been reinstated. We are NOT told what his re-instatement would have involved if he would have repented. To say there was no legal connection is purely assumed.
Once there was war in heaven Satan and his followers had committed the unpardonable sin and whatever plan was offered or available before for their re-instatement was forever closed.

SECONDLY -- Jesus willingly yielded up His life in sacrifice.

John 10:15 and 17 "I lay down my life for the sheep."
John 10:18 No man takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.

His death wasn't just an example.
His death was our redemption price!
"The redemption price has been paid." {12MR 408.3}

His death was entered into under the conditions of the first death without a Savior, (for all have sinned) and without a Savior the first death was final. If Christ had sinned and if He had not broken through the prison house of death to the resurrection there would be no resurrection for anyone.

"When the Son of God came forth from Joseph's sepulcher, a triumphant conqueror over death, He broke the fetters of the tomb..." {ST, September 23, 1889 par. 2}



In one sense it is only because of Christ's death and resurrection that a "second death" is necessary. If it weren't for His resurrection, no one else would be resurrected ever. No one would receive everlasting life, and those who rejected God, would not have to die a second time -- cause they would already be dead.

THIRDLY:
The fruit on the tree of knowledge of good and evil was a test. This idea that they could play with sin all they wanted as long as they didn't eat of the fruit is some pretty fantastic assumptions. That falls into the category of presumption.

It is sort of how a lot of people think however about God's law.
As long as you don't kill anyone, you aren't breaking God's law, but Jesus says, "If you are full of hateful thoughts against that person you are a murderer already."

People say -- as long as you don't physically commit adultery, you're not breaking God's law, but Jesus says "If you fill your mind with lustful thoughts as you look on a woman, you are breaking the law". (See Matt. 5)

Living in a perfect world in communion with God and the angels, sinning just wasn't part of their lives. The first "seeds" of doubt were planted in their minds, not through MGE's but by communication with the serpent. Those thoughts could have been banished immediately, (temptation is not sin, if we reject it like Jesus did with a "thus says the Lord') The eating of the fruit was simply an outward expression that showed to all who they had chosen to believe and obey.

After that the life giving elements from the tree of life were barred from them. Satan was unleashed from the tree and he started his deceptions and devious, often destructive ways all over the earth and things simply degenerated, except as God intervened for our salvation.

Fine! Give me the evidence. Melashenko has provided reams of evidence. Give your counter evidence.

And the evidence for this wholesale drugging is nearly neglible.

It is amazing we are still alive. An geneticist, an evolutionist turned Christian who honestly looked at the data has written a book about our deterioration. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome by John Sanford, Ph.D. An Interesting book.

This statement is spoken without understanding. In fact it speaks volumes as to how sin started and why it was permitted. You cannot change the way God has created life, or it will fall apart.

Again, you are wrong. As EGW has said, eating from the TOL would have immortalized sin. It would not have neutralized MGE's and in fact, your saying so shows you do not understand the magnitude or nature of the problem! MGE's can destroy information in the genome. How would eating of the TOL rewrite the DNA that has been destroyed? Do you have any evidence for such an assertion? No. EGW: It had been Satan's studied plan that Adam and Eve should disobey God, receive His frown, and then partake of the tree of life, that they might live forever in sin and disobedience, and thus sin be immortalized. But holy angels were sent to drive them out of the garden, and to bar their way to the tree of life. Each of these mighty angels had in his right hand something which had the appearance of a glittering sword. {EW 148.2}

Not in the least is forgiveness, justification or sanctification done away with. Again evidence you have not listened to the series and are speaking out of ignorance.
The gospel tells us God came to us as we were and invites us to Himself. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. And His death wins us over as friends, for we know that He is not out to destroy us, or kill us, or execute us, but to transforms us into His likeness, and we saved by His life! Romans 5:10 We were God's enemies, but he made us his friends through the death of his Son. Now that we are God's friends, how much more will we be saved by Christ's life!

The power of the gospel is creative power. We know God by what He has made! Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Creation reveals the power of GOD, for His power is creative power. The fact that GOD creates is that which distinguishes Him as it the one true GOD. Psalms 96:4-5 For the LORD is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods. 5 For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens. What does the Sabbath testify to? God's creative power.

What you say is assumption is backed by EGW. Satan was lying about God, yet the conditions or reinstatement was given, confess and submit. Read GC chapter 29.

And who is saying his death was just an example? Who? I agree, the redemption price was paid. To whom was it paid? An athelete pays a great price to win the race. To whom is it paid?

Are you saying Christ died the first death? How is that tasting death for all humans when all humans die the first death? The wages of sin is death, Romans 6:23. EGW states that this verse is speaking about the second death. What death did Jesus die? Again EGW: Christ was suffering the death that was pronounced upon the transgressors of God's law. {BTS, September 1, 1915 par. 5} "The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23. While life is the inheritance of the righteous, death is the portion of the wicked. Moses declared to Israel: "I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil." Deuteronomy 30:15. The death referred to in these scriptures is not that pronounced upon Adam, for all mankind suffer the penalty of his transgression. It is "the second death" that is placed in contrast with everlasting life. {GC 544.1}

What was the command in the Bible? Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
I agree with you, that in our sinful flesh, our thoughts are sinful. We are exhorted to bring every though in line with Christ, 2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. But we are speaking about Adam and Eve, where their every thought evil? No for they had not fallen.

Ah - so the eating of the fruit was not really relavant. That however does not match scripture. And it ignores all the data that confirms Genesis 3:14-18. Oh, that's right, you have not listened to the lectures, so you can't know this.

Did God read very good things, or things whichi will deteriorate and die. Is the evil we see in the world of the non-human life just the result of deterioration? Is "the curse" just deterioration, or is "the curse" the evidence of what sin causes? Yes, it is the evidence of what sin causes. The snake on its belly, MGE, sin cause. A womans travial in childbirth - MGE generated, sin caused. Thorns and thistles, MGEs, sin caused. I think the evidence is clear.

He takes no pleasure in a forced allegiance, and to all He grants freedom of will, that they may render Him voluntary service. {GC 493.2} But if you break my law, I am legally bound to destroy you! Really? Then there is no freedom. What God had told us is that we cannot change what He has made, or it will fall apart. That is what Satan did. Why? Yes, because he was jealous of God. Satan did not understand what he was doing, that it was going to destory him and many angels. He was warned. But God was not then legally bound to destroy Satan. The inhabitants of heaven and of other worlds, being unprepared to comprehend the nature or consequences of sin. Satan is the destroyer, sin is the cause of disease and death, not God. Sin will be destroyed, when God lets sin go to completion, something we only say in the death of Christ.

So you believe Jesus died the 2nd death for His own sins? Did Jesus cause unauthorized changes to His own information system (Melashenko's definition of sin)?

And you still have not been able to explain the difference between 1st death MGEs and 2nd death MGEs. If God is able to save everyone from the 1st death while preserving their identities, why not the 2nd death?

He was made to be sin for us: 2 Corinthians 5:21 For he has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. 1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

As for first and second death, you have listened to the series? I'll let the series speak for itself.

So Jesus was made to be "unauthorized info system change" for us? Whose MGEs killed Him? Did He cause His own info system changes? Or were they from Adam?

The series makes no distinction between 1st death MGEs and 2nd death MGEs. It says that all death, all the way down to apoptosis, is caused by MGEs. That includes both 1st and 2nd death.

It also says that the fruit of the Tree of Life could prevent the sinner's death permanently. It even says that it was the antidote for death. But it never explains why God prevented sinners from eating it, since it would have saved everyone from "real"l," physical death.

It is apparent you have not listened to the whole series.

I think that provides great insight into how seriously we should take this series. The quality of the arguments set forth by you, its greatest proponent here, speaks volumes.

I think you've run out of gas. PM me when you want to discuss the topic seriously. In the meantime, I'll try to find someone who knows this topic well enough for intelligent dialogue.

Interesting response - have you or have you not listened to the whole series? I don't think so.

The issue of the tree of life has been discussed here and why the ban to some degree.

Your penchant for assumption is Brobdingnagian. You love to speak authoritatively on things of which you know nothing.

You are either unable or unwilling to give direct and clear answers. If you are simply unable, then you don't have the information needed to bring clarity to the topic; it would be good to find another spokesman if you want this theory to gain any traction.

If you are unwilling, then you don't have the integrity required to have a productive study.

Have you listened to the whole series?

Yes.

Truly, I am impressed. Not many would slog through all those lectures. I wish the speaker had written material as it is much faster to read and then go back and find where he talks about a particular topic.