Yes, I agree. The tree of life in the garden of Eden was sacramental. No tree can give eternal life, only God can do that. But He would grant eternal life to those who ate of the tree with faith and obedience. Adam and Eve’s disobedience meant they could no longer receive eternal life from God and therefore were not allowed to eat of the tree of life and were cast out of the garden.
However, God supplied another tree of life, which is the saving work of His Son Jesus Christ on the cross. Revelation 22.2 describes this tree of life in the New Jerusalem ...
“In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.”
Revelation 22:2 KJV
How grateful we should be for God’s gracious gift of His Son to us!
I don’t think it’s a difficult question to answer.
The appearance is that one would have to eat from the tree of life periodically because it used unique vitamins and other nutrients to repair celular damage - entropy existed from the beginning of earthly time.
Like repair split ends of telemeres.
This idea gets some inferential endorsement from the scripture “the leaves of the trees are for the healing of the nations.”
So, did the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil actually make Adam smarter? No.
God tests every man. Yes, even Adam.
Salvation/ knowledge/ IT is what GOD created it to be and we will find out when we get home...
I believe the garden in Eden was where Jerusalem is today. The temple being where the tree of life was and Golgotha being where the tree of good and evil was. Yeshua, being the second Adam, died in place of and literally in the same place where the first Adam was promised death for eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
That's why Jerusalem is so special to God.
A long-awaited in depth commentary on the crucial Genesis 1–11 chapters explaining how the Hebrew text, the rest of the Bible, and science support Creation in 6 ordinary days about 6,000 years ago a...
This might be my favorite quote from the booklet.
“As previously stated, the worldviews concerning us here are theism and atheism, with a special emphasis on biblical theism.”
Yes. There are only TWO possible worldviews that could be true. No one on earth believes in any other “Gods”, and everyone who believes in the “God” of the Bible rejects evolution.
I have never read anything more intellectually dishonest.
You want to reach Millennials? Start with a shred of evidence.
Have a great evening, Ray!
I actually just received mine, can’t wait to get out there.
Adam Koppin; Kris Lapata
I’m a millennial, but stuff like that didn’t work well with me. It was the early church fathers that got me back into the swing of things. It helped me see the Catholic Church more clearly. I now know for sure that the Catholic Church is the church that is talked about in the Bible.
the creation > space /time/ matter < is bound by the laws of physics and math which is the language of creation ..the days of the week 1,2,3,4,5,6 and the 7th Day Sabbath..Genesis thru Revelation has many things listed / spoken of/ symbol is of numbers /times/days/ months/ years which is part of present day language/ view of the past/ view of prophecy .... math / DNA/ everything is inter connected .. seasons, age, the phases of the moon...The creatures and nature needed to know when to do things...
To manifest change that comes with time in this dimension.
Time is an actual physical dimension like width, breadth height that define our mortal physical existence. Without it nothing material would be here.
Because He felt like it
Maybe to help us measure time.
So that the earth and seasons and time would all coincide.
Your picture makes it seem like the two species shown are found 55 Ma apart even though they are both modern species. Rather, it was the genus Djarthia (whose exact taxonomic position is uncertain) that occurs in the Paleocene, as noted in the PLOS paper you provided. This graphic is either a misunderstanding or diliberate misrepresentation of the references cited.
May I ask what formal training in paleontology the admin of this page has had?
We didn't claim the skulls were from a 55 million year old fossil, it is the references that claim Monito del Monte is regarded as a living fossil and thought to exist: 55 million years ago.