@brilliant: OK, if you insist. I can see why you might think I was "blowing you off," and maybe I was, but not deliberately and callously! And the part about Ken Davis' "I'm not OK, and you're not OK, but that's OK" . . ., that's Ken's way of saying "I'm a sinner, and you're a sinner, but because God loves us and Jesus died for us, that's OK; God's got us covered."

OK, so here is where I got conflused (confused + flustered): "mutually excluding." Not sure what they means. Thanks to your latest missive, however, I now realize we do not share a basic assumption, and that is this: The tree of life (this is my view, OK?) would not impart something to Adam he already possessed; namely immortality. To use a corny analogy (off the top of my cabeza), if you are insanely healthy, and your "numbers" are all off the charts in the good direction

Forgive me, then, if I kind of stop there in my response to your latest missive and simply wait for you either to agree or disagree regarding that basic assumption. Don

@rhetorician “OK, so here is where I got conflused (confused + flustered): "mutually excluding"”

- I am sorry for my poor English (not my first language). “Mutually excluding” is probably a wrong term. Perhaps, “mutually exclusive” would be a better one. Imagine yourself standing between John and Frank (all three of you are on the same line) – each one of them is 15 meters away from you and each one is persuading you to come to him.

If you follow Frank’s persuasion and, thus, are moving toward him, then you are automatically moving away from John. If you “succumb” to John’s persuasion and start moving closer to him, then you are inevitably moving away from Frank. You can’t move simultaneously closer to both of them.

The effect of Frank’s persuasion is inversely proportionate to the effect of John’s persuasion. You can’t please both of their desires. This is what I mean by “mutually exclusive”. You may also consider the example of tossing a coin once. It’s either heads or tails, not both.

However, not so with the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil – God’s words show clearly that one can have the knowledge of good and evil (the effect of partaking of the tree of knowledge) and at the same time live forever (the effect of partaking of the tree of life).

Partaking of the tree of life will not save a man (who has already partaken of the tree of knowledge) from the knowledge of good and evil. Likewise, partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil will not save a man (who has already partaken of the tree of life) from living forever.

“if you are insanely healthy, and your "numbers" are all off the charts in the good direction (e.g., your heartrate at rest is 50 bpm, your blood pressure is 110/70, your blood sugar is 75, your bad cholesterol is 85, etc.), and if additionally you have the healthiest diet in the world, you COULD drink Ensure and take megadoses of multivitamins, but why would you? That's right, because you're already insanely healthy. That's the way it was with Adam--again, according to me”

- You can have the best health in the world and the most perfect numbers that are all off the charts in the best direction possible, yet nothing will save you from death if you happen to have eaten one kilogram of potassium cyanide or if the Empire State building collapses right on you and smashes you flat. This is not what I mean by “immortality”.

I heard that some species of sequoia tree never die naturally, that is, without any external force applied. It can be killed by a lightning or cut by a woodcutter; however, if it’s left alone, it will never die. Also, some Amoeba-like primitive living beings, I heard (don’t remember the name), can also live endlessly.

You can kill them by some acid or simply destroy them by smashing, however, if you leave them alone in their safe environment, they will never die.

Again, this is not what my concept of immortality is. My definition of “immortal” is simply “not able to die in any circumstance - even if all destructive forces of the world are applied to you both from outside and inside”. I guess our different meanings attached to the word “immortal” is what caused our later misunderstanding.

Thus, looking at it from the perspective of my concept of “immortality”, Adam was not immortal right after he was created. Sure, he didn’t have any inner poison in him that could cause him to die; however, he still needed to be fully protected in the Garden of Eden from any possible destructive force that could have potentially killed him from outside.

So, had Adam continued in his original state in the Garden of Eden without partaking of any of the two trees, he could’ve well lived indefinitely – as long as he remained fully protected in Eden – however, according to my definition, this was still not immortal.

In fact, what happened to Adam when he partook of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (separation from God, what others call “spiritual death”), and about 930 years later (his physical death) only proves that Adam had never been immortal (in the sense of my definition of “immortality”).

You argue your case very well. I remain unconvinced. I will be brief.

1) Sequoia trees and amoebae are interesting diversions, and they serve to illustrate your definition of immortality, but they are apples and Adam is oranges.

2) The circumstances in Eden (paradise) are veiled in mystery--well, silence, anyway. By looking at Eden from a post-fall-from-grace perspective, which you are doing, assumes a great deal which must not be assumed. Conditions then were simply not the same as conditions now. Without speculating too much in this regard, I suggest our first parents simply were NOT vulnerable to "any possible destructive force . . . that could have potentially killed [them]," as you put it.

3) We can let our imaginations run wild regarding what Eden was like in its state of pristine glory, with our first parents running around naked. The temperature was likely an ideal (say) 76.5 degrees Fahrenheit, with low humidity. There was no need for rain, since the dew watered the garden. Perhaps Adam could stub his toe or cut his finger on who knows what, but that is pure speculation. If God had wanted us to know more specifics about Eden, He would have told us.

Imagination is a great thing, it's a God-given thing, and there's nothing wrong with speculating about this and that. In writing Genesis, however, Moses--at least regarding the story of creation and life in a pre-fallen world--was not using his imagination; rather, he was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God.

Moreover, his purpose in writing was not to give us a textbook on the particulars concerning the garden but to give an inspiring account of how everything came into being through the fiat of an infinitely powerful Creator-God. Israel needed to know in their hearts that the same God who spoke worlds into existence was more than capable of leading them out of slavery and into the land of promise.

Well, I've failed to be brief. Forgive me. I have a feeling we could go on arguing forever, without ever coming to a "meeting of the minds." That's OK. I think, however, we both have "bigger fish to fry" and other, more important concerns vis a vis the Bible and the challenges it presents to our understanding.

Let's assume for the moment that you are right (correct) and I am wrong (incorrect) about the concept of immortality. What qualitative difference would it make in your (our) understanding of God's plan for the ages and God's plan for your (our) lives on Planet Earth in 2014?

"Things were what they were" prior to the fall. We can never change them, let alone fully appreciate all the details of what life was like without the effects of sin. After the fall, "things are what they are," and the challenge is to deal with them as best we can in hope of accomplishing something redemptive in making things better. Selah.