But if they had what would the fruit have done to them since according to you that they already had immorality and if they ate from the tree they would live forever(meaning they would become immortal)? If the fruit from the tree gives immorality again what would the fruit done to them if they had eaten from it while they were already immortal?
I have never said that they had immortality to begin with. If they had been truly immortal then nothing could have caused them to die.
After eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they then had immorality, but they didn’t have immortality.
Before eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they were in a state that was neither mortal nor immortal. It could go either way.
They made a choice that began the death process. Had they eaten thereafter from the Tree of Life, the death process would have ended, and they would have been immortal. So God prevented them from re-entering the garden and eating from the Tree of Life.
Well here is what you said:
“God didn’t create them mortal, but they became mortal through disobedience”
So if God didn’t create them mortal then He created them immortal or are you backtracking here?
I am not backtracking in any way. I still hold the same position I held from the beginning.
Have you not read what I said in my most recent post above? Here is your illogical clause:
As I said earlier, the consequent of this conditional clause does not follow logically from its antecedent.
You presume incorrectly that “mortal” and “immortal” are collectively exhaustive. They are not.
As I said in my previous post, they were created NEITHER mortal no immortal. “Mortal” means “subject to natural death,” whereas “immortal” means “not subject to death of any kind.” They were created NOT mortal, and NOT immortal. They BECAME mortal immediately after they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil—subject to natural death. If they had afterward eaten from the Tree of Life, they would have become immortal—not subject to death of any kind.
You are not alone qaz; as you are aware, there are good and sufficient explanations for why the A/E story could very well be ‘true myth’.
Why is the story of Adam and Eve implausible? To me, everything fits–
-…The son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. Luke 3:38.
-Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. Rom. 5:14.
-For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 1 Cor. 15:22.
-*So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. * 1 Cor. 15:45.
-For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 1 Tim. 2:13.
-Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones….” Jude 1:14.
Once you start snipping at the miraculous historicity and the predictive prophecy, can you stop yourself 
Noah? “You’re kidding, right?”
Samson? “Puh-LEASE!”
Daniel? “Historical events post-dated (ex eventu) to look like genuine predictive prophecies, with some fairy tales thrown in.”
Angels? “The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits.” Acts 23:8.
Satan? “A personification of human evil.”
Antichrist? a.k.a. “The one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders”—see above.
Blessings.
Hermano I was not sniping at anything. If you carefully read what I wrote, I said a case COULD be made that explained the story without taking it literally, but still encapsulating the Truth God wants us to know.*
And the slippery slope argument does NOT work. I think you know that. Using intelligence and scholarship and history, we can honor God’s word more than well…other ways, in recognizing things such as genre, form criticism, oral tradition, dating of the sources, history of surrounding societies and their mythologies - you are behind the curve, dude!
OTOH - we ain’t gonna convince one another. I think your fears are misplaced; no doubt I’m being deceived because I disagree. Wow!!
Hermano I was not sniping at anything. If you carefully read what I wrote, I said a case COULD be made that explained the story without taking it literally, but still encapsulating the Truth God wants us to know.*
I think taking the Creation story symbolically is different then calling it a myth? Symbolically means it could be inspired by God but “myth” sounds like it’s “made up”, at least to me.
It’s possible the story is symbolic and to me it wouldn’t matter but Jesus referenced people and events in it specifically and in a way that sounds literal.
Which raises a question, since the bible mentions angels. And angels are mentioned, in both the Old and New Testaments. Do you only believe parts of the bible? If so, which parts do (or don’t, depending on which is easier) - you believe or disbelieve.
Since the NT mentions Adam as a literal person it’s a 100% certainty that A&E were literal people. The NT debunks that the OT creation story is a myth.
Since the NT mentions Adam as a literal person it’s a 100% certainty that A&E were literal people. The NT debunks that the OT creation story is a myth.
Jesus mentioned “the blood of Abel” and other specific things about Creation so i take it literally but you can mention specific things that are symbolic simply as a point of reference.
I have a hard time believing in angels too, as metaphysical beings that have existed outside of nature in some unexplained society. The universe is 14 billion years old. When was the angels’ universe created? What do they do when they’re not intervening in our universe? Sorry hermano, but the whole idea of angels is totally implausible to me.
I think Jesus told Peter that if he asked his Father to send 40 legions of Angels to help it would be done so if Angels don’t exist then Jesus can’t be trusted.
A tendency that most of us have, it appears, is to fall prey to the very easy but misleading ‘either-or’ fallacy. Wiki defines it like this:
“A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an “either/or” situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option.[1]
A false dilemma can arise intentionally, when a fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice or outcome. The opposite of this fallacy is false compromise.
The false dilemma fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception.”
I am always suspicious of an either-or situation; of course, some of those situations are warranted: “Either you told a lie or you did not”.
(1) “Either you believe the bible is the word of God or you don’t.”
If ‘believe the bible’ is a CODE for “believe every single word of the KJV of the protestant bible is infallible, to be taken literally regardless of obvious literary technique (genre, symbolism, metaphor etc.)” , then the question would be more accurately put:
(2)“Either you believe every single word of the KJV of the protestant bible is infallible, to be taken literally regardless of obvious literary technique (genre, symbolism, metaphor etc. or you don’t” - THEN it ceases to be fallacious.
(3) “You are either a Unitarian or you are not” - I think we all see through that fallacious question, no?
(4) “Either you believe the bible or not” - can be CODE for “that Adam and Eve were literally the first two human beings, there was a literal snake in the Garden, that spoke words” then the question really is:
(5) “Either you believe that Adam and Eve were literally the first two human beings, there was a literal snake in the Garden, that spoke words, or you don’t” - that’s a a well-put question, I think.
We have MANY ‘code-words’ that IMPLY much more than they state: Inspiration, Inerrancy, Reliability, Word of God, Divinity, True Man - there’s a long list, and using those code words in an either-or situation is just not fair, and not logically ‘honest’. In other words, if there is an hidden agenda behind the question, then asking someone to answer the question in an either-or manner using code words is, at minimum, not conducive to real communication or to a sincere quest for the truth.
My $.02
I am always suspicious of an either-or situation; of course, some of those situations are warranted: “Either you told a lie or you did not”.
I don’t know if you are including my comments about Jesus referencing 40 legions of Angels and he also said “we will be like the Angels in Heaven” talking about marriage in the afterlife.
Sometimes “either or” is a false dichotomy but IMHO in this case if Jesus is wrong about Angels , i don’t see how he could be trusted about much else.
If i missed something i’m open to correction however.
I was not referring to you at all Steve, I always appreciate your comments. My post was based on observations over the years of all sorts of arguments based on fallacious ‘either-or’ arguments.
I was not referring to anyone in particular. It was a general observation.
I"m sorry if you thought I was aiming at you. 
I was not referring to you at all Steve, I always appreciate your comments. My post was based on observations over the years of all sorts of arguments based on fallacious ‘either-or’ arguments.
No problem but a profound question just flew into my mind, do you like your fish fallacious or whole??
Filet-ious. You are on a roll today. :lol
But it is hard to tune a fish…
Dave, my bad. Forgive me. Yes, the “slippery slope” argument does make generalizations, and you and qaz are definitely exceptional people who I would not try to force into any box.
I used to work in an office that helped clients design valid and reliable surveys, and then we processed and analyzed the completed surveys, and reported the results and discussed conclusions.
There are techniques to help hone and amp up the discriminating power of each question of a questionnaire, and statistical tests to analyze the results, and draw valid conclusions. Sometimes there is predictive power in people’s answers to some questions, from which one can reliably infer or predict their answers to other unasked questions.
-So, for example, if a person favors legalized abortion, they are more likely to also support legalized euthanasia. These positions are highly correlated.
-Being in favor of easy drugs/ being in favor of easy gambling.
-Involvement in drugs and gambling/ higher rate of addiction / higher rate of incarceration.
Slippery slopes. One thing predictive of another.
But as to not trying to convince each other, well. We are to *“earnestly contend.” * We are to try to *“win people over.” * To "turn people back who stray.” So, of course I’m trying to convince people to come over to my viewpoints. I may not be right about the things I choose to argue, but I honestly think I am, and that they are important. Obviously I am no Paul, but I want to be like him (and even more, to manifest Jesus himself in 2018):
-All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. 2 Timothy 3:16.
*
-…With gentleness correcting those who are in opposition…2 Timothy 2:25.
*
-As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures….Acts 17:2.
Much of the Bible is corrective. Jeremiah, Isaiah, and so forth - they are correcting, and Paul is correcting, and he is weeping and warning night and day for three years!
Blessings.
Hermano - honor where honor is due: you’ve always been upfront and encouraging and I am appreciative of that. Even if we don’t convince one another, “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another”, right? Let’s stay sharp!