> This is literally saying that God can't kill them if they ate from the Tree of Life.

Actually, it isn't. You'll recall that I wrote, "The fruit of this tree may extend life, but it does not instantly grant immortality." It's not like one bite is the Fountain of Youth. They would have to keep eating from it (we don't know how often), so it's not at all saying that God can't kill them. As we know from the Bible, it is God's prerogative to judge people with death when then are worthy of it. Their access to the Tree is not saying that God can't kill them.

> Everyone knows God can't die.

It's the paradox of the Cross. We all know that death in the Bible is never a cessation, but a transition. Physical death moves us to a different kind of existence; spiritual death moves us to a different kind of relationship. The Second Death is a finality of judgment while one continues to exist.

We would never say that God died on the cross (ceased to exist). What we would say is that Jesus's body died—He experienced a true physical death. His soul continued on, as the souls of all humans do. And His physical body came back to life, as all physical bodies will. His physical resurrection was different from what ours will be, however, in that He raised Himself from the dead (Jn. 2.19), and in that He was the first fruits of those who die (1 Cor. 15.20).

> For God, making a human body die and come back to life is as simple as desiring it to happen.

Of course.

> It's a little melodramatic to say God conquered or overcame death.

Actually, it's biblical.

[list][*] Acts 2.24: "it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him."
[*] Romans 6.9: "death no longer has mastery over him."
[*] Romans 8.2: "through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death."
[*] 1 Corinthians 15.26: "The last enemy to be destroyed is death."
[*] 1 Corinthians 15.54: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."
[*] 2 Timothy 1.10: "Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death..."
[*] Hebrews 2.14: "...so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death..."
[*] Revelation 1.18: "And I hold the keys of death and Hades."[/list]

It's not hyperbolic or melodramatic at all to claim that God conquered death and overcame it.

> The idea of death doesn't apply to God because He can't die.

It's actually a biblical idea that Jesus (1) is God, and (2) actually died.

> If God doesn't prevent them from eating from the Tree of Life, they will be doomed to life of endless misery in a fallen world.
This is literally saying that God can't kill them if they ate from the Tree of Life. God has to prevent them from eating or He can't kill them.

If He still could kill them, then eating would be irrelevant.

> He wasn't proving He could overcome death, He was actually overcoming it.

Everyone knows God can't die. He can take a human body and make that die and come back to life, but the entire time He is still alive. For God, making a human body die and come back to life is as simple as desiring it to happen. It's a little melodramatic to say God conquered or overcame death. The idea of death doesn't apply to God because He can't die. These are your rules, but they don't match your story.

> why did God have to prevent Adam & Eve from eating from the Tree of Life and living forever?

Genesis 3.22 tells us "He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." Cutting off access to the Tree of Life is the means by which the death penalty is carried out. If God doesn't prevent them from eating from the Tree of Life, they will be doomed to life of endless misery in a fallen world. Without continuing access to this Tree, however, they are doomed to eventually die and death is inevitable. God has no desire that they live forever in a sinful state.

Keil and Delitzsch comment that "reach out his hand and take *also* from the tree of life" may signify that they had not yet eaten from the Tree of Life.

But this is not magical fruit. It's not the actual food of immortality. The fruit of this tree may extend life, but it does not instantly grant immortality (Prov. 3.16-18; 13.12; 15.4). The Tree symbolizes what is only God's to give. God is the source of Life, which is given by Him and found in His presence (Dt. 30.11-20).

> That implies that God couldn't kill them once they ate from the Tree of Life.

No it doesn't, as per my explanation above.

> How would it ever be necessary for God to pretend to die or prove He could overcome death?

It would never be necessary for God to *pretend* to die. Pretense isn't reality, and is therefore meaningless.

He wasn't proving He could overcome death, He was actually overcoming it. It wasn't a proof set to convince skeptics, but the reality that was necessary. Death was the wage for sin and it had to be conquered for it to have no hold on people.

> All powerful means you're able to overcome everything all the time without even trying.

No it doesn't. Omnipotence doesn’t mean there are no limits to what God can do (Mk. 6.5). It means God is able to do all things that are proper objects of his power, not that he's able to overcome everything all the time without even trying. It is no contradiction that God is able to bring about whatever is possible, no matter how many possibilities there are. The omnipotence of God is all-sufficient power. He can never be overwhelmed, exhausted, or contained. He is able to overcome apparently insurmountable problems. He has complete power over nature, though often he lets nature take its course, because that’s what He created it to do. He has power over the course of history, though he chooses to use that power only as he wills . He has the power to change human personality, but only as individuals allow, since He cannot interfere with the freedom of man. He has the power to conquer death and sin, and to save a human soul for eternity. He has power over the spiritual realm.

What all of this means is that God’s will is never frustrated. What he chooses to do, he accomplishes, for he has the ability to do it.

There are, however, certain qualifications of this all-powerful character of God. He cannot arbitrarily do anything whatever we may conceive of in our imagination.

[list][*] He can’t do what is logically absurd or contradictory (like make a square circle or a married bachelor)
[*] He can’t act contrary to his nature. Self-contradiction is not possible. He can only be self-consistent, and not self-contradictory.
[*] He cannot fail to do what he has promised. That would mean God is flawed.
[*] He cannot interfere with the freedom of man. Luke 13.34. If God can override human free will, then we are not free at all.
[*] He cannot change the past. Time by definition is linear in one direction only.
[*] It does not imply the use of all the power of God[/list]

Leibnitz & Ross philosophically state omnipotence in what’s called a "result" theory: theories that analyze omnipotence in terms of the results an omnipotent being would be able to bring about. These results are usually thought of as states of affairs or possible worlds: a way the world could be. A possible world is a maximally consistent state of affairs, a complete way the world could be. The simplest way to state it may be, "for any comprehensive way the world could be, an omnipotent being could bring it about that the world was that way." Ross formulated it as "Since every state of affairs must either obtain or not, and since two contradictory states of affairs cannot both obtain, an omnipotent being would have to will some maximal consistent set of contingent states of affairs, that is, some one possible world."

> There would be no need of a Tree of Life if they were already immortal.
Quick question: why did God have to prevent Adam & Eve from eating from the Tree of Life and living forever? That implies that God couldn't kill them once they ate from the Tree of Life. But if God could still kill them, then He had no reason to prevent them from eating it.

> resurrection was necessary to show that He had not only submitted to death's sting but had also overcome death by His power

How would it ever be necessary for God to pretend to die or prove He could overcome death? He is all powerful. All powerful means you're able to overcome everything all the time without even trying.

Spiritual death, not physical death, was introduced by Adam and Eve sinning. Adam and Eve didn't bring physical death. First of all, death was already inevitably in the system. You can't eat something without killing it. And no one can convince me that Adam and Eve never stepped on a bug while walking around or doing their work. Secondly, we can know that Adam and Eve didn't bring physical death because when they sinned, they experienced separation from God ("you shall surely die") rather than physical death. Therefore God's statements pertain to a loss of His presence, not physical death. Third, humans were created mortal (made from dust, Gn. 2.7), and therefore death was already in the system. There would be no need of a Tree of Life if they were already immortal.

Therefore your initial premise is false, which skews your entire case. So I'm pondering whether it's worthwhile answering the rest of your questions, since they are based on a false premise ("death was introduced by Adam and Eve sinning").

> Death by default brings suffering.

Yes, so there was already suffering in the world. Dinosaurs were before humans, so there was already suffering in the world.

> If God doesn't test then is suffering not a test?

I don't understand this question.

> How can a man die for your sins then be resurrected shortly after.

Resurrection was a miracle. Jesus died for our sins vicariously, not eternally. He didn't have to stay dead to effect the atonement. For that matter, resurrection was necessary to show that He had not only submitted to death's sting but had also overcome death by His power.

> Living forever would've proved our love not doing it on a clock.

Living forever doesn't prove love. I define biblical love as making a willful choice to selflessly and sacrificially serve others for their benefit. It has nothing to do with living forever or any timeline.

Let's talk more.

The function of death doesn't make sense on gods part

If death was introduced by Adam and Eve sinning. Then what's the point of it that they stop living so ergo stop sinning? Death by default brings suffering. If God doesn't test then is suffering not a test? To prove ourselves of his love? Suffering exists in all religions, that is the only constant in them. How can a man die for your sins then be resurrected shortly after. I'm still baffled by this. Living forever would've proved our love not doing it on a clock.