"In the last days all shall be revealed" are you not excited in being an instrument in doing just that?

perhaps it's a mystery tour with clues on the way or perhaps it's better to travel than to arrive, no?

If all -but not too much- had been revealed it may have helped make the journey go smoother. 

if you knew ALL, knew for sure, which is muck and which is gold, then where's the mystery, where's the challenge to the intellect and where's the freedom of choice?

I might have known enough to make better choices. 

If one knows that one box is guaranteed muck and the other guaranteed gold then don't you think that one's "choice" has effectively been made and that one has been robbed of the mystery and of the freedom to exercise one's intellect "to make better choices" [A bit like a multiple choice question paper with all the right answers already indicated]

Well for instance I did not know that doing alcohol would be a bad idea for me and me becoming addicted to the stuff making quite a mess of my life. I tried smoking cigarettes also -another very addictive thing.
But I did make mistakes anyway being rather impulsive -not thinking things through sufficiently. 

"not thinking things through sufficiently" is very well put plus, perhaps, ignoring the signs all around you of the possible consequences.

Perhaps that's where God is coming from too. He has given us reasoning and surrounded us with signs so that by "thinking things through sufficiently" we'll work it out for ourselves and choose, freely.

In the first days it was very simple: don't eat from that tree because you will die. But no matter how little or much is involved, man always thinks he has a better idea.

"don't eat from that tree because you will die" is a bit problematic because he did eat from it and yet did not die from doing so.

But he did die.

"he did die" true, but he did not die from eating the fruit of that tree. He fell from grace. He suffered a paradise lost.

Where does it say "die from eating from the tree"?

good question. Here's the exact quote from JV's post: "don't eat from that tree because you will die." If someone says "don't drop it because it will break" and despite that it is dropped and it breaks then the breaking will have been as a direct consequence of having been dropped. That's what the warning said.

That's your opinion. Spiritually speaking, Adam and Eve died spiritually that literal 24 hour day. Physically speaking, they died in their day or time period. If you believe the Bible, disobeying God and eating from that tree is why they died. If you don't believe the Bible then to you, they should never have even existed.


(1 Corinthians 2:14) But a physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually.
1Jo 3:13, 14.
Gen 3:3

"That's your opinion." Yes, you're right, and I'm glad it is. I'm glad that I'm free to do my own study and form my own opinion rather than have to abide by the opinion handed down by an organisation I belong to. That is why things are far simpler and clearer to me. As JV says in his comment below "This stuff becomes a lot clearer if you throw out everything you have heard from random preachers and read the bible instead. Almost all misunderstandings arise just because people have not read the scripture. They let somebody tell them what it says."

Genesis 1:²⁶ And God said, Let us make man in our image

God is a spirit. His image is another spirit. A & E had body, soul, and spirit. Soul is a Hebrew synonym for a living breathing creature. After A & E ate the forbidden fruit they were still walking around, still talking, so the body and soul did not die. The spirit died. That's why a savior had to be sent to restore a spirit to mankind. 

This stuff becomes a lot clearer if you throw out everything you have heard from random preachers and read the bible instead. Almost all misunderstandings arise just because people have not read the scripture. They let somebody tell them what it says.

TY for explaining your thinking and reasoning and it's pretty good. My problem with your first paragraph is that it would mean that all were spiritless characters from Adam onwards including Noah, Abraham, David and Moses to mention only Biblical characters. It also condemns as spiritless the billions around the world who have not come across or find it difficult to accept the Christian version of Jesus.

I wish I could give another like for your second paragraph. It is worth repeating over and over again. I have always done what you recommend, but sometimes the results are not what you'd expect. For example, you have obviously read the forbidden fruit story in Genesis for yourself as I have. However, whereas you, presumably, have had the original sin concept confirmed I failed to see any sin at all. You cannot charge someone with sin if they had no knowledge of right from wrong at the time, not unless you're a cruel and unfair person, a kind of parent that would smack a baby for crawling to the mantlepiece and pulling at a fabric that brought down and smashed your most valuable antique vase worth millions of dollars.

Sin, singular, is the absence of spirit. Adam had a spirit but it died and so he was unable to bequeath a spirit to his offspring. That is why everybody is born in sin, not because Mommy and Daddy did the big nasty. That is why a savior had to die in our place and make it possible to create a new spirit for us.

Sins, plural, are mistakes, such as throwing a dart and missing the bullseye. Christians are baptised into Christ's death, and dead bodies don't sin, so sins are not an issue for Christians. There is no more forgiveness. Either you believe in Jesus and are saved or you don't believe and are lost.

I hear what you say, but can't pretend that I understand.

1. To me, and I expect to almost everybody else, a singular of something is one of that thing and a plural of that thing is more than one of the same thing. The idea that "Sin, singular, is the absence of spirit" while "Sins, plural, are mistakes" is quite novel and will make language quite confusing if it catches on.

2. The idea that only those who believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead for their sins have a spirit while everybody else is without a spirit must be difficult to justify or demonstrate. Imagine facing Noah, Abraham or Moses and telling them that they were born without a spirit and lived spiritless lives. No wonder there is no reported utterance by either God or Jesus teaching such a doctrine or giving the stark choice of "Either you believe in Jesus and are saved or you don't believe and are lost."

3. Surely Jesus didn't come to draw attention to himself. He himself came to do the will of God. He said "my food is to do the will of the one who sent me" John 4:34  and “whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” Matthew 12:50

You'll be right if you blame my views on my practice of checking up the Bible directly for myself.

"2. The idea that only those who believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead for their sins"

Jesus did not die for our sins. John 10:10 "The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."

The epistle to the Romans explains the concept over and over: sins and works have nothing to do with nothing. And you might notice that in the old testament and up to Jesus, the spirit of God was always UPON someone, never WITHIN.

It seems like you have a different set of beliefs to those of other Christians. Perhaps you'd like to summarise it in 6/7 bullet points for the benefit of those not familiar with it. I have made an attempt below. Perhaps you could fill in the gaps and complete the picture.

1. Adam and Eve were created spiritually alive. They ate of the forbidden fruit and became spiritually dead. "That is why everybody is born in sin" [born spiritually dead?]

2. Spiritually dead people gave birth to spiritually dead children who lived spiritually dead lives. This would have continued for ever.

3. Someone was not happy with that and wanted people to be spiritually alive."That is why a savior [=Jesus=God/son of God/human being?] had to die in our place [whatever that means] and make it possible to create a new spirit for us."

In the 19th century Americans started moving west and three institutions went with them. There was vaudeville, traveling entertainment. There was lyceum, traveling education and culture. And there was the itinerant preacher, offering a new style of preaching called "hell fire and brim stone". It was very entertaining, only loosely based on scripture, and pastors didn't even try to compete. Instead they switched to preaching public morality and philosophy. Eventually an entire generation grew up not knowing the first thing about the religion they claimed to believe. That is why most Christian churches don't teach doctrines, and most members don't know what they are supposed to believe.

sounds about right. What about the quacks, selling cure-all elixirs like snake oil, didn't they join the move west?

Anyway, even though many claim to read the Bible these days they still tend to see only the doctrines and interpretations taught by the church or congregation they attend. Worse, and rather puzzling, they often get offended when a different interpretation is shown and explained to them.