Summations Only

Excuse me??I think you should review your own posts. I can't believe anybody can be so self unaware. I would love to see you right about even ONE thing one day, but , I am not gonna bet on it.

It's Devils Advocate who thinks Adam only died spiritually [ABE: AS A RESULT OF THE FALL/ABE], not I. I think Adam died both spiritually and physically [abe: AS A RESULT OF THE FALL /ABE]. He did die physically, right? He isn't still living, right? Why assume that God meant he would physically die immediately? But that is also true if you think in terms of the corruption of the body, disease etc., as a process of death, because that would have started in his body immediately. If you believe that God does not lie then you try to understand what He meant. Seems obvious that He meant the whole being became subject to death, and that has to include every kind of corruption of the soul and body. It DID occur immediately, it also had prolonged consequences and in the end complete physical death. I've always understood this to be because he would have lived forever in a condition of sin and corruption, or paradoxically you could say, in a condition of death. Which is how Satan and his demons "live forever." Perpetually and increasingly full of hatred and pain and fear and disease, malevolent to "perfection" but never dying. This is not life as God wants us to have it. Jesus had to die to remove sin from us so that we could have eternal life free from sin and all the evils we are subject to from sin. I don't know but Jesus also demonstrated that even in His glorified body He ate. Eating may have a different meaning or function to an immortal being. I look forward to finally understanding such things. Yes, plants don't count. Not the same kind of life, not the same kind of breathing, not the same kind of death. Best I can do. I'm not God. I'm sure we'll all understand these things some day. Maybe I should have said it makes His death too easy to explain; it makes it trivial. It loses its importance and its meaning in connection with the Fall from which His death is to redeem us. It becomes a mere token rather than the world-shattering re-creation of life in the abolition of sin and death that we understand it to be. "The wages of sin is death" is meaningless in the context of death as a natural part of the physical world, but as an explanation of the reality we actually live it becomes the reason the sinless man-God who could not die in Himself took on death in our place for our sake. I'd say you're missing a lot.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : To add "AS A RESULT OF THE FALL in two places due to bizarre accusation that I'm lying rather than that I simply didn't feel it necessary to say the whole thing over and over again.

No I don't. Lying again about me, eh Faith. Show me my quote where I said Adam didn't die a physical death. You know it is un-Christlike to lie.Of course Adam died physically as well as spiritually. Or is Adam the 2000 year old man (that's a joke).What I said was that Adam died spiritually immediately after sinning against God and then later died physically. Really, Faith, where do you get this nonsense from.Here is my quote from a previous post: One statement we agree on. Not sure where you got the nonsense statement before that. Again, why would there be a tree of life in the Garden of Eden if Adam could live forever from the get go. So plants could die but only animals and humans lived forever at the beginning of creation? Where does it say this in the Bible. Are you just making this up as you go? Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

You don't need to accuse me of lying, I simply have some trouble grasping your point of view. You've been arguing with me that sin and redemption are all about spiritual death, not physical death, so please try again to make your meaning clearer to me.

It is still a recreation of life from death no matter which way you look at it. Either way his resurrection is a miracle from God. But death is a natural part of the physical world. Physical death is a process of the physical world, is it not? Is physical death not under the laws of nature. The wages of sin is spiritual death. The gift is eternal life in our new glorified bodies.Now contrast that with Romans 8:13 This is clearly talking about spiritual life and death. Not physical. We will all die physically, will we not die spiritually if we are redeemed by Christ."Putting to death the deeds of the body" is talking about being redeemed by God through salvation. "you will live" is clearly talking about living spiritually (not being separated from God).We lose our physical bodies and are raised a new with spiritual bodies. Who is that last Adam, why Christ of course, who is a life-giving spirit. Exactly what form this body is. Well as you mentioned, it looks like our present bodies but in perfect form, whatever that means. After the resurrection and before being taken into heaven, Jesus could walk, talk, open doors, eat, etc with it, but he could also do much more with it (i.e. go through locked doors - John 20:19). Maybe so too with us, who knows. Maybe similar to the form that angels have. Physical and spiritual all rolled up into one. I am not exactly sure. However, Revelations remarks that we will not cry or mourn. And we will not die physically or spiritually. Here are a few scriptures that describe this new body: So obviously the bodies of the beheaded did not show up to heaven without heads, correct? So it is a new body, a glorified body, whether you want to call it physical or spiritual is irrelevant. However, it will not be exactly like our old physical, natural bodies.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

But you did. You clearly stated something I never said and is contrary to what I said. That is lying. Then you should have asked before telling other people something I never said. My main point is that the Bible does not say that physical death of animals and plants began at Adams fall.The issue of sin and redemption is what you brought into play.We are redeemed through the blood of Christ, so we can live anew in heaven. Our spiritual souls will not die not our physical bodies. Our physical bodies will die and then be renewed, recreated so to speak to a new glorified body. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

No lie, I merely didn't get the whole phrase said.In Message 315 you said: Surely at least from the context of this discussion, as well as the fact that it would be absurd to suggest otherwise, you should know I didn't mean you denied that Adam physically died but that he died physically BECAUSE OF THE FALL [and I just added those words to my Message 377 where you apparently took me as lying], and that physical death for all of us is the result of the Fall.As I've understood your argument, you've been insisting that it's only spiritual death that was the result of the Fall, and the implication of that is that physical death is natural, which would also support your belief in evolution.Now you seem to be saying that it's only animals and plants you are talking about, as if you hadn't been denying that human death is the result of the Fall, as in Message 381 I see you are saying That's your *main* point? No, at least the point I've been arguing with is your saying that ADAM's physical death was not the result of the Fall. Are you saying something different than that or not?As for the death of animals being a result of the Fall I think it is inferred from the statement in Genesis that God put the whole Creation under the curse for the sake of humanity; also Paul's statement that "through one man death entered into the world" which is taken to mean Creation as a whole; also the statement that "all Creation groans for the revealing of the Sons of God" suggesting that the whole Creation, which certainly includes the animals, suffers on account of human sin too, and eagerly awaits the final redemption just as we do.Plants, again, do not seem to be treated in scripture as living in the sense that animals and human beings are.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : to add URLEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Only because of the Fall, but it was not a part of the original Creation. You are adding the "spiritual" to limit it to "spiritual death" but the normal reading is physical death. It includes spiritual death just as eternal life also includes the resurrected body. OK, here he is talking about eternal life versus death as a result of living according to the flesh. This is also a very odd reading in my experience. This is about our own obligation to mortify the sins of the body, though through the Spirit of course. In context it is WE who are putting to death our deeds through the Spirit, not Christ. But you are making an unnecessary distinction between physical life and spiritual life. It refers to both. Life is obedience to God, mortification of sin fosters that life; that life is both spiritual and physical. We will be CHANGED, scripture says, not that we will "lose" our bodies but that they will be glorified and perfected.But as you go on I see that we are in agreement about all the scripture you quote about how our resurrected bodies will be different than our physical bodies now.The only point is that they WILL be bodies, we will not be disembodied spirits, like angels or demons and ghosts. Jesus made a point of emphasizing that.So we agree on that much. What we disagree about is that Christ's death redeemed our physical bodies from death which came upon us because of sin at the Fall, just as He redeems our spirit, which I believe is done or at least begun when we are born again and receive the Holy Spirit. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Just a silly question for you but what would have happened if say no one ate the apple. Apart from snakes walking around how long till the planet would be to full of people to move.

No idea. But the entire universe would have been different so perhaps all the planets were habitable. Who knows, I don't.

haha yea sure, lets do some math to give us a picture of what would be going on.say every 10 years a couple has a child, since you dont get old and god has commanded you to procreate seem reasnoble.so you got 2 adam and eve
10 years later 3
20 years 4
30 years 6
40 years 9
50 years 13
60 years 20
70 years 30
80 years 45
90 years 67
100 years 100
110 years 150
120 . 225
130 337
140 505
150 757840 years is the best my spreadsheet can do its 825 286 036 876 006you can tiker as much as you want with the formula it will always go berserk real fast because no one is dying and everyone can breed.So either god wanted us to eat the apple to make his world work or he planned to castrate us at some point in life.

We don't need to assume there was no Fall to assume such high numbers you know. They lived even after the Fall to be hundreds of years old so they *could* have had many more than you are accounting for, but what scant evidence there is suggests nobody was procreating at the rate you have in mind, although I agree it certainly seems possible. In Genesis 5, the list of patriarchs, the first son is said to have been conceived when the father is around a hundred years old or older and then other sons and daughters are mentioned but not specified. If Genesis 10 gives the whole picture, Noah only had three sons although he lived to be 950. His descendants, listed by sons only, don't add up to huge numbers, maybe half a dozen to a father, sometimes only two. It's possible of course that many were not reported, only the major heirs in a line, and certainly daughters must have been born but weren't named. But specific names of the men are given, whose genealogies are followed down the centuries, which suggests that the numbers weren't anywhere near what you are guessing, for whatever reason, even for those generations that lived hundreds of years.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

While it is just fine to say "I don't know", there are limits to which it can be applied. Throwing wild unsubstantiated ideas is all creationists are capable of whether it is water-canopy, racing tectonic plates or in this case Mars and Venus and? being habitable.You do know that just recently we (the human race) got a probe on Mars and what you are implying is that there'd been a way to mass transport billions of people...

We're fallen, they weren't. That was frako's context.

We don't "assume" there was no Fall. We conclude there was no Fall - both by reading the Bible and by looking at reality.Unfortunately, fundamentalist Christianity all too often involves a fall from humanity.