Death in Relation to the Creation and Fall

But your definition of "greatest and truest theological minds" is those that agree with your point of view. If a theologian has a differing point of view, then they are "liberal." So you simply define yourself into the right without having to consider alternative points of view as having any value what-so-ever. We are at a place in church history that is not so different from where the church was in Galileo and Copernicus's time. The "greatest and truest" theologians of the time were certain the earth was the center of the universe. In fact, a plain, literal reading of the scriptures demands that. But people began to realize that the evidence for a heliocentric model was so overwhelming that they needed to re-evaluate their understanding of scriptures.Evolution is like that today. It is not a matter of trying to manipulate scripture to fit modern beliefs; it is asking the question "could we have misunderstood scripture all this time?" For me the answer is clearly "YES." and many, many great, sincere, godly christian men and women of today's church agree with me. I attend a Nazarene church, which is part of the holiness movement, in the tradition of Wesley; and the denomination is beginning to have serious conversations about this issue. They just recently had a conference in California about this very issue. Some of the things that came out of it:1. We affirm God to be the Creator, that nothing exists without His divine providence.
2. We reject Godless narratives on origins (meaning ideas about origins that suggest that God does not exist or is not involved in His creation)
3. We affirm the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God and through it God actively speak to people.
4. We maintain that the Bible is NOT a scientific treatise and does not truly address HOW God created or the time frame in which He did create.
5. We need to be open to differing points of view regarding origins and create honest, sincere dialog between those that have different ideas and understanding.(Note: I am not a spokesperson for the CoN, so by "we" I mean this is the consensus that I gathered from reading commentaries on the conference. At this point it is simply a dialog, but a significant group of leaders are drafting a motion to make these types of amendments. I expect at our next global conference there will be some changes to our manual that reflect those points. I don't expect that a theistic evolutionary model will become official church doctrine, but it will be a step the right direction.)So, some of the "greatest and truest" theological minds of today ARE realizing that we may have misunderstood scripture all this time. It is not a matter of compromising, it is a matter of seeking the truth. Sorry Faith, but you don't have a monopoly on it. Are you sure about this? Unborn children do not have "the breath of life in their nostrils" does scripture exclude them as "not life in the same way" as the rest of humanity?Another inconsistency in this stance is that you have huge numbers of organism that are not included on the ark because they don't fit this category of "life is in their blood" and whose "breath is in their nostrils". At the same time, you have a flood so devastating that it rips up enormous amounts of sediment and lays them down a thousand feet thick in just a few weeks or months. There is just no way that insects, plants, fish, whales, etc ... could have survived such a catastrophe. They would all be buried under tons and tons of sediment.I had a creationist say to me that flies did not need to be on the ark because they could " well ... fly." as if I was too dumb to recognize the simple truth of that. Really? Flies, mosquitoes, beetles, and wasps could stay airborne during such a deluge as has never been seen? Nonsense! Just go outside during a modern day rain shower; the flying insects are all grounded, there is no bugs flying around. And what about the insects that can't fly like ants or spiders?Part of "truth" is being consistent. For me, rather than trying to "fit modern science" into the Bible, I am looking for consistency. Your position is extremely inconsistent, IMHO.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : typoEdited by herebedragons, : again

Not to Faith. She is a KJV Only type; ALL other versions are corrupt - according to her.I almost never read the Bible in KJV (I switch back and forth between NASB, NIV, CEB, NLT and the MSG) but when discussing things with Faith KJV is the translation you have to use, otherwise, it is dismissed as corrupt right off the bat.Anyway, one of the arguments for no death before the fall is that God made the creation perfect. However, scriptures say that "God saw that it was good" and "behold, it was very good." not "perfect." The presumption that death could not have existed in a "perfect" world is well ... presumptuous. Actually, the perception that death is "bad" comes from our fallen nature, that is, our knowledge of good and evil. Without that knowledge, would we know death was "bad?" Would death be "bad?" Sharks are one of the most viscous, cold-blooded killers on earth, yet we shouldn't think of them as "evil" they are simply doing what they were made to do - eat, live and reproduce. (I can hardly imaging sharks eating plants before the fall ) They certainly don't think of themselves as evil.So why do we presume that death as part of the creation is "bad" and could not exist in a "perfect" creation? Part of the reason is that death has a different significance for humans and so we extrapolate that onto other creatures. The fall placed the responsibility for the significance of life and death in our laps rather than in God's. We now are responsible for our own choices; the significance of our own life and death is now up to us. Thus God laments that "man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil." That is what salvation is really about, returning the significance of our life and death to God, the way it was originally intended.I also noticed something else in the KJV that is pertinent to this discussion. In Gen 1:20, God says "Let the water teem with swarms of living creatures. and let the birds fly above the earth ... (21) God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, ..." Then in verse 24 when referring to land animals the same terminology is used: "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind; ... " No distinction between types of "living creatures." and clearly recognized creatures that dwell in the sea as "living creatures." One of the things that YEC proponents fail to realize is that creation was already corrupted before Adam and Eve. The serpent comes to Eve and tells her that God lied to her, that God wanted to deny her the ability to know good and evil. Traditionally the serpent is thought to be Satan in disguise (I have my doubts that Satan literally appeared to Eve in the form of a snake, but ... ). Is this not a part of creation? Yes, it is. The "fall of man" was man's choice to participate in this "rebellion" this "fallen nature." Man did not invent sin nor was he the first to participate in it, but he found this independence, this "knowledge" desirable and so chose to participate.As a student of ecology and environmental studies, my experience says that what is actually messed up about this world is where humans get involved. Our reliance on ourselves and our own "knowledge of good and evil" is what has royally screwed up this world. If the world doesn't function like it should, it is because of man's influence. Humans are the source of the world's problems, not the rest of nature. So the world became broken through the actions and authority of humans, not by sin directly.HBDp.s. I am addressing you not because I think we disagree, but because I think we largely agree in our worldview. Faith has more-or-less declared there is nothing more to discuss and that she is not going to budge or even consider opposing views. I would rather have a discussion where the conversation can move forward and some resolutions can be made which help me better understand my own position and help me get closer to understanding what the truth is.

I believe you are a bit of a Hebrew scholar and I am curious about the Hebrew term used for "die" in Gen 2:17. The translation says "in the day that you eat from it you will surely die" The word used for "die" is mut (I have no idea how to make special characters, so "mut" is the best I could do). In fact, my concordance says this phrase is actually "mut" + "mut". AIG suggests that this is literally "dying you will die." and suggests that this indicates that they would begin the process of dying. However, I see no indication by how the word is used elsewhere that this means anything but a literal, physical death - not a process of dying. In fact, there are several places where mut + mut is used throughout the OT and each time it gives the impression of a certainty that one would be killed, almost like a vow. What is your take on this and what is your understanding of how the word is used?Also, I understand that the Hebrews viewed death as a separation - so physical death would be a separation of soul and body; spiritual death would be separation of God and man. Could you comment on your understanding of how the ancient Hebrews viewed the concept of death?HBD

I have never called you stupid and have not meant at all to imply that. And I also would not say you chose the "wrong" authorities. My point is that if someone disagrees with your point of view, then they are not one of the "greatest and truest" authorities. Case in point: Why do you dismiss these leaders of a Holiness denomination? Why do you assume they have a false theology? If you were honest and sincere about being open to the "greatest and truest" Christian minds, wouldn't you instead think "Wow, these great leaders of a Holiness movement are opening up to these ideas, maybe I should consider what they are actually saying." But instead you have written them off.And you have missed the whole point of this conference and you demonstrate it by this statement: You say there are "true" Christians - that would be you - and there are those that "call themselves" Christians (but really aren't). They are compromisers, liberals, followers of false doctrines, ect. The point of this conference was to recognize that there are sincere Christians who disagree on certain issues and we are not going to let those issues come between us as brothers and sisters in Christ. The creationISM movement is divisive, those that don't agree with their particular interpretation are outside of Biblical Christianity. The Nazarene Church does not agree with that. Read the statements I posted again (again, these are not official statements but my summary).

quote:

---

1. We affirm God to be the Creator, that nothing exists without His divine providence.
2. We reject Godless narratives on origins (meaning ideas about origins that suggest that God does not exist or is not involved in His creation)
3. We affirm the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God and through it God actively speak to people.
4. We maintain that the Bible is NOT a scientific treatise and does not truly address HOW God created or the time frame in which He did create.
5. We need to be open to differing points of view regarding origins and create honest, sincere dialog between those that have different ideas and understanding.

---

Where is the false theology in those statements?Faith, I would never suggest that you are not a "true" Christian because we disagree on some of these issues and likewise, you should not be judging my authenticity. But I will say this, I am not interested in my Grandparent's religion, there was no questioning anything - you just believe what you were told was the truth. What a cold, unloving, judgmental, Pharisaical religion I felt they had. To be completely honest, if that is "true" Christianity, I am not interested. I want something real, something that makes a real impact on the world and on people's lives. Something that addresses the issues we deal with in today's society in a real, honest way. If that is compromise, if that makes me a liberal reformist - then so be it!HBD

Oh! You don't think the KJV is inspired? I stand corrected and I apologize for thinking you were KJV only. Except then you go on to say: Which is confusing ... You use the term "bogus", not unreliable or dubious, but "bogus." which is a very strong word.

quote:

---

bogus

​

1. not genuine or true; fake.

​

synonyms: fake, spurious, false, fraudulent, sham, deceptive

---

Therefore any translations based on "bogus" texts would themselves be fake, spurious, false, fraudulent and deceptive. Therefore, KJV is the only reliable version. That is pretty much KJV only. Besides, I don't see how you can argue the way you do and accept that there may be errors in the text, especially when you can't compare them to other translations (since they are all bogus).But since you are not KJV only, I won't be quoting scripture from the KJV anymore, since I feel the translation leads to confusion since it is written in Elizabethan English which is not a modern language and words and phrases are used differently today.Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding about that.HBD

I have pointed some of them out; you tend to ignore them or simply say, "nope, not a problem." Same thing I complained you did on the Why the Flood Never Happened thread. So I am going to list the inconsistencies and questions I have about the doctrine that there was no death before the fall.1. What was the purpose of a tree-of-life that gave immortality to the man if he was already immortal?2. Why did God charge the man to "subdue" the earth if the earth was in a state of perfection? Why did the garden need tending? what would tending a perfect world even look like? These responsibilities that God gave man imply that there was some amount of wildness or chaos that needed controlling.3. A garden in the near east was a walled enclosure that helped protect the inhabitants. While the scriptures don't describe the garden specifically as an enclosed structure, it hints at it by establishing a cherubim to "guard the way to the tree of life." This is not conclusive, but it is consistent with the idea of a near eastern garden. Why would they need a walled enclosure? What did they need to be protected from?4. Death can be thought of as a flow of energy from one organism to another, something the man obviously needed since God made food for him. Food provides the energy our physical bodies need to live. There is no reason, based on scriptures, to think that God invoked the 2nd law of thermodynamics after the fall; that before the fall, energy was perpetual and did not need to flow from one system to another. The physical systems that would have needed to change to order to accommodate this would require new creation, or a complete restructuring of biological systems.5. Jesus said that "unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit." Of course, this statement was made post-fall, but Jesus clearly doesn't see death as a bad thing, but as something that brings life. He uses this as a parable to illustrate the importance of his own death. This idea fits well with #4 above, that death is the flow of energy which is necessary to bring life.6. Jesus expressed death as the ultimate expression of love - "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends."7. Pain and suffering are separate issues from death itself. Death is a physical process while pain and suffering are emotional aspects. Yes, technically pain is a neurological response, but we view it as more than just a physical phenomenon. We feel pain when someone we love betrays us, when we are rejected, etc. It becomes an emotional experience for humans. I don't believe animals experience pain in this personal, emotional way.8. The serpent was a physical being and it lied and deceived Eve. Therefore, it was the serpent that brought sin into the world (world meaning the earth or the universe). Since the scripture says that it was man that brought sin into the world, it must not be referring to the world in the sense of the earth or the universe, but that Adam brought sin to mankind, which is another way the word "world" is used.9. Often the passage from Isaiah 65 about the "new heaven and new earth" is quoted to indicate that the world would one day be perfect again as it was in the beginning. But here is what it actually says regarding the new heaven and new earth"

quote:

---

(17)For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former things will not be remembered or come to mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create; ... (19)And there will no longer be heard in her the voice of weeping and the sound of crying. No longer will there be in it an infant who but but lives a few days. Or an old man who does not live out his days; For the youth will die at the age of one hundred and the one who does not reach the age of one hundred will be thought accursed. They will build houses and inhabit them; they will also plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They will not build and another inhabit; they will not plant and another eat; For as the lifetime of a tree so will be the days of my people... (23)They will not labor in vain, or bare children for calamity; ...

---

So this passage says that sorrow, weeping, injustice, tragedy, and futility will be eliminated. These are the things that torment the human soul, not physical death. This passage indicates that death is still a part of this new heaven and new earth.10. Calvin saw Eden as temporal, as a time for mankind to meditate on a better life until he passed on into that better life.

quote:

---

Thirdly, that he was endued with understanding and reason, that being distinguished from brute
animals he might meditate on a better life, and might even tend directly towards God, whose
image he bore engraved on his own person. - pg. 28

---

Why was a perfect immortal man to meditate on a "better life?"

quote:

---

For as soon as he had been raised to a dignity so great, that the glory of the Divine Image
shone in him, the terrestrial origin of his body was almost obliterated. Now, however, after
he had been despoiled of his divine and heavenly excellence, what remains but that by his
very departure out of life, he should recognize himself to be earth? Hence it is that we dread
death, because dissolution, which is contrary to nature, cannot naturally be desired. Truly
the first man would have passed to a better life, had he remained upright; but there would
have been no separation of the soul from the body, no corruption, no kind of destruction,
and, in short, no violent change. - pg. 119

---

This also speaks to my point about death being evil because of our perception of it due to our knowledge of good and evil. He states is as "because dissolution ... cannot naturally be desired." It is the dissolution, the incompleteness, the lack of fulfillment we feel in life that causes death to be tragic.Source: Commentary on Genesis - Vol. 1 (bold mine)11. Finally, if death is purely evil and a result of sin, why is God himself willing to share in the suffering and death of His creation?So, there are 11 contradictions / questions I have regarding the issue of no death before the fall. Notice that not one of them involves evolution (#4 does have a bit of our modern understanding of science, but other than that it is all theological). SO ... don't say I haven't demonstrated any inconsistencies. These 11 points cause me to think "Does the Bible really say there was no death before the fall?" I don't think it is conclusive that it says that there was not.HBD

So ... this is another Grand Staircase cross-section argument? The scriptures you are relying on are not that clear when view in context of other scriptures. The idea is to harmonize your understanding of scripture - I don't feel you have presented a conclusive case. No. Its purpose was to give the man life. It would enable them to live forever; that is point clear from scripture. (Gen 3:22) I grant you that wildness does not indicate conclusively that there was death. However, it does indicate that nature had an element of chaos that needed to be ordered. Why is gardening satisfying work? Fro just this reason; it brings order in a wild, chaotic world. How do you figure I am imposing an idea of perfection of my own when I am arguing that the original creation was not perfect? Yup ... that's what I do Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon:

quote:

---

gan:
1) garden, enclosure (noun masculine or feminine)
1a) enclosed garden
1a1) (figuratively of a bride)
1b) garden (of plants)
1c) Garden of Eden (noun proper locative)

---

Strong's Concordance

quote:

---

gan:
an enclosure, garden
Original Word: גָּן
Part of Speech: noun masculine; feminine; proper name, of a location
Transliteration: gan
Phonetic Spelling: (gan)
Short Definition: garden

---

The NAS Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon

quote:

---

gan:
garden, enclosure
enclosed garden
(fig. of a bride)
garden (of plants) n pr loc
Garden of Eden

---

Death is a part of life. We obtain energy by the death of other organisms. Gen 1:14 indicates that God created the "lights in the expanse of the heavens" to mark seasons (and days and years). Seasons are about life, decline, death, renewal and life again. My point is the world would have to function completely differently after the fall if death was not a part of the original design. So much differently, that it just doesn't make sense to me. Jesus used the concept that death must occur for their to be life. That he used a seed as the example is not the point. So it wasn't His death that took love, it was facing fear and death? So again, its not death that is the problem but pain and misery and suffering? Why is that? Where is the scriptural support for this? It seems that Satan brought sin to the earth but Adam brought sin to mankind. It seems pretty clear from the passage. This would mean that other passages that state the man brought sin into the world they are referring to mankind (which is a legitimate rendering of the word "world.") The new heaven and new earth seem to include death, but not the pain and suffering associated with it. My point is death is part of the physical world, it is how it works. When death is finally defeated and eliminated, we will no longer be a part of this physical world, we will have new bodies, somehow different than we have in this physical reality. What do you think "passed to a better life" means? It seems to me that he is referring to the end of a temporal, physical, mortal life and the beginning of an immortal, non-physical life. Sin brought about the suffering, the wrenching apart, the destruction of death. Is the physical world our ultimate destination, even if there was no sin? Of course canned answers are always quite obvious. I am asking for you to think deeper about this. Do you think that Jesus inherited original sin from Adam? If he did, wouldn't that disqualify him from being worthy, since it is our inherited sinful nature that we cannot overcome, its not a matter of living a perfect life. If he did not, then wouldn't he have been immortal, since it was original sin that brings death? However, it is pretty clear that Jesus was not immortal, but that he was subject to death just as we all are. He almost starved to death in the wilderness for example.In addition, God could do whatever he wanted. Why did he have to die in order to bring salvation? He could have chose a different method, but instead he chose to participate in the human condition. He chose to subject himself to the constraints and struggles of the physical world. Why would he chose to participate in something that was evil (death)?HBD