|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Death in Relation to the Creation and Fall | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
there are three kinds of trees in the garden. one gives him food he doesn't otherwise have. another gives him knowledge he doesn't otherwise have. and third... does nothing at all, in yahweh's original design? so why did yahweh place it in the garden? So it gives life. They ate from, and obtained, the knowledge of good and evil. But they didn't eat from, and gain, the life. So, ultimately, they will die. Is that what the authors intended? It seems like the trees "sustained" whatever they were of. And they could take it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If none of the animals died before The Fall, then presumably man was a vegetarian. So then, why do we have canine teeth that are designed for tearing meat?
Did The Fall cause our physical features to change too? And all the scripture that you have quoted only shows that you can interpret it to be saying what you want. It doesn't show that what you interpret is the right interpretation. It can also be interpreted to be talking about solely about spiritual death, and not body death. The Bible simply is not clear on this matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
but it makes zero sense to give them a magical tree that is clearly special in its gifts... of absolutely nothing out of the ordinary. Sure. That's how we know Faith is wrong. If man was already living forever without any death, then eating from the powerful and forbidden Tree of Life wouldn't do anything at all. And that's just stupid. That's why she and her commentators don't have an answer, because there isn't one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You folks keep debating the fine points of theology in this thread without looking at the big picture--it's all made up! Hey, don't hate. If you start a thread on Star Wars then I'd talk to you about that too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
But I'm not wrong that scripture clearly says, in the quotes I've already given multiple times, that death did not enter into Creation, for people or animals, until the Fall. But its not clear at all. What your doing is starting with the idea that death did not enter into Creation, for people or animals, until the Fall, and then you are interpreting the scripture to be in line with that. The Scripture can just as easily be interpreted to be saying that death entered only into man, as has clearly been show in this thread.
Amazing how easy the debunkers find it to dismiss something like the existence of the Tree of Life in the Garden on the basis of their own sophomoric reasoning, Ha! You think I'm immature? You cannot even accept the most basic facts about our world. They're are literally children who have more mature reasoning than you. You, the person who worships a book and cannot begin to bring themself to doubt a single word that it says, are the one who is sophomoric.
as if nobody else ever thought of such an objection, so that there couldn't possibly be a good reason for it. I consider the Tree of Life to be a wonderful mystery that some day I'll understand and I don't care if I do or don't understand it now. I also assume it had functions in Eden we can't know about from our position. Its not that nobody thought of the objection. Its that noboby has come up with the explanation. You have to be really stupid to believe that the story says that God made man immortal and also made a powerful and forbidden tree that made man immortal. What kind of idiot do you think God is?
But the sophists of EvC always know everything, don't you? Of course I don't know everything, ya dingus. ABE:
quote: Man would not live forever unless he ate from the tree of life. Pure and simple. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE Edited by Catholic Scientist, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No, I am not imposing it on the scripture. When scripture says that the whole Creation is looking forward to release from the BONDAGE OF CORRUPTION, which means death, that is not just about human beings. But that doesn't have anything to do with The Fall.
quote: And when you combine it with "the wages of sin is death" which defines the CAUSE OF DEATH as sin, that has to apply to all things that die even if the immediate context is human beings, That doesn't have anything to do with The Fall either.
quote: The gift of God that is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord doesn't have anything to do with the Creation outside of man. Jesus didn't die for the cattle.
and with Romans 5:12 emphasizing the same cause and effect, that death ENTERED into the world because of sin, again also in the immediate context about humanity, it has to apply to animals because they die too. In that chapter, Paul is talking about just death to man, not death to the whole Creation.
quote: Again, Jesus doesn't grant the gift of righteousness to dogs and cats. It for man and man alone. Every single one of your arguments can be refuted. When Paul talks about The Fall, and sin causing death, he is talking about death to man. When he talks about the Creation decaying, he is not talking about that being caused by The Fall.
Sorry, all the arguments against have NOT been "clearly shown." Sure they have. Someone shows you how the Greek translation says that its death "to man" and then your only response is: "Oh, that's corrupted." Pssh. That's not arguing, that's acting like a child. But beside, they have now clearly been shown for sure.
And in any case, as I've said before, to claim that death came only to human beings totally undoes the whole idea of evolution anyway. Sure, the story of Adam and Eve totally undoes the idea of evolution, but, the events in the story never actually happened. Its a fable, a myth, an allegory, not some true historical event. That is sophomoric.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
That may have been the case, that the Tree of Life was necessary to sustain them even before the Fall, but certainly after the Fall it would have been a disaster if they'd eaten of it and become immortally evil. No, it says that man would have to eat from the tree of life to be able to live forever. I mean its right here:
quote: If man is not allowed to eat from the tree of life, then he will no live forever. God never intended man to eat from the tree of life so God never intended to live forever, regardless of The Fall. Before The Fall, man still would not live forever unless he ate from the tree of life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No hate involved. Not hate hate. "Don't hate" means don't make fun of people, which you were doing.
And if you start a thread on Star Wars I'll participate; You start it, you're the one saying we shouldn't be talking about this.
at least on that thread we'd all realize we were dealing with fiction. I'm fine with discussing Genesis instead of Star Wars. Its whatever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Sorry, none of that answers. It totally answers. What are you talking about? You cannot even provide an argument, you're just saying it doesn't. But it clearly does.
If you put together all the verses I've referred to they add up to the view that death ENTERED the world as a result of SIN. That's the Fall. Like I said, you start with The Fall, and then you fit your interpretation of the scripture into it. But if you look at all your quotes in context and read what they mean, then you can see that they are not talking about The Fall at all. You're just imposing The Fall onto them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I've proved you wrong. No you didn't. I proved you wrong. I actually wrote out an argument and quoted scripture. All you've said is "Nuh-uh".
You need to give it up. You need to stop lying and actually write a rebuttal to my argument. As it sits, you have Jesus dying for dogs and cats.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Oh I answered you, many times over, silly one. Sure, as I've explained: You answer by starting with The Fall and then imposing it onto scripture. But if we look at the scripture in context, we can see its not talking about The Fall at all. So you've failed.
Time to give it up. You should keep trying. Maybe you'll start making sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The commentators I mentioned earlier suggest it was there for sustenance, whatever that means. That's because they're using it to impose the idea that The Fall causes death.
Death is the result of sin so they would not die simply from not eating of the Tree of Life. See? Exactly, because The Fall causes death, then eating from the tree must not be the granter of immortality.
Let's leave some things we don't understand mysterious. Yeah, let's stop looking into that because it goes against what we're assuming (that there was no death before The Fall). You're explanation for this scripture:
quote: Is that it is a mystery why the tree is there. When God made man, he made him immortal. And he also made the tree of life, which grants man immortality. That all must be true, because you believe that there was no death before The Fall. If we look at the story without your assumption, it implies that there was death before The Fall. The tree of life actually did grant man immortality like the story says. Like, if we look right above that passage:
quote: God lists the penalties that man is to receive, and he doesn't mention that they loose their immortality. That's kind of a big one to gloss over. Now, I'm sure your commentators can come up with some explanation that results from assuming there was no death before The Fall, but this time we're looking at the story without that assumption. So, staying in this book, you get your no death before The Fall from the following:
quote: Its that whole "in the day" part that you interpret as meaning that specific day in particular. Without your assumption, it doesn't need to be that way. Its repeated again later:
quote: But the whole "in the day" part is left out. Let's look at what the serpent says:
quote: So what does the story say happens after they eat it:
quote: After they eat the fruit, their eyes were opened, just like the serpent said. It makes sense that the eating the fruit from the tree of like would grant them immortality. And if it did, then it doesn't make sense for man to have already been immortal before he ate the fruit. His eyes weren't already opened before eating the other fruit. The only reason you have to make the purpose of the tree of life to be a mystery, is because you're assuming that there was no death before The Fall.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Do you admit that you don't get your idea of 'no death before The Fall' from the story of The Fall? Do you admit that you are getting that idea from the New Testament and then are imposing it onto the story of The Fall?
By one man sin entered the world and death by sin. Romans 5:12 Death is the result of sin, without sin there is no death. For man. There is no death for man, according to that verse. I've already covered this:
quote: Jesus could not die for His own sake because He was sinless. He could only lay down His life for us sinners by His own choice. Death is the wages of sin, and He paid with His own death for OUR sin, having none of His own. Right, for OUR sins. Not for cats and dogs.
The wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23 Death is the result of sin, without sin there is no death. Covered:
quote:quote: Jesus could not die for His own sake because He was sinless. He could only lay down His life for us sinners by His own choice. Death is the wages of sin, and He paid with His own death for OUR sin, having none of His own. Again, Jesus died for US, not the cattle.
The creatures await release from the bondage of corruption, that is, death, to which they were subjected for the sake of mankind. Romans 8:21 Covered as well:
quote: Paul isn't referring to The Fall there. There is no indication that he is. As I said in Message 81:
quote: Your response to that amounted to: "Nuh-uh" You haven't provided me an argument for why I should interpret those scriptures as you do.
The creatures will also benefit from Jesus' sacrifice as the entire Creation will be renewed. That's just another imposition from assuming that there was no death before The Fall. You have to provide the reasons for making that assumption, not just expect others to assume it as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The scriptures I've quoted in concert with each other prove that the Creation itself is to be redeemed along with us, who were the cause of its also being subjected to corruption at the Fall. But if we look at those scriptures individually, we can see that they don't say what you need them to say in order to, in concert with each other, prove that there was no death before the fall. I'm here quoting scripture and explaining how and what it is saying, and you're just sticking to sound bytes and repeating yourself.
By one man sin entered the world and death by sin. Romans 5:12 Death is the result of sin, without sin there is no death. WITHOUT SIN THERE IS NO DEATH. NO DEATH, PERIOD. NOT FOR US, NOT FOR THE CREATURES, who suffer death now because God decreed it for our sake. You're just repeating yourself, and I've already addressed this. You don't move the discussion forward by repeating yourself. You need to explain why I should interpret those scriptures like you do. You need to explain why, when I actually look up the scripture and read it, Paul is talking about man alone in Romans 5. Please quote a broader portion of that chapter and explain how Paul is talking about anything more that man alone.
The wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23 Death is the result of sin, without sin there is no death. WITHOUT SIN THERE IS NO DEATH. NO DEATH, PERIOD. NOT FOR US, NOT FOR THE CREATURES, who suffer death now because God decreed it for our sake. Again, you just repeat yourself. Why, when we look at and read Romans 6, is Paul talking about man alone and not all of the creatures? Please quote a broader portion of that chapter and explain how Paul is talking about anything more than man alone.
The creatures await release from the bondage of corruption, Romans 8:21; that is, death, to which they were subjected for the sake of mankind. The creatures will also benefit from Jesus' sacrifice as the entire Creation will be renewed. In Romans 8, Paul is not talking about anything that has to do with The Fall. Please quote a broader portion of that chapter and explain to me how that has anything to do with The Fall.
THESE SCRIPTURE VERSES MAKE THE CASE. But you haven't shown that. All you've done is claim it and repeat it. Please show us how the scriptures, each one individually, makes the case you're pinning on them so we can see how they add up to your narrative.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Of course I'm getting it from the New Testament. The Old Testament is interpreted by the New. I'm curious: what is the scriptural support for that?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024