Death in Relation to the Creation and Fall

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

I thought you meant inconsistencies in my argument, but your list is not about my argument, it's inconsistencies you think you find in the scripture itself. Some of them are simply your own opinions.The scripture verses I've used to show that death entered with the Fall for both humanity and the whole Creation stand on their own and mutually support one another. I don't see anything you've said that brings them into doubt.The only statement I want to address right now is: In order to redeem and save it and us FROM sin and its consequences. Surely that's obvious to you so I don't know why it's even a question.

So I'll try to respond to your list of inconsistencies.See, the thing is, HBD, once I've seen that the scriptures I posted clearly affirm that death was the result of sin and therefore of the Fall, I don't regard other scripture verses such as those you posted as "inconsistencies." Some of them may be hard to understand but the task is always to reconcile unclear scriptures with those that are clear, and I think those I've posted are clear so they are the standard to which all the others must conform.1. So you ask what was the purpose of the Tree of Life, and I answer in the context of the knowledge that the Fall was the cause of death: As the commentators have suggested it may have had a sustaining function of some sort.2. Yes there does seem to have been wildness in the original Creation and God gave humanity the task of taming it. You seem to be imposing on it some idea of perfection of your own. God said it was "good," not perfect. It was a job for us. Gardening is very satisfying work.3. You made up the walled enclosure.4. I don't know what you are saying about death. It's just disease, decay, corruption, etc., in the context of scripture.5. In the context of scripture plants and seeds don't die in the sense of the death that was the result of the Fall. And yes, the context of Jesus' teaching was post-Fall.6. Yes it takes great love to die for someone, I don't see how there's a problem with this. It takes great love BECAUSE death is feared and usually entails suffering. No inconsistency in such an idea.7. It's possible to die a quiet death but it's often associated with pain and misery of all sorts, and I do think some animals experience it much as we do, including in some cases grief and mourning.8. The earth was given to the human beings, so it was their sin that brought death into it. The serpent's sin did not affect the world until he'd succeeded in getting the people to sin, and again, it was THEIR sin, not his, that brought death to the world. Not just to mankind.9. You are right that Isaiah 65 is not about a return to the original paradise but the new heavens and new earth. The Millennium of prophecy is often characterized as a time when righteous people live long lives again but before death is completely abolished. This may be a picture of that interim period. Or eternal life may be characterized in terms of long life there. I don't really know, may look up commentaries later. But certainly there is yet to be a true eternal life whatever that passage means. Put "eternal life" in the search box at Blue Letter Bible. The references are all New Testament, but Jesus implies in many of them that people expected eternal life based on the Old Testament scriptures. But maybe I'm not getting your point here.10. If Eden was not perfection, so that Adam might meditate on a better life, there is still no indication that death existed in it.You seem to be interpreting the passage from Calvin to be suggesting that death was not a bad thing? "... dissolution, which is contrary to nature, cannot naturally be desired." "Contrary to nature" doesn't sound like a good thing to me, let alone the dissolution etc, which I can't for the life of me reduce to something neutral or "just a part of nature," which Calvin himself says it isn't. Also "violent change." Death is contrasted with what Calvin surmises would have happened had there been no sin and therefore no death: he "would have passed to a better life," without the separation of body and soul, the corruption, the destruction, the violent change, in short the evils of death.Death is a violent ugliness brought about by sin and I think this passage says that and not what you seem to think it's saying.11. I already answered this. God so loved the world that He sent His Son to die for us...Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But you are unable to show that clear affirmation. All you've done is say its there and then repeat yourself, using bigger letters sometimes.If its so clear you would be able to show it. That should tell you something...You're assuming that scripture says that there was no death before The Fall, as shown by the fact that you have to disregard the scriptures that are inconsistent with that.You've pretty much just set yourself up a feed-back loop. Start with your assumption that there was no death before The Fall. Find scripture that barely resembles saying something like that. Ignore the explanations that the scripture isn't saying what you think it is. Disregard the scripture that is inconsistent with it. And interpret all other scripture in the context of the original assumption.Now, as long as you don't question your assumption, everything you find is going to point back to it. You've trapped yourself in.

I've been accused of being "KJV only" even though I don't believe a word of the Bible. The KJV is what I grew up with; the phraseology resonates in my mind so I know what to look for and where to look.If you can find a translation that doesn't lead to confusion, more power to you - but I would say that the confusion comes from the content, not the translation. There simply is no way to rationalize all of it with the rest of it unless you compartmentalize like Faith does.

I've read through your posts and DA's and there's so much miscommunication and confusion I don't know where to begin. I can only comment on a bit or two here and there. The idea of being open to different points of view regarding origins is where I'd locate the false theology. The view of origins in the ToE contradicts that given in the Bible. Being "open" to the ToE is not an option.

The modern Bibles are all based on some version of the Critical Text which includes the corrupted Greek texts introduced into the Revision of 1881. That is what makes the KJV the only trustworthy translation, although I believe it needs some updating. It was a struggle for me to get used to it once I recognized that the others were not to be trusted. The Revision of 1881 was supposed to be such a simple updating of the KJV but instead they made some 36, 000 unnecessary changes as assessed by other scholars of the time, and introduced those corrupted Greek manuscripts that are full of errors and missing passages that they falsely declare to be the authentic originals. False Greek, gratuitous changes in the English, lousy translation too. Biggest hoax pulled on the Church ever in my opinion.

The many interpretations of the Old Testament that are given in the New Testament for starters.

No point in continuing to argue this. The scriptures I collected together add up to the conclusion I drew. Only one of them refers to the expectation of the whole Creation's redemption from corruption but that's enough to conclude that the whole Creation was subject to death as a result of the Fall, which is also implied in the phrase "subject to vanity." I'm far from the only one who sees it this way so I think it's time to leave it that you belong to your club and I belong to mine.

I've given all the reasons why they should be interpreted that way, as part of those repetitions; don't know why you don't see it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Ah, so it doesn't actually say it in the Scripture. Because you don't have a valid argument. Except that they don't, as I've shown by quoting the Scripture and pointing out how it doesn't lead to your conclusion.Romans 5 and 6 are talking about Jesus dying for man alone, and Romans 8 doesn't have anything to do with The Fall. But Romans 8 doesn't have anything to do with The Fall.

quote:

---

18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

---

And it actually says that the corruption wasn't by the choice of the creation (like eating the fruit) but by the will of the one who subjected it. So not only does it not talk about The Fall, it actually seems to go against the idea of corruption being the result of The Fall. I've actually quoted the Scripture and looked into what it actually says, and explained why your conclusion doesn't follow. You just repeat your conclusion and declare it to be the truth, with no argument to back it up. Not really. All you've done is quote the Scripture and then state your conclusion. You haven't provided an argument or any reason why your conclusion should follow from the Scripture.And when we do look at the Scripture you've quoted, and its surrounding context, we can see that it does not lead to the conclusion you're drawing.Unless I've missed something. Got a particular message I should look at?

Sigh. The scripture also doesn't use the word "Trinity" or "the Fall." And the example of the NT's interpretation of the OT is VERY good reason to follow suit.

i essentially replied to this comment the first time you made it, in Message 35:

quote:

---

Faith writes:

​

I gave you what the commentators say, I don't know otherwise. If you have a theory why don't you give it?

​

i'm not sure you particularly gave me any answers from the commentators with regards to my question. but let me phrase it like this:

​

quote:

---

And the LORD God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

---

​

yahweh planted the garden after he made the man. he did not have a garden already, for his own use, and then think, "wouldn't it be great if i had a servant to water my plants while i'm away." he made the man first, and then built the garden, filling it with food for the man.

​

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?

---

you didn't reply; nor did you detail what any of the various commentators said. if you can't give me your own opinion, would you care to at least provide theirs? because i believe most of the jewish sources are on my side, here.that is, if man had been created immortal, there would be no reason for the tree of life to exist in the garden. since it does, and eating from it would make them immortal, they were not created immortal.

we can, however, contextually read the OT and see if the NT interpretation fits the context.we can also see if the NT interpretation fits the modern dogmatic claims.

I do not question the NT. End of subject.