Death in Relation to the Creation and Fall

This statement is false. It is easy to find:1. Scriptural references to plants dying. (And I don't mean just withering and turning brown). Example. Ezekiel 31:2-18 "No other trees so well-watered are ever to reach such a height; they are all destined for death"2. Scriptural references to plants that are not food including references to plants which are poisonous.3. Scripture comparing plant deaths to the deaths of humans.4. The scripture talks about death coming to man after the fall and not about death coming to earth for the first time.I'd be happy to point out examples for you.But in some regards the argument about using a 'modern interpretation' is silly.No matter what the Bible authors actually thought, plants do indeed die. If those writers thought otherwise, and they clearly did NOT, they were wrong. You cannot eat a carrot, potato, or a cabbage without killing a plant. Rabbits are surely dealers of death.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That only suggests a different value system for plants and animals and not necessarily that plants do not die. Besides that, surely there were plants at least for food on the ark? The idea that there were no plants on the ark is flat out ridiculous. I gave you an example of trees described as dying, but you ignored it. Romans says 'death passed to all men'. There is no indication that plants and animals did not die or that death passed to them. There is no indication that animals were punished for Adams sin, and certainly no indication that plants began to die.But crucial to your position, we know that plants do die.If there is no description or a denial of plants dying even after the fall, then the scriptures would simply be wrong on that point because we all know that plants do die. Is that really your position? Sure seems like it. Apparently those theologians think something other than the literal words in the Bible are important. The Bible says that plants die. Yes the Bible does value plant life and death differently than human life, but so do most people. But a denial that plants die would simply be bogus. The Bible does not do that.ABE:Question: Why did God think Abel's offering of dead animals was good?Edited by NoNukes, : ABE

Those trivial points were directly responsive to your attempts to say exactly rhe opposite thing in support of your position. So they are exactly as trivial as your own arguments are silly. I'm going to point out that while plants do not have lungs, they do utilize air and oxygen for reasons quite similar to humans. Fish don't breathe like humans either. So again you are trying to suggest that plants are not really alive.It has already been pointed out to you that your quotation is not on point, so I won't bother re-arguing that issue. I will question why you duck and do not respond when I cite scripture suggesting that plants are alive.

No the text does not define being alive in such a way. Faith does that.During this discussion we've seen Faith latch onto different parts of the text to make poor arguments that we should ignore the fact that plants are alive and were dying before the fall. The text does not actually say what Faith says it does. Perhaps she could pick some better arguments if she knew the Bible and science better. Alas, she does not.For example, she has advanced the idea that because Noah was not commanded to save plants, they were not alive. That argument is silly on its face, because lots of animals including at least those without nostrils were not on the ark. Using her logic, then locusts were not alive either because they don't have nostrils like 'real animals'. Fish can have nostrils, but they don't use them to breathe through, so are they must not be alive either. On the other hand, whales have nostrils but they were not on the Ark. I don't know what we can do about that and still leave Faith's argument intact.What the scripture actually says at most, is that death came to Man because of sin. How literally the speaker quoted in Romans meant his remarks to be taken is unclear. But absolutely nothing is said about animals or plants.For Faith's interpretation to be correct, the Bible writers would simply have to be wrong about death. Death would have to be something other than what happens to fish, plants, and insects, but just like what does happen to humans and puppies. And of course that is simply wrong. I doubt that those bronze age guys believed anything of the sort.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This just tells who was on the ark and who died. It is not an exhaustive list or definition of what constitutes being alive. The scripture you cite does not advance your point one iota. Trees were not on the ark; they did not go into it "two by two", but the passage is completely silent about whether or not they were alive. The same can be said for ants.Nobody can tell from either verse whether a particular sea mammal went onto the ark or whether they survived despite the lack of dry land. We might say the same thing about dolphins, sharks, or whales. And we cannot conclude from those verses that the author of Genesis or anyone else believed that those animals were not alive.

Of course there a classes of living things, and of course the scripture supports the idea that the death of a man is of different impact or import than the death of a tree or a calf. There is no need to demote the death of those other things to establish that. And of course my position is that what you call a traditional understanding is not supported by the text. You can support it only by pulling bits of text out of context, but in no other way.

Your entire point can be made using God's words and ignoring what that lyin' snake says. And in order to contradict you Faith is reduced to quoting partial verses out of contact and stitching them into a narrative whose premise is non-Biblical.Yes, there are Titanic-sinking holes in Faith's circular reasoning, but this is as good as it gets. She's as much as admitted that the holes don't bother her and can be left as mysteries.Even the non-atheists (except for Phat) see the issue and now Tangle has weighed in. Perhaps it is summation time.

Because eating is pleasurable. One might also ask, "why have sex if you don't want babies?" and get a similar answer.As an alternative, there is a precedent for this kind of thing. The Norse gods (Odin, Thor, etc.) were at least potentially immortal, but could be killed in battle and required nourishment from the golden apples of Idunn to remain young and vital.

I'd have to call this a stretch. I don't know where you get the idea that Jesus suffered a non-physical death. But why would warn Adam and Eve about something that would happen to Jesus? The text is pretty clear that Adam and Eve are the ones for whom bad stuff will happen.

Your not doing justice to the text which says that faith comes from hearing the word of Christ and not that you need to have faith before you hear or understand.And distinct from the mangling others are complaining about Faith producing, your interpretation is not even traditional.

Exactly. But that removes all of the edge from your sword. You were responding to someone's saying that understanding should start from the text. You said, in essence that faith comes first. Then you quoted scripture saying otherwise.In short it should be possible to become convinced without bringing the 'I already believe DA's interpretation' with you.

How about one quote from each Testament?People ask for verification of exactly what you claim quite often in the Accuracy and Inerrancy forum. The response is invariably a number of verses that are easily shown to say nothing of the sort.A brief review of the history of the Bible and the process by which the Bible was canonized ought to make it clear that nothing in the Bible can refer to collection as a whole. The NT did not even exist when the OT was written.