Death in Relation to the Creation and Fall

Does that not negate your case that the human boday was immortal in substance before the fall?If the human body was immortal in substance before the fall than it doesn't need to be sustained does it? If it was mortal in substance but needs the fruit to keep from dying, than the body is in essence mortal not immortal. So if Adam and Eve did not eat the fruit of the tree of life, than they would eventually die. This condition existed whether the Fall occurred or not, correct?Thus already the condition of death is introduced even before the fall with the existance of the tree of life.I am just curious which way you are leaning on this, because you keep emphasizing that man was immortal before the Fall and mortal afterwards. Yet, your reasoning above indicates otherwise.

But you already admited their are animals that did die before the Fall. You yourself admited it. So if some animals and plants could die before the Fall, than death existed before the fall, no matter how you try to spin and interpret this. You can say this a hundred times, it doesn't make your interpretation of it any more correct. That whole chapter of Romans prefaces it talking about man. You are not reading this in the context of the scripture it is in as I have shown before. However, I will go through it again.Preceding verses in this passage: Nope, don't see anything in here about other creatures or animals. Or even all of creation.How about after: It is talking about the law and sin of man. "Death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses" is in reference to the preceding sentance about sin being in the world before the law is given. So this death it appears to be talking about is spiritual death, soul seperation from God. It doesn't need to be said that Paul knew that physical death occurred between Adam and Moses, that was a given. He is talking about spiritual death here, because in the OT, redemption of sins was given to those who followed the Law as handed down by God through Moses.Everywhere it talks about sin and death in this passage it is in reference to man not animals or any other creature. And from what I read it is primarily talking about spiritual death not physical death.Christ came to save us from spiritual death not physical death. We all die physically, we do not all die spiritually after we are saved.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

You are reading way more into this than what the Scripture states. And what it does state about the tree of life you are totally ignoring. This totally contradicts what you just stated. Eating from the Tree of Life according to Genesis 3:22 DID have an active role in being able to live forever.Honestly, through this reading it seems that they had mortal bodies just as with the rest of creation, and that only by partaking of this tree could they live forever (either by one act or continue act it does not say). Sounds pretty clear that they were not immortal if they did not eat from this tree. Why would God send them away from the garden and put a flaming sword to keep them out? It says right there that he sent them away so they could not partake the fruit from the Tree of Life and live forever. And what is that share of the tree of life? Eternal life is it not? Did they die physically that same day they ate of the knowledge of good and evil? No. But they did die spiritually. That is what this scripture is talking about. You are adding to this your own twisted interpretation.

You are mixing two lines of reasoning here. The "sins of the father" as discussed in the OT is talking about past mistakes and misdeeds being past down from generation to generation. "Sins of the father" is not Christian theology and only stems from OT scripture that uses this phrasey figuratively as a metaphore for past misdeeds causing trouble for later generations of that family. Which is a true statement, even today. It was not meant to be used in any other context.Jesus even spoke out against it as being used by the Pharasees to try to condemn those with blindness, leprosy, etc. The Pharasees took these OT statements literally which was there first mistake. There second was judging people by these OT scriptures taken out of context. Much in the similar way you are twisting and taking these scriptures out of context.This is not tied into "original sin" which is applicable to everyone, male and female alike.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

We know what the role was. It is clearly written here: Pretty clear to me. If God made the distinction here, it seems to me it was for a reason. Spiritual death. Again, God said on the day you eat of the Tree of Knowledge, you shall die.Did they die physically on that day? No. So what is God talking about. Spiritual seperation from God aka spiritual death."wages of sin is death." The wages of sin is spiritual death, a seperation from God in spirit/soul. Jesus was seperated from God spiritually on the cross. This is why he say "Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani" (very similar to David's Psalm 22:1) translated as "God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?". He had not yet died physically, but at that moment or shortly before he was spiritually seperated from God. This was not a lament of his physical seperation from God because he had not died physically. It was a cry of despair when he was seperated from God in spirit because he took on the sins of the entire world. He could not be in the presence of God the Father with the sins of the world and thus was seperated from him.You still did not answer why would God put an angel (cherebum) and a flaming sword to prevent Adam and Eve from reentering the Garden of Eden and eating from the Tree of Life? Because all your hand waving does nothing to prove your case. And no, not all traditionalist theologists do agree with you as I have discussed earlier.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Yes, from a literal analysis of the Israelite/Hebrew Talmud and even more archaic Jewish texts and philosophical writings, I understand and agree with you. However, that is not to say this could not be the meaning even if it was not understood in early Israelite/Jewish understanding of the oral passed down from generation to generation and eventually written down tradition. Or YAHWEH is literally or figuratively foretelling the concept of spiritual death as experience by the Christ. The Jewish term karath is used in Genesis (17:4),Leviticus and other books to describe not just a physical death but a spiritual cutting off as a result of transgression against God. It is not to far to imply this could apply to this passage as well. It is suspected that Genesis 1 and possibly 2 are much older than the rest of the book as far as when they were first written down. There is an element of uncertainty to how exactly these passages should be interpreted. I am much less certain as to exactly how these should be interpreted than Faith is and open to further researching these passages. Yes, it is from the Psalms, that is why I mentioned it. And yes, I understand Jesus spoke in Aramaic not Hebrew on the cross. I never said he spoke in Hebrew, but thanks for the clarification. Ah, I suspected it might be but wasn't sure. Thanks.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

My understanding, is that Jesus suffered both a physical death and a spiritual death i.e. a spiritual separation from God immediatley preceding his death on the cross. Because he bore the sins of the entire world, God the Father could not commune with him spiritually. Because, Jesus became God in the flesh on Earth to save mankind from sin which was initiated by Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve's sin was no greater than our own. They just happened to initiate the whole process. Adam was a Type of Christ. Type with a big T, meaning literally a model or symbol beforehand per Webster's dictionary. The word type comes from the Greek word tuptein, to strike. A Type in the Bible is a person, place, thing, or event that is a foreshadowing of a future person or event. Adam was a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ. Here is a good understanding of the relationship of Adam to Jesus Christ: A STUDY OF TYPES Whose legacy is carried over to the whole human race, therefore requiring the need for a savior, Jesus Christ.A good chapter to understand the whole relationship between Adam and Jesus Christ is I Corinthians 15. Here is just a snapshot of some of the connection: Made alive how? Made alive spiritually. We will all ultimately die a physical death, we will not all ultimately die a spiritual death. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Ok, lets analyze Romans 8:19-22, verse by verse and see if this makes sense: Ok, this is talking about humans, specifically saved humans, and the suffering of saved aka Christians he is writing to not comparing to the glory that will be bestowed to the saved. What is he talking about here? What expectation? Are all of creation aka animals and plants expecting something? No, so there are one of two explanations for this. The word creature )(or creation in some translations) here, which in the Greek is (ktisis) either means all of creation (all created things by God) or just mankind (as used in Mark 16:15). So if used to mean all created things (not just man) then the meaning here has to be anthropomorphic and the passage is not to be taken literraly but rather figuratively. If the meaning of the word creation here is just referring to mankind (as in Mark 16:15) than this makes more sense in the context used here (the rest of the chapter is referring to mankind not ALL of creation). Only the second meaning can be taken literally. The word for corruption in the Greek is Phthora and whenever it is used it is in reference to a condition of mankind not of all of creation (I Corinthians 15, Galations 6:8, etc).Also, this sentance only makes sense talking about humans.
The "bondage of corruption" in context of this scripture is talking of the bondage to sin as exhibited by humans. Animals and plants do not sin. So this phrase evidently does not apply to them, does it not.Also, how is the rest of creation (outside of humans) delivered into the "glorious liberty of the children of God"? Only humans can be children of God, not plants and animals. Again, this only makes sense in the meaning that creation means mankind. That is a common meaning of the word throughout the NT. Does all of creation including plants and animals give birth to anything new? No, the term used is referring to childbirth which only makes sense when talking about those who follow Christ becoming new creatures or a new creation as seen here: and of course Jesus many, many examples of being born again spiritually.Then look at the next sentance: Of course, talking about groaning, etc, in reference to man's spiritual condition to being reborn as new creatures aka new beings of Christ.ALL, of this chapter is talking about humans, mankind, 'creation' going through the process of becoming new creatures in Christ. This is not talking about animals, plants or any other living creatures. Your whole argument does not fit contextually or hermeneutically with Paul's writings here.

You can believe the scripture is inerrent but reject YOUR interpretation of the Bible. It is your interpretation, remember that. There is one correct interpretation of course, but God is the author of the Bible, not you. I use reason and my own faith to determine the correct way of interpreting these scriptures. I do believe in the inerrency of these Scriptures, but I also belive that not all scripture applies to us (i.e. much of the OT laws, etc).

I could say the same for you. I explained in detail each scripture one by one, even giving meanings of specific Greek words and the context of the scripture with the rest of the chapter. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For we know that the whole creation (all mankind) groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only the they (unsaved), but ourselves (Christians) which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves (Christians) groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.He is talking about human beings all throughout this passage and specifically to the Christ-followers of Rome.Now look at Mark 16:15: "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."The Greek word for creature here is the same one used in Romans 8:23, or ktisei. The context used in both is mankind. Or do we preach the Gospel to animals and trees?You are the one that is expounding this into more than it is actually saying. The Gospel is for mankind, not literally ALL of creation.This is an example of figurative and metaphorical language used throughout the Bible including much of Gospels of Jesus and the other apostles' letters.i.e. ""He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognise him" [John 1: 10]Was he talking about all of creation? No, he was talking about mankind."For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."Again, was he talking about animals and plants understanding what God made? Of course not, he was talking about humans.However, there are other portions of the scripture in which creation does mean all of creation. However, in Romans 8, Paul is specifically discussing mankind and the new spiritual nature of Christians. It is clear reading through the entire chapter that is intent, in my opinion.So clearly we must read scripture in context of the surrounding scripture. What exactly is the author trying to convey using tools such as exegesis. We must consider who the author is, who he is writing to, why is he writing to them, what message is he trying to convey and the historical and spiritual background of the church/people he is writing to. All of that must be taken into account to have an accurate understanding of the passage being considered.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

I already showed you where 1/3 of early Church fathers including Augustine, did not agree on original sin and that man was immortal before the Fall (which I am not disputing), even fewer Church father's accept your view that all of creation (not just mankind) was subject to death because Adam's sin (which is even more restricting than Original Sin).So you are wrong Faith. You even admitted yourself that some of the great Christian theologians such as Charles Spurgeon and others do not accept your supposed "orthodox" view. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Ok, fair enough. I agree in principle. However, the Bible is meant to be interpreted as a whole, it is a sum of its parts. I am looking at Genesis with a NT Christian perspective. Specifically Paul discusses the relationship between Adam and Christ in Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15. That is the tie in I am discussing with Genesis. I did not just invent this. It is specifically laid out by Paul in two of his letters.I should have explained this better and shown from what perspective I was going with this. Hopefully this explains my reasoning and position better. Even though the original author(s) of Genesis did not understand the significance of Genesis in relation to Jesus Christ. Looking back through time, this is the perspective Paul and other early Christians took. Rgr, I have heard of this as well, including reading Asimov's "In the Beginning: Science Faces God in the Book of Genesis" which discusses the concept of authorship of Genesis.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

I would not put too much stock in the opinion of one person either, whether it be Matthew Henry, or any other theologian. He wrote an entire commentary on the Bible, that is his interpretation of it. The Bible's words are inerrant, not Matthew Henry's. It is best to read the interpretations of scripture from a wide number of sources. I will have to do more research on the other sources as well. Why not? (Never mind, saw your second post, before your first post- responding to your first post now). Even if this is so, this does not automatically follow that all of creation was immortal up until the time of Adam's fall. This is only implied through your interpretation.I am not saying I know all the answers or assume to know the correct interpretation. However, the scripture you provide does not show a clear and conclusive case of your claim I mentioned above. It still seems to be that you are reading much more into this than what Paul mentions. That is my humble opinion.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Ok, using the NASB version it says this: The wording is changed a little bit: "And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit"The Greek word for word is ou monon de alla kai autoi thn aparchn tou pneumatos translated directly as "not only (or only-so) yet but also we-ourselves the firstfruit of the spirit". There seems to be a difference in translations here implying that the word "they" in the phrase "And not only the they, but ourselves" is implied but is not a direct translation from the Greek. There is some wiggle room here for interpretation even between the KJV and NASB (which is one of the more accurate word for word translations from the Greek).More things to consider.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.