Death in Relation to the Creation and Fall

I am not disputing this. Not according to most Christian denominations. I am well aware of the Bible canonization process. And yes I realize there is a difference between RC and Protestant Bibles as far as the Apocrypha. However, this has little bearing on our current discussion of Genesis.In today's Christian denominations, even RC, the statement "the Bible is meant to be interpreted as a whole, it is a sum of its parts." is true. I understand this. I understand this as well. Please give me the benefit of the doubt here. I understand much of the authorship of the OT and NT. I am an avid layman researcher of both Jewish and Christian writings. Because they were looking forward from the Torah and other Jewish writings and Paul was looking backwards to the Tanakh (the Jewish Bible). Yes, yes I understand all this. I understand this as well. However, you are not looking at this from a religious perspective that God is the overall author of the Bible. I am not sure what your belief or non-belief is, but that is the understanding of Christians. Since God is the author, he has put meanings and foreshadowings in the Genesis story even if those who wrote it down didn't understand these meanings. You can disbelieve this if you want, but that is what the majority of Christians believe. That you cannot disavow. Only because you are viewing this from a human perspective. God is outside of time and as the ultimate author knows history forwards and backwards. That is the Christian philosophy on the matter.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

This is an issue we will probably not be sure on since we don't know exactly what God told Moses about Jesus Christ. There are hints and mentions of it in Genesis i.e. Melchizedek, etc. I am unaware of a direct foretelling of another prophet in the Pentateuch except where it mentions a covenant and blessing of the offspring (seed) of Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.Also, I am not totally convinced that Moses was the sole author of Genesis though. This is an area I am fuzzy on and would have conduct more research on. I really don't want to get into it here. If you want to pursue that line of reasoning we should start it in a new thread (not sure if it has been broached before or not).

Will have to do some research and get back to you on this. I have heard these arguments before but am not going to take them at face value. If you don't accept the direct Greek translation I provided, I will have to check and see if this is the same as what the KJV pulled from and get back to you. The direct Greek translation did not have the phrase "not only them" it had "not only yet but also". If you want to argue over this phrasing I will have to dig a little deeper and identify the sources and which Greek wording is the most accurate (coming from the most credible Greek manuscripts). It will take a little work. "Not only this" meaning "not only - all of mankind suffering as with the pains of childbirth but we ourselves (Christians)".However, though I lean to the belief Paul is talking primarily about mankind I am not totally convinced this is not also talking about all of creation. There is figurative and metaphorical language here. What I am cautious of though is reading too much into this especially concerning the fall of Adam. Even if Paul is referring to all of creation, I still don't see how you can categorically state that this implies that all of creation was immortal and without death until Adam's fall. To me it seems two separate unconnected concepts which is not clearly defined in Scripture. Just my two cents.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Ok, I was inaccurate in what I stated because I misread your post. Yes, I acknowledge there are other books written or thought to be written by Biblical authors not included in the Bible. However, my understanding of why they are not included in the final canonization is due to credibility of the sources (it was not 100% sure that they were written by these authors) or they were not deemed important or relevant enough to be included. That was my understanding of the process. We can get in more detail on this if desired.I am familiar with the book of Enoch being mentioned in Jude as well. Yes, I have read about the Documentary Hypothesis, where are you going with this. This is one area I need to do more research on. However, considering that we don't know exactly what was in the content you state is missing (we don't know what we don't know), yes it is kind of irrelevent. What is your point? That is fine. However, are you saying you have to be an unbeliever to understand the Bible objectively?I read the source text and supporting evidence as well. I am an avid reader of Archaeology, Biblical Archaeology, Jewish text, and other sources as well. However, I do read the Bible as a Christian believer as well and adopt this perspective based on the evidence I see. I have been to the brink of atheism and back to Christianity, don't think I haven't studied the evidence for and against the Bible as the word of God. However, I have been strapped for time lately and have not been able to devote as much time as I desire in this endeavor. I agree. However, I do see the ties between the OT and NT text and I agree with Paul's interpretation of Genesis as shown in Romans and other NT text. That is the approach I am coming from. Everyone has a bias of one degree or another. The perspective I am providing is a NT perspective. If my perspective is wrong in accordance with the NT, show me where I am wrong? Or are you saying the NT interpretation of the OT is wrong. If so, there is nothing I can argue here since you are arguing against the perspective I am providing. Whether the NT perspective of the OT is right or wrong is the real issue. If you are just reading the OT as a text standing on its own, than yes it won't be clear the connecting between the OT and NT. I am not arguing against this. However, if you read the OT in the light of the NT, than my perspective (and those of many other Christians) makes sense. It is stated throughout the OT and NT that God is the author. Whether you believe that God is the author or not is a different matter.

Ahh, haven't read this in a while. I missed that reference to the foretelling of another prophet. Thanks for pointing it out.

Most religions require the element of faith (confidence or trust) to truly understand their faiths. For example: "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." Romans 10:17An academic view of the Bible will only get you so far, according to Christianity, in understanding the concepts of the Bible. A believer, starts with hearing or reading the Bible, but has to go to the next steps of belief and trust to truly understand the message as spoken in the word of God.Here are some scripture to understand this process:"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths." Proverbs 3:5-6"And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him" Hebrews 11:6and"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. " Hebrews 11:1If you don't agree with me or other Christians such as Faith on this, that is fine. However, that is what most Christians believe as far as how one can understand the Bible.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Did you read my next sentence. I stated this. I probably went to far with this as far as having faith before comprehending. Hearing is the first step, faith is the next step.

I said hearing comes first as quoted in the scripture I gave. As I said before academic study of the Bible will only take you so far. Full comprehension of God's wisdom, I said is brought on through faith (trust). That is a basic premise in many denominations of Christianity. However it first has to come across as hearing. To some it is simple as hearing the basics of the good news (Gospel) for others maybe more intellectual it may require fervent study and analysis. also I agree with you here. Belief is a follow on to being convinced of the truths of the message. If you are just believing only because you want to believe, than that is a shaky foundation to set up your faith on. However, if you wait until you prove without a shadow of a doubt than there is a danger to that as well. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

I am not sure it was always about credibility. Sometimes with those same said authors, it was more about applicability. Did there other works fit in with the themes of the other books of the canon. Some of the criteria for canonization included:a. Was the workwritten by a credible author i.e. an Apostle or close disciple of Jesus or one of the Apostle or close disciple to Jesus or one of the Apostles (e.g., Luke)b. Was the work consistent with the other canonized books? Did it contradicts these other works?c. Was it written during the Apostolic age?d. Was it promulgated to and used by the early Christian churches? Did they recognize it as a message inspired by God?

"You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 24:4"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work" II Timothy 3:16 Correct in that the Bible was written over a span of 800 years or more. The Bible as we know it today did not exist until the various early councils and synods of the early Christian church. The inspiration of the Bible by God is inferred by the many, many references of the word of the Lord/God mentioned throughout the books of the OT and NT. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.