Death in Relation to the Creation and Fall

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.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, 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. But the sophists of EvC always know everything, don't you?

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. 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. 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? Of course I don't know everything, ya dingus.ABE:

quote:

---

Gen 3:22

​

And the Lord God said, The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.

---

Man would not live forever unless he ate from the tree of life.Pure and simple.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABEEdited by Catholic Scientist, : typo

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. That is CLEARLY in the scripture. 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, 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.Sorry, all the arguments against have NOT been "clearly shown."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.

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 hate involved.And if you start a thread on Star Wars I'll participate; at least on that thread we'd all realize we were dealing with fiction. ;-)

But that doesn't have anything to do with The Fall.

quote:

---

Romans 8

​

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.

---

That doesn't have anything to do with The Fall either.

quote:

---

Romans 6

​

19 I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. 20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21 What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

---

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. In that chapter, Paul is talking about just death to man, not death to the whole Creation.

quote:

---

Romans 5

​

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

​

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

​

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

---

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. 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. 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.

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:

---

Gen 3:22
And the Lord God said, The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.

---

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.

Sorry, none of that answers. 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.ABE: And since animals also die, man's sin affected them too, and they too will be released from death, which implies nothing about their expecting the same kind of redemption human beings will receive.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not hate hate. "Don't hate" means don't make fun of people, which you were doing. You start it, you're the one saying we shouldn't be talking about this. I'm fine with discussing Genesis instead of Star Wars. Its whatever.

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. 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.

I've proved you wrong. You need to give it up.

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 stop lying and actually write a rebuttal to my argument.As it sits, you have Jesus dying for dogs and cats.

Oh I answered you, many times over, silly one. Time to give it up.

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. You should keep trying. Maybe you'll start making sense.

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.