Death in Relation to the Creation and Fall

It doesn't negate the idea that there was no death.ABE: The commentators I mentioned earlier suggest it was there for sustenance, whatever that means. Death is the result of sin so they would not die simply from not eating of the Tree of Life. Let's leave some things we don't understand mysterious. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's because they're using it to impose the idea that The Fall causes death. See? Exactly, because The Fall causes death, then eating from the tree must not be the granter of immortality. Yeah, let's stop looking into that because it goes against what we're assuming (that there was no death before The Fall).You're explanation for this scripture:

quote:

---

(NIV) He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.

​

(KJV) And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.

---

Is that it is a mystery why the tree is there. When God made man, he made him immortal. And he also made the tree of life, which grants man immortality. That all must be true, because you believe that there was no death before The Fall.If we look at the story without your assumption, it implies that there was death before The Fall. The tree of life actually did grant man immortality like the story says.Like, if we look right above that passage:

quote:

---

Gen 3 (NIV)

​

17 To Adam he said, Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

​

Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.

---

God lists the penalties that man is to receive, and he doesn't mention that they loose their immortality. That's kind of a big one to gloss over.Now, I'm sure your commentators can come up with some explanation that results from assuming there was no death before The Fall, but this time we're looking at the story without that assumption.So, staying in this book, you get your no death before The Fall from the following:

quote:

---

Gen 2

​

(NIV) 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.

​

(KJV)16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

---

Its that whole "in the day" part that you interpret as meaning that specific day in particular. Without your assumption, it doesn't need to be that way.Its repeated again later:

quote:

---

Gen 3

​

(NIV) 2 The woman said to the serpent, We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’

​

(KJV) 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

​

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

---

But the whole "in the day" part is left out.Let's look at what the serpent says:

quote:

---

Gen 3

​

(NIV) 4 You will not certainly die, the serpent said to the woman. 5 For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

​

(KJV) 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

​

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

---

So what does the story say happens after they eat it:

quote:

---

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

---

After they eat the fruit, their eyes were opened, just like the serpent said.It makes sense that the eating the fruit from the tree of like would grant them immortality. And if it did, then it doesn't make sense for man to have already been immortal before he ate the fruit. His eyes weren't already opened before eating the other fruit.The only reason you have to make the purpose of the tree of life to be a mystery, is because you're assuming that there was no death before The Fall.

By one man sin entered the world and death by sin. Romans 5:12 Death is the result of sin, without sin there is no death.Jesus could not die for His own sake because He was sinless. He could only lay down His life for us sinners by His own choice. Death is the wages of sin, and He paid with His own death for OUR sin, having none of His own.The wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23 Death is the result of sin, without sin there is no death.Jesus could not die for His own sake because He was sinless. He could only lay down His life for us sinners by His own choice. Death is the wages of sin, and He paid with His own death for OUR sin, having none of His own.The creatures await release from the bondage of corruption, that is, death, to which they were subjected for the sake of mankind. Romans 8:21The creatures will also benefit from Jesus' sacrifice as the entire Creation will be renewed. Edited by Faith, : eliminate smileyEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Do you admit that you don't get your idea of 'no death before The Fall' from the story of The Fall? Do you admit that you are getting that idea from the New Testament and then are imposing it onto the story of The Fall? For man. There is no death for man, according to that verse. I've already covered this:

quote:

---

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.

​

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.

---

Right, for OUR sins. Not for cats and dogs. Covered:

quote:

---

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.

---

Again, Jesus died for US, not the cattle. Covered as well:

quote:

---

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.

​

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.

---

---

Paul isn't referring to The Fall there. There is no indication that he is.As I said in Message 81:

quote:

---

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.

---

Your response to that amounted to: "Nuh-uh"You haven't provided me an argument for why I should interpret those scriptures as you do. That's just another imposition from assuming that there was no death before The Fall.You have to provide the reasons for making that assumption, not just expect others to assume it as well.

Of course I'm getting it from the New Testament. The Old Testament is interpreted by the New. The verses I've given are definitive, and you have not refuted a thing I've said.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The scriptures I've quoted in concert with each other prove that the Creation itself is to be redeemed along with us, who were the cause of its also being subjected to corruption at the Fall.By one man sin entered the world and death by sin. Romans 5:12 Death is the result of sin, without sin there is no death.WITHOUT SIN THERE IS NO DEATH. NO DEATH, PERIOD. NOT FOR US, NOT FOR THE CREATURES, who suffer death now because God decreed it for our sake.Jesus could not die for His own sake because He was sinless. He could only lay down His life for us sinners by His own choice. Death is the wages of sin, and He paid with His own death for OUR sin, having none of His own.The wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23 Death is the result of sin, without sin there is no death.WITHOUT SIN THERE IS NO DEATH. NO DEATH, PERIOD. NOT FOR US, NOT FOR THE CREATURES, who suffer death now because God decreed it for our sake.Jesus could not die for His own sake because He was sinless. He could only lay down His life for us sinners by His own choice. Death is the wages of sin, and He paid with His own death for OUR sin, having none of His own.The creatures await release from the bondage of corruption, Romans 8:21; that is, death, to which they were subjected for the sake of mankind.The creatures will also benefit from Jesus' sacrifice as the entire Creation will be renewed.THESE SCRIPTURE VERSES MAKE THE CASE.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Small point, if Adam and Eve were immortal before they eat the fruit, why did they need to eat? They wouldn't need food because they couldn't die so they wouldn't know that fruit was food.

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.

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.

I have never called you stupid and have not meant at all to imply that. And I also would not say you chose the "wrong" authorities. My point is that if someone disagrees with your point of view, then they are not one of the "greatest and truest" authorities. Case in point: Why do you dismiss these leaders of a Holiness denomination? Why do you assume they have a false theology? If you were honest and sincere about being open to the "greatest and truest" Christian minds, wouldn't you instead think "Wow, these great leaders of a Holiness movement are opening up to these ideas, maybe I should consider what they are actually saying." But instead you have written them off.And you have missed the whole point of this conference and you demonstrate it by this statement: You say there are "true" Christians - that would be you - and there are those that "call themselves" Christians (but really aren't). They are compromisers, liberals, followers of false doctrines, ect. The point of this conference was to recognize that there are sincere Christians who disagree on certain issues and we are not going to let those issues come between us as brothers and sisters in Christ. The creationISM movement is divisive, those that don't agree with their particular interpretation are outside of Biblical Christianity. The Nazarene Church does not agree with that. Read the statements I posted again (again, these are not official statements but my summary).

quote:

---

1. We affirm God to be the Creator, that nothing exists without His divine providence.
2. We reject Godless narratives on origins (meaning ideas about origins that suggest that God does not exist or is not involved in His creation)
3. We affirm the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God and through it God actively speak to people.
4. We maintain that the Bible is NOT a scientific treatise and does not truly address HOW God created or the time frame in which He did create.
5. We need to be open to differing points of view regarding origins and create honest, sincere dialog between those that have different ideas and understanding.

---

Where is the false theology in those statements?Faith, I would never suggest that you are not a "true" Christian because we disagree on some of these issues and likewise, you should not be judging my authenticity. But I will say this, I am not interested in my Grandparent's religion, there was no questioning anything - you just believe what you were told was the truth. What a cold, unloving, judgmental, Pharisaical religion I felt they had. To be completely honest, if that is "true" Christianity, I am not interested. I want something real, something that makes a real impact on the world and on people's lives. Something that addresses the issues we deal with in today's society in a real, honest way. If that is compromise, if that makes me a liberal reformist - then so be it!HBD

Oh! You don't think the KJV is inspired? I stand corrected and I apologize for thinking you were KJV only. Except then you go on to say: Which is confusing ... You use the term "bogus", not unreliable or dubious, but "bogus." which is a very strong word.

quote:

---

bogus

​

1. not genuine or true; fake.

​

synonyms: fake, spurious, false, fraudulent, sham, deceptive

---

Therefore any translations based on "bogus" texts would themselves be fake, spurious, false, fraudulent and deceptive. Therefore, KJV is the only reliable version. That is pretty much KJV only. Besides, I don't see how you can argue the way you do and accept that there may be errors in the text, especially when you can't compare them to other translations (since they are all bogus).But since you are not KJV only, I won't be quoting scripture from the KJV anymore, since I feel the translation leads to confusion since it is written in Elizabethan English which is not a modern language and words and phrases are used differently today.Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding about that.HBD

But if we look at those scriptures individually, we can see that they don't say what you need them to say in order to, in concert with each other, prove that there was no death before the fall.I'm here quoting scripture and explaining how and what it is saying, and you're just sticking to sound bytes and repeating yourself. You're just repeating yourself, and I've already addressed this. You don't move the discussion forward by repeating yourself. You need to explain why I should interpret those scriptures like you do. You need to explain why, when I actually look up the scripture and read it, Paul is talking about man alone in Romans 5. Please quote a broader portion of that chapter and explain how Paul is talking about anything more that man alone. Again, you just repeat yourself. Why, when we look at and read Romans 6, is Paul talking about man alone and not all of the creatures? Please quote a broader portion of that chapter and explain how Paul is talking about anything more than man alone. In Romans 8, Paul is not talking about anything that has to do with The Fall. Please quote a broader portion of that chapter and explain to me how that has anything to do with The Fall. But you haven't shown that. All you've done is claim it and repeat it.Please show us how the scriptures, each one individually, makes the case you're pinning on them so we can see how they add up to your narrative.

I'm curious: what is the scriptural support for that?

I include what the snake says to show that when they ate from the tree of knowledge, they gained knowledge.So it makes sense that if they ate from the tree of life, then they would gain life.The purpose of the tree of life doesn't have to be a mystery. The story implies what it was for.Its just another nail in the coffin. I would like to see if Faith can explain why we should interpret those chapters in Romans like she does, rather than just repeat the claim that her interpretation is what it means.Not that I'm holding my breath or anything...