|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Death before the 'Fall'? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
If anything, the Bible suggests that there was death before the Fall since God threatened Adam with death then surely Adam would have to know what death was! evidently not since he didn't take god too seriously. i think the best reading is that man was created mortal, but provided a means to immortality: the tree of life. in a sense, man did lose his immortality, but it was not a change in state or physical law, just removal of facility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Why would God threaten Adam with something that Adam would have no idea about? brian, i hope you realize that i wasn't being totally serious with that comment. evidently, adam DOES take him seriously, enough that his wife is afraid to go near it until the snake convices her. adam does seem to have some idea what death is, though never having experienced it around him. he's just stupid (in my educated opinion).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Anyway, the Bible doesn't say that there were no carnivores before the Fall, it isn't even implied. this just applies to people:
quote: nothing about what animals ate. of course, abel was a shepherd well before this:
quote: so he must have killed and eviscerated an animal or two for god, just never for himself. (what was he keeping a flock for anyways? company?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
oh, ruin a perfectly good sarcastic comment, will ya?
Wool from the sheep of course, they wore "skins" not "wool."
and milk from the goats. you mean they were just vegetarians, not full vegans? what about chicken? fish? lobster? oh, wait, that's out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
"And Jehovah God made for Adam and for his wife coats of skins and clothed them" My opinion is that God killed the animals to obtain the coats. couldn't god have created them out of thin air like everything else?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
When you compare that to God seeing that the man made in His image was "very good" (Gen. 1:26,27, 31) do you still not notice any change in the nature of man? Do you still see no Fall away from God of man in the Bible? quote: i'm sorry, i don't see "very good" in these verses. it is in 31, but, consider the following: after every instance of creation in chapter one, god calls his creation "good." 4,10,12,18,21,25. there are three things which god neglects to call good: darkness, heaven, and mankind. why? also, consider that the first thing god describes as "not good" has to do with man:
quote: so evidently, god has NOT made a perfect creation, and needs to fix it. god tries making adam some animals, but that doesn't work. consider also god's experience with man. every single man he has created has sinned, except maybe enoch. adam, eve, cain... where's the CHANGE in man's nature? this is clearly a bit of mental gymnastics fall-ists have to go through, because here's the bit that REALLY doesn't make any sense. if it wasn't in man's nature to sin, why did he? remember, he had to sin BEFORE the fall. and if not knowing any better is an excuse, why is it sin? either god made man capable of disobedience, or he did not. but that is not something that can change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. this is what he said after he made man. every day prior to his making man, he said things were good. thus it can be assumed that man was the very part. but man being 'very good' does not mean immortal and perfect. right, but everything is "very good" AFTER god makes woman. the man in genesis 2 has no woman. and evidently "very good" cannot mean immortal unless man's fall also affects animals too -- which are all "very good" according to god.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
IMHO it's important to remember that the Very Good statement is part of a whole different tradition and story then the Garden of Eden one. We have two different stories, by two different peoples at two different period, each depicting a different view both of God and of creation. i know that, and you know that. but jaywill doesn't believe that. which makes it a good argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
If I did not believe in the Bible, would I ever meet Jesus? i assume that's rhetorical, but the obvious answer is: yes! most christians meet jesus first as an unbeliever.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024