one.opinion

Would you agree that the free gift in verse 15 is eternal life? The rest of Romans 15 supports this conclusion: 16 And the gift is not like the one man’s sin, because from one sin came the judgment, resulting in condemnation, but from many trespasses came the gift, resulting in justification.[e] 17 If by the one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive the overflow of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18 So then, as through one trespass there is condemnation for everyone, so also through one righteous act there is justification leading to life for everyone. 19 For just as through one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 The law came along to multiply the trespass. But where sin multiplied, grace multiplied even more 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace will reign through righteousness, resulting in eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. We know that this eternal life (that we receive through faith in Jesus Christ alone) is not meant for our physical bodies, but speaks about a spiritual realm of reality. This physical existence is transient and dust in the wind that we will one day be rid of when we our time in this realm is finished. I believe it is appropriate to conclude that the death described in verse 14 is also of a spiritual level, because it is leading up to the discussion of life on a spiritual level. I further believe it is inappropriate to assume that teaching on spiritual life and death should confirm idea of physical life/death at the initiation of God's creation. When we look at the whole context of Romans 5, we see a very different story being told. I will not pretend that I know this for a fact, but it seems like the most clear interpretation of Romans 5 to me. But... If I'm wrong, this still does not support the idea that other living organisms never died before Adam's sin. Please explain why you find these 2 arguments to be in error.

Let’s have a look at those scriptures in full context.

You’ve already proven your inability to support your viewpoint from a Biblical perspective. I find it highly unlikely that you can make a better argument from a scientific one.

Exactly. This is one of the reasons why I believe “God’s image” is not a physical description, but a spiritual one. I don’t believe Scripture, when properly considered, supports anything like eternal physical bodies - at least not without the “tree of life”.

False. Good-bye.

It is clear that Jesus did view at least parts of Genesis as literal history, just as I do and just as @The Barbarian does. It's telling that you will not even try to use Scripture to support the idea that Jesus taught that the entire Genesis 1-11 passage was literal history.

Thanks for finally using the Bible. "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12) "Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the way that Adam transgressed. He is a pattern of the One to come" (Romans 5:14). 1. To give context to Romans 5:12-14, we need to look at the earlier part of the chapter. This talks about our new life in Christ. 9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10 For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11 Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. This saving through His life is clearly on the spiritual level. Therefore, the contrast of death is best interpreted on a spiritual level. 2. This passage says that death was passed on to all men. You know that other living organisms are not men. Even if this passage is referring to physical death (which the context argues against), it is clearly not applicable to other living beings in God's creation.

I made my quote too short, I apologize. My point was this - The Bible does indeed clearly teach that sin originated with Adam and Eve. The Bible does not clearly teach that physical death originated with Adam and Eve. First, produce Biblical evidence of this. Then, we can talk about who is lying. I'm still waiting on Biblical evidence to support what you say about Jesus. I don't think I'll consider responding any further until you have backed up your claims with the Bible. You are beginning to sound like you have a rather twisted view of what the Bible teaches about becoming a new creature in Jesus Christ.

As I asked in the other thread (I'm confusing myself, keeping up with 2 threads), what do you base this on? To me, Jesus clearly taught about Adam and Eve as historical figures. He did not teach a 144-hour creation period or a young earth. The Bible indeed teaches that sin did originate with Adam and Eve (as I've explained in my doctrinal points that you've ignored), but the Bible does not teach that physical death originated with Adam and Eve. It places me under the protection of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ - the perfect sacrifice for my sin, and my deliverer. He has given me new life through the power of His resurrection. I know this with certainty. Jesus taught about certain people, and a few events from Genesis 1-11 (Adam, Eve, Noah), but this is no different from what I already believe. There is no contradiction here. You are trying really hard to make the claim that I don't believe in Jesus, or believe in Him in the "right" way, but it's a poor argument.

Let's focus on this. Jesus taught a literal Adam and Eve, and I accept that. You will have to demonstrate what part of the New Testament confirms your assertion. To this point, your defense of a strictly literal account (even though you accept figurative language in the account), is lacking in Biblical defense.

Why do you continue to evade direct questions? 1. Where does the Bible claim that the flood broke the solid dome of sky? 2. Why do you accept figurative language in some places, but not others, if we must believe that everything is literal? 3. Does the age of the earth have any impact on the sinfulness of mankind, our need for a Savior, the sacrifice of Jesus, and His triumphant resurrection? 4. Why is the age of the earth a doctrinal issue to you? (Remember, you accept figurative language in places, so the assertion that "we must believe everything literally, or not at all" falls flat)

Can you show me where my theology is in error? I see you did not even attempt to try the first time. I'm certain that the Bible teaches "Believe in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved". You can decide whether your assertion follows this clear explanation.

There is nothing in the Bible that confirms that all living creatures were not already mortal. So we've changed our argument from "I don't see a dome in Genesis 1" to "There could have been a dome before the Flood". Could you please select a single argument out of those two contradictory ones? Where does the Bible literally say that the solid dome sky was broken by the Flood? You want to tell yourself that you believe what the Bible says literally, but in practice, you have to provide your own explanations to make reality fit that model.

What God put into the Bible is true. God put a LOT of figurative language into the Bible, even into the creation account. Consider the serpent in Genesis 3. Is this Satan, a literal serpent, or something else? The literal language of the Bible says it was the serpent 3:1-5. Did God create an animal that knew right from wrong, and tempted Adam and Eve into choosing wrong? That sure doesn't fit the idea of a perfect creation, or even a "very good" one. Here is figurative language. Another example of figurative language is found in Genesis 2:18-20. God said "It is not good for man to be alone". First, how is it not good if God's creation was "very good"? "Not good" does not match with "very good" - figurative language. In the same passage, God brings the livestock, birds, and wild animals to Adam, but verse 21 says "But for Adam, no suitable helper was found." I highly doubt God brought the livestock, birds, and wild animals to Adam to try to set him up with a good helper - more figurative language. See if you can find any fault in the theology of my view of Genesis 1-3. I will humbly consider all meaningful corrections. 1. God is Creator of the universe and everything in it. 2. God culminated His creation with mankind, that He made specially for His pleasure. 3. God made mankind in a way that we could commune with God in His presence. 4. Adam and Eve chose their own way, instead of God's. 5. Ever since Adam and Eve, mankind has been corrupted by sin and our relationship with our Creator is broken. 6. God promised a solution. It is not spelled out in detail here, but one can see the promise of Jesus Christ.

I'm sure we are both aware that English was not the original language of Genesis, so your are making a faulty argument. Scholars agree that the Hebrew word choice indicates a solid dome. It was understood by the ancient Hebrews/Israelites that the was indeed a solid dome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament

How long will our spiritual selves last? Now you appear to be just making stuff up... You and I both know sin is real.

There is no reason to claim that Genesis 1-3 must be literal history for the rest of the Bible to be literal history. God is creator, God made mankind special, mankind chose sin, God (in His grace) put in place a plan to redeem those that accept His gift. That is the important message, not the timeline of His creation.

So an immortal, spiritual Creator makes mortal, physical creation. How is this a problem, especially considering the fact that God does not call His creation perfect? Is sin real? Did God create humanity with the capability to sin? Obviously, the answer is “yes” to both of these. By applying the same logic you have to death, you would be claiming that there is sin in God. The answer to that is obviously “no”.

How did you get so confused that you think I'm claiming there is death in God?

Do you believe the sky is a solid dome? If not, why do you believe the description in Genesis 1:6 is not literal?

That should be obvious. The warning was for the spiritual separation they would experience if they chose their own way - which was exactly what happened. No, life is not made in equality with Jesus. I have no idea where you would have possibly gotten that idea, but it certainly wasn't from the Bible. Creation does not match the Creator.

There are MANY meanings for the word throughout the Old Testament. That does not mean that the pattern holds everywhere. If I say that all of the mailboxes on my street are gray, so all mailboxes are gray, would that be correct? Out of curiosity, where else in the Old Testament does this pattern hold true? No, there are many other meanings, as you know. Not necessarily. Symbolism is very important throughout the Bible. There are Hebrew words that could have been used to convey "perfect", but a different word was used. I would suggest that if God wanted the Bible to say "perfect", the human author would have used a different word. I don't think a physical death interpretation matches as well as a spiritual death interpretation. God told Adam that he would eat on the day that he ate the fruit, yet he didn't die physically. Additionally, Paul's references to Adam are consistently from a spiritual view, comparing him to the Second Adam, Jesus Christ. There is no indication in the scripture that no physical death occurred before Adam's sin. There is no reason why God creating over millions of years, rather than 144 hour contradicts or denies the message of the Bible, itself. It only contradicts certain interpretations of the Bible. This is not true. This is like saying "if you don't believe what the Bible says about the sun orbiting the earth, then everything else loses its meaning". There is abundant reason to believe that the creation account is not intended to be a historical description of events, but an establishment of God as Creator and Sustainer of all the universe.

That is one possible explanation, but it is not any sort of proof. How would make the claim that Genesis 1:27 could NOT refer to a spiritual death, instead of a physical one? You are offering support for your own interpretation, but will not (or cannot) provide any sort of evidence against mine.

Maybe you could explain how a literal creation account is the basis for the Gospel of Christ. I believe in a literal Adam and Eve and I believe that their literal disobedience and pride brought sin into the world and that all people since that time have needed a Savior provide redemption from their own sins. Is there something fundamentally wrong with what I've explained here? Why does a belief in a 144-hour creation period explain what I've stated any better? @enoob57 won't explain why he "knows" that Genesis 2:17 could not refer to a spiritual death, rather than a physical one. Do you want to give it a shot?

Unsurprisingly, you are aren't reading for comprehension and making up side arguments as you go. God said Adam would die the day he ate the fruit. Adam did not die physically on the day he ate the fruit. This much is indisputable. Logic would take you to the point that the death Adam experienced "that day" was not a physical one, but a spiritual one. This actually makes more sense when looking at Paul's comments later in the New Testament. Comparing my argument to Satan's is a twist of the truth, or sometimes called a lie... Remind me again who the father of lies is?