Prefall Death

[Guest]

Not that I will try to speak for him, but I don't believe it is contradictory. I believe that heaven exists outside of time and space, and is, in a sense, infinite, limitless. Therefore, why should it be held to the constraints of time and space?

Well it doesn't appear limitless to me. But I just realised I'm posting in the wrong thread sorry Shiloh.

I'm slightly curious now, why do you believe heaven has limits?

[~candice~]

Chris, lemme start another thread, OK?

[Don Fanucci]

Don, I'd like to know if you think there is death in Heaven?

No I do not think there is.

Don't you find it contrary that there is death pre-fall but not in heaven, when heaven is essentially a return to pre fall conditions?

I think, but have not studied it in any detail whatsoever, that heaven would exceed (or maybe extend is a better word) the pre fall condition. Otherwise, it just seems like everything is being reset.

[Guest]

Ok.

[Don Fanucci]

How large was the earth's population at the time of the fall? The reason I ask this is because maybe the Bible doesn't mention "pre-fall death" because there wasn't enough of a population (either human or animal) for this to be a problem.

We can speculate on the pre-fall world all we want, but it would remain speculation. I for one though do not think it is a wrong belief, just a non-essential belief. I think it's an interesting question to think about, and debate, but it's one where we simply won't know the answer. And by the time we get to a position where we might know the answer, will it really matter?

If it is a creationist view, not big at all as far as I can tell. I think there have been some who argue that Adam and Eve were not the only humans, based on the dual description in Genesis.

[Guest]

I am a creationist to the extent that I believe God created everything. Whether or not He did it in literal days or figurative days, whether it was six thousand years ago, or ten thousand years ago, doesn't matter so much to me. I think the important thing scripture wants us to take away from the narrative is that God created.

But as for the assertion that there are two creation narratives, I don't think that is right. I think it more or less has to deal with we are given an overview first, and then a more specific (though not completely specific) chain of events. It's kind of like reading a preface.

[Don Fanucci]

I am a creationist to the extent that I believe God created everything. Whether or not He did it in literal days or figurative days, whether it was six thousand years ago, or ten thousand years ago, doesn't matter so much to me. I think the important thing scripture wants us to take away from the narrative is that God created.

But as for the assertion that there are two creation narratives, I don't think that is right. I think it more or less has to deal with we are given an overview first, and then a more specific (though not completely specific) chain of events. It's kind of like reading a preface.

I have not necesarily subscribed to to descriptions. I realize that is a Hebrew writing style, which is not my expertise, so I don't have much of an issue with it. I know others do claim it is two descriptions.

[Guest shiloh357]

No, I think it is only necessary to suit your purpose.

What you think is irrelevant. What is relevant are facts.

There are many times when it is clear what scripture is saying and yet you always seem to claim it is not really saying waht is implied.

No, you are standing that on its head. It is clear what Scripture is saying, but as others here have demonstrated, you have no biblical or Christian basis for how you handle Scripture. I am correcting your mishandling of Scirpture and so far, no Christians are seeing it your way. So far, every Christian that has commented on this thread recognizes the unbiblical nature of your position. You are defending something that cannot be derfended biblically.

If scripture were that hard to understand the bibnle would be useless to the average person. Yes there are deeper meanings and to understand it fully requires outside sources and a knowledge of Hebrew or Greek. However, there are other times when the precision is pretty clear (see below).

That is not the issue here. The issue is about whether or not your claims represent a faithful interpretation of Scripture. So far, no Christian on this site that has commented on this thread agrees with you. So even though you are trying to paint this as me trying Lord it over others, so far, you will find that no true Christian has the nerve to claim that God created a sinful creation for some ambiguous "purpose/plan" you have failed to identify.

Your interpretation would be correct if there were no pain and God meant that he was adding pain to the process of child birth. But that was not the scenario as I have noted. He was talking about increasing pain, hence the multiplier, which, if you remember the multiplication rule in math, you'll understand that my analogy is correct an yours is incorrect.

Sorry, but the problem is that the Hebrew grammatical structure of an iinfinitive absolute does not support your view.

You keep acting as if this issue has not been addressed already. The phrase "rabbah rabbah" is not refering to our english concept of multplication. It literally reads , increasing, I will increase. Rabbah means much or great. As a verb in the 3rd person masculine singular, it means "he will make great." If we smooth out the Hebrew, the phrase reads, I will make exceeding great.." You keep wanting to impose a hyper-literal rendering of the English word multiply, but that is just not correct. Kick against it all you want, but your claimm is with out merit.

We see the same grammatical construction in Genesis 2:16b-17:

"From any tree of the garden you may surely eat, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for on the day you eat from it you shall surely die."

The two words "surely die" in Hebrew is "mot tamut" or "dying you shall die." Again, it is an infinitive absolute and so it refers to death in an absolute final complete form. You will die in every way a person can die. In the same way, "rabbah rabbah" means you are not just going to have pain, but you are going to have great PAIN.

There is nothing in the text to indicate that she had pain in chlldbirth before the fall because her first child was not had until after the fall when she had Cain.

No, actually I have ben looking up the Hebrew meanings of all the words that we have disputed, and I have also read the arguemnt, which does not hold, that the increase in childbirth pain is more related to labor and not really indicative of pain. So no, I don't find any support that God was referring to anything other than increasing pain from some prefall baseline. But its clear prefall child birth would or was painful.

How can it be clear that prefall childbirth was painful?? There was no prefall childbirth. Do you find any place in Scripture that indicates that children were born before the fall?

Looking up meanings of Hebrew words is insufficient. Grammar effects word usage in Hebrew just like it does in English and what is communicated through it.

And you have just agreed with me.

Only in your imagination.

If God's intention would have been to create Adam, and man in general perfect, he could have done it, but the evidence does not support that.

Uh, the evidence ONLY supports that. So far, you have failed to make a biblical case for your position. Your position violates direct statements in Scripture. Only intellectual suicide can account for your delusion that you have ANY evidence for your position.

[Guest shiloh357]

As I noted, it was foreordained pre creation that Christ was coming. Why would he be needed in a perfect, sinless, universe? He would be sacrificing for what, more perfection?

No. He was sacrificed for the sin of mankind in order to satisfy God's justice. God knew man would sin and He made a way to restore man to Himself. That in now way helps your position.

In fact, he could not have been sacrificed in a perfect world. This was all part of the plan. We are given free will so that we can choose to love God or turn from him. Perfect humans starting with a perfect Adam would be robotic, and serve no purpose, and would not need free will.

Sorry but you have a warped understanding of what perfection means and its nature. Jesus was perfect and had free will. He even admitted it. He said that he could have called down 12 leagions of angels to rescue Him if He chose to. He could have thwarted the plan of salvation and opted out at any time. But He chose to go to the cross for us. So to say that being perfect means not having free will is simply not true. That means that Adam could have had free will as a perfect person.

The plan for Adam and mankind and the second Adam is clear. Adam could be created imperfect, allowing for his disobedient transgression.

The problem is that is not supported by Scripture. There is absoltely nothing to be gained from such a plan. Nowhere will you find such a plan indicated in Scripture. God made a perfect creation and it was man's sin that marred it. It was man's sin that brought death and decay. That is the only biblical option available.

In fact, going back to our disagreement over what God's image means, as I contended, it does not mean a copy of God.

Uh... Yeah, you are refuting an argument I didn't raise. I never said that it meant Adam was a copy of God. It means that Adam was created in God's image. God's image is perfect, so it is impossible to model an imperfect image from a perfect one. In fact, what would be the point in doing so??? Either Adam was made in God's image or not.

If it did, the tree of knowledge would have not added anything to Adam and Eve and they would have not needed to partake, as they would not have gained anything.

Being perfect is not the same as being omnscient. There was a lot Adam and Eve did not know. Being all knowing is not an attribute of perfection; it is an attribute of Deity. Adam and Eve were perfect, but they did not possess any divine attributes. The tree would have llikely, had they not been disobedient, been available to them at later time.

It touched on it in a previous post. He would be more of a marionette if he was sinless and perfect, and thus our lineage would have been sinless and perfect. How would God be glorified in the absence of free will, which would be uneeded ina perfect world?

Jesus glorified the Father as a perfect person complete with free will. So it is possible for Adam to have free will in a perfect state. Adam was not a robot at all in a perfect state.

I also note, and have noted, God could be satisfied with what he had created and it could have been internally imperfect, but perfect for his needed.

You have provided exactly zero biblical evidence to support that claim. In fact, God is never satisfied with less than what is as perfect as He is. Nowhere in Scripture is your claim ever asserted. You are simply making stuff up.

The Hebrew term is also used in a greeting, and surely we don't mean that we are flawless when someone asks how we are doing and we respond using that phrase.

How WE use the term is irrelevant. The Hebrew phrase tov meod carries the connotation of perfection. Adam Clarke puts it this way:

Gen 1:31

And, behold, it was very good - טוב מאד tob meod, Superlatively, or only good; as good as they could be. The plan wise, the work well executed, the different parts properly arranged; their nature, limits, mode of existence, manner of propagation, habits, mode of sustenance, etc., etc., properly and permanently established and secured; for every thing was formed to the utmost perfection of its nature, so that nothing could be added or diminished without encumbering the operations of matter and spirit on the one hand, or rendering them inefficient to the end proposed on the other; and God has so done all these marvellous works as to be glorified in all, by all, and through all.

You make these extensive interpretations to try to suit yourself, when it is clear what scripture is saying.

Funny how NO Christians are coming on the thread to agree with you.

[Guest shiloh357]

Blah blah blah. The only one I am blaspheming is you and your legalism. I am ascribing an imperfect creation to God, because it suited his plan, and you have not refuted it so you do what you always do with anyone that dares to challenge you.

What plan??? You have yet to identify this phantom plan you say God had. You are ascribing a sinful creation to God. Sin has never suited the plan of God. That is just absurd and you have no Scripture to back it up. You slander God, you blasphme His character with every post. And again, if what you are claiming were biblical at least one genuine Christian is coming alongside you in agreement. No one who loves Jesus and follows Him sincerely believes the tripe you are posting.

In fact, as I have said over and over. The universe is imperfect, and it is God's creation, not ours. You limit God by saying he could not create what he wanted to or needed to create in order to suit his plan.

That is a new one. Claiming that God cannot look upon sin (much less create it) is "limiting God?" Are you serious??? I am only saying what the Bible says:

"You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on wickedness..." Hab. 1:13

Correction, imperfection was in the world pre fall. Sin arose because of it, according to God's plan.

Wrong. Any "imperfection" that is less than God's perfection IS sin. Imperfection and sin are one and the same. Every real Christian knows that.