Prefall Death

[Guest shiloh357]

There was no death prior to the fall. All animals and humans were created to be vegitarians. We do not find ANY physical or spiritual death prior to the sin of Adam. The fall in garden effected the entire world, not only man. Paul in Romans 5 deals with the impact it had on man because He was making a theological and didactic point. Romans 5 cannot be used to make the assertion that the effects of the fall were only limited to mankind. God told Adam that even the ground was cursed for his sake and that is when it would be difficult for man to get it grow edible vegitation.

God did not engineer death into creation. How do we know this?? Because the Bible tells what life will be like after sin is eradicated from the universe. According to Scripture, there will be no more sickness, pain, sorrow, no more curse and no more death. There will be no more twisted and deformed bodies, no more physical disabilities, no more disease. There will no more predators in the animal kingdom.

The world will be restored to its conditions prior to the fall of man. The obedience of Christ (the Last Adam) will reverse the curse of the first Adam.

What does that mean though. If we really don't actually know all the conditions prior to the fall what does that mean? I was thinking about something after asking a question in another thread. So I will ask you here.

What I said was the we do not know preciesly what the New Heavesn and New Earth will be like, we do know that what was lost in the Fall will be restored. I think we can read the description of the New Earth and what it will be like after sin is eradicated to get a good idea what life would have been like prior to the fall. This is a restoration, so the outcome tells us to some degree what the original looked like. I don't know if the description given to us in Revelation is exhaustive, but there is enough information given that we can see what life was originally designed to be like before sin came in to the picture.

When God said you shall surely die ( my emphasis on surely) what die do you believe He meaned with the addition of that Word? He didn't just say you will die, but surely die.

In Hebrew the word death is repeated twice because death is an imperative. It means to emphasize that there is no question about what the outcome will be. You will surely die. The tone is emphatic.

God is referring to death and all that it entails physically and spiritually. Death spriittually was instaneous. The minute Adam ate the fruit, the Adam (and all of us) was severed from relationship and fellowship with God. Spiritual death in Scripture is separation from God. That is the default state of humanity.

Physical death is really process leading to final expiration. You are dying right now. Your body is in a state of decay. In the future, your eyes will start to go and so will your hearing, you might need arthritis medication, and you will notice a decrease in overall mobility. You will not be able to exert yourself like you did when you were a younger. That is because you are dying. Adam died in garden and he began dying physically as well. As a result of that curse, God promised, "dust you are and to dust you shall return."

Nothing big, or that I want to attempt to build something else on. But that word just stands out to me. Almost like saying you can die, but if you eat this you will definitely die. Look forward to your answer brother, or anyone else who wants to chime in.

No, had Adam not eaten of that fruit, he would not have died. But he definitely died when He ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

[Guest shiloh357]

There was no death prior to the fall. All animals and humans were created to be vegitarians. We do not find ANY physical or spiritual death prior to the sin of Adam. The fall in garden effected the entire world, not only man. Paul in Romans 5 deals with the impact it had on man because He was making a theological and didactic point. Romans 5 cannot be used to make the assertion that the effects of the fall were only limited to mankind. God told Adam that even the ground was cursed for his sake and that is when it would be difficult for man to get it grow edible vegitation.

God did not engineer death into creation. How do we know this?? Because the Bible tells what life will be like after sin is eradicated from the universe. According to Scripture, there will be no more sickness, pain, sorrow, no more curse and no more death. There will be no more twisted and deformed bodies, no more physical disabilities, no more disease. There will no more predators in the animal kingdom.

The world will be restored to its conditions prior to the fall of man. The obedience of Christ (the Last Adam) will reverse the curse of the first Adam.

What does that mean though. If we really don't actually know all the conditions prior to the fall what does that mean? I was thinking about something after asking a question in another thread. So I will ask you here.

When God said you shall surely die ( my emphasis on surely) what die do you believe He meaned with the addition of that Word? He didn't just say you will die, but surely die. Nothing big, or that I want to attempt to build something else on. But that word just stands out to me. Almost like saying you can die, but if you eat this you will definitely die. Look forward to your answer brother, or anyone else who wants to chime in.

Perhaps Shiloh can help out here, but I understand that the text in Hebrew reads, "Dying you shall surely die". I think this makes a difference because it means we will live our lives with death chasing and eventually overtaking all. As some say, we're all dying, slowly but surely.

Right on target!!

[Guest shiloh357]

Are you really going to argue that all the animals that have incisors for teeth would only use them for grazing? Would you argue that plants that are eaten only have the tops chewed off? Pretty preposterous if you ask me.

I'm confused, I thought we were talking about death, now it seems the discussion has shifted to vegetarianism in paradise. I'm fine with discussing that, but lets atleast acknowlegde the change in the direction of the discussion.

Pandas have canines yet they eat plants. Surely nasty teeth in and of themselves don't necessarily mean predator. There's the story of a lioness called Little Tyke that refused to eat meat as another example.

Here is part of the description Isaiah gives us about the coming Messianic Kingdom:

The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain," says the LORD.

(Isa 65:25)

[~candice~]

Are you really going to argue that all the animals that have incisors for teeth would only use them for grazing? Would you argue that plants that are eaten only have the tops chewed off? Pretty preposterous if you ask me.

I'm confused, I thought we were talking about death, now it seems the discussion has shifted to vegetarianism in paradise. I'm fine with discussing that, but lets atleast acknowlegde the change in the direction of the discussion.

Pandas have canines yet they eat plants. Surely nasty teeth in and of themselves don't necessarily mean predator. There's the story of a lioness called Little Tyke that refused to eat meat as another example.

Here is part of the description Isaiah gives us about the coming Messianic Kingdom:

The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain," says the LORD.

(Isa 65:25)

Ah yes, the practical unity and peace between Jews and Gentiles will be a feature of the Messianic Kingdom .

[OneLight]

I can not find in scripture where anything dies before the fall. Can you show me where it is?

Psalm 104:19-21 He made the moon for the seasons; the sun knows the place of its setting. 20 You appoint darkness and it becomes night, in which all the beasts of the forest prowl about. 21 The young lions roar after their prey and seek their food from God.

v20-21 clearly make the initial seven days of creation the time frame, within which the lions exist and actually use the darkness to hunt.

No, it does not clearly state that, otherwise it would be in Genesis. What this is is David reflecting on God, nothing more.

[OneLight]

The explanation of what happens if Adam eats the fruit from the tree of life, "you shall surely die" pretty clearly demonstrates that the reference to death is spiritual death, not the end of biological existance. As I indicated, unchecked multiplication is not compatible with life. Also see my post to oneight referencing lions hunting prey in response to no predatation.

You can't say that and back it by scripture. We do not know if Adam would of physically died if he had not eaten, so it also could of referred to a slow physical death, as in aging. You take too many privileges with scripture.

[Don Fanucci]

First of all, making skins for Adam and Eve was a redemptive act. He provided them a covering. Yet, that was AFTER the fall of man and not before. None of the things you mention would have happened had Adam not fell. Each of those items can be tied directly to the fall of Adam.

The plagues were God's judgment. That is not the same as saying that death is part of God's nature. The plagues were not some arbitrary act but were the consequence of disobedience and not the product of a God who likes to kill things or see things die. The same goes for the for why God commanded the deaths of the Canaanites. It was an act of judgment and not just God wanting to kill people to advance His own agenda. Again, you are talking arguments from the atheist's playbook.

The motivation for why God was associated with death is not germane to the point. The fact that God could and did cause death, and lots of it, as well as suffering, showed he is capable of it, and therefore certainly within his nature. It is indisputable. The countless battles, even the direct causes of death (first born, the flood). I think we are haggling over semantics, it is abundantly clear that God can and did cause great death. If it were not in his nature, he could not do it. This does not detract from him being a loving God at all, but to say death is not in his nature is clearly incorrect.

Secondly, name one place in Scripture where the Bible claims that God has done something imperfectly or attributes imperfection to anything God has done??? You won't find one area from Scripture to support your errant view. If you are going to make arguments about God, then you are going to have to rely on someting other than your feeble attempt to craft a god that will fit your evolutionary worldview.

Simply, if Adam and Eve were perfectly created, they would not have chosen to eat the fruit--they failed as humans, and I don't believe they were intended to be made perfect. Just good, consistent with God's plan. They were made in God's image to have fellowship with God, communicate with God, know God, not to be Gods. In fact, are they not immortal as long as they are in the garden? Your contention is that everything God makes is good. My contention is that he makes some things flawed in order to achieve his goal, which is perfection.

Yes, but that passage is in the context of the fullness of man's sin coming up before God. God was sorry for creating man, but it is in the context of having to respond to man as a God of judgment. It is not saying that His original creation of man is a mistake. The imperfection of mankind at this point in history is not the result of a flawed creative act, but the result of man's stubborn and unrepentant sinfulness, which a holy God has to judge.

There is no other way to explain the failure of Adam and Eve and mankind as imperfection. God was both sorry and sad. But again, it was his creation, perfect for his goal, but in order to meet his goal, parts had to be flawed.

No, that is not clear from the text. What the Bible teaches is that man's imperfection and sinfulness stems from Adam's disobedience and not from a creative flaw on God's part. What it more clearly teaches is that what God created BECAME imperfect and that imperfection was not engineered into God's creation.

How can you say that imperfection was not engineered into his creation when the creation did in fact become imperfect? Your logic doesn't follow. Adam sinned, yet he was a complete creation of God--no help from anyone else. The capabllity to sin was engineered in--Adam came like that directly from the factory, and like a new product from the factory, he was unblemished. But again, Adam was an imperfect product (the product failed) but the plan was/is perfect.

So, God is responsible for man's sin??? Are you sure you want to go down that road??? So if sin came into the world through man, God is not omnipotent??? Obviously, you don't understand God's nature. The Bible places the responsibilty of the fall on Adam, never on God. Romans 5 makes it perfectly clear that Adam's disobedience is where sin found its way into our world. YOU are shifting the blame to God in order to make room for evolution, which goes back to what I have always said. You have to pervert and adjust Scripture to accomodate your view on Evolution. And evidently, that includes making God responsible for sin.

No, I addressed this above. God's plan included giving us free will, Adam exercised it and failed, not God. But a perfect Adam could not fail. It is crystal clear---Luke 6:40 A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher, James 1:13 ...God cannot be tempted by evil... Adam was indeed tempted and could not resist. If he had been perfectly trained he could not have done it.

Sorry, but God said it was perfect. He only has one standard for "good" a perfect God cannot engineer imperfection.

So the hebrew word for good and perfect is the same? Curious since Genesis also uses the word "very good" regarding creation, which doesn't translate into perfection. Something is either perfect or not, a degree of perfect, like "a little bit pregnant" doesnt follow.

[Don Fanucci]

The explanation of what happens if Adam eats the fruit from the tree of life, "you shall surely die" pretty clearly demonstrates that the reference to death is spiritual death, not the end of biological existance. As I indicated, unchecked multiplication is not compatible with life. Also see my post to oneight referencing lions hunting prey in response to no predatation.

You can't say that and back it by scripture. We do not know if Adam would of physically dies if he had not eaten, so it also could of referred to a slow physical death, as in aging. You take too many privileges with scripture.

In fact, I am taking far less privilege than you are. Scripture said "you will surely die". He did not. In fact, he lived a very very long time. However, he caused separation from God for which which we all suffer.

[Don Fanucci]

I'm confused, I thought we were talking about death, now it seems the discussion has shifted to vegetarianism in paradise. I'm fine with discussing that, but lets atleast acknowlegde the change in the direction of the discussion.

We are and have included the context of imperfection. Somehow creationists believe that predators and carnivors would be indicative of pre fall imperfection.

Pandas have canines yet they eat plants. Surely nasty teeth in and of themselves don't necessarily mean predator. There's the story of a lioness called Little Tyke that refused to eat meat as another example.

No but there are animals that have no anatomy whatsoever to equip them to eat vegetation. Some have are all canine-like teeth or fangs and no molars. Would a snake really need poisonous fangs to subdue an unruly tomato? Many fish have all sharp, pointed teeth, that allow them to grab and hold prey so they can swallow. On the other hand, other types of fish actiually will graze on coral and have dentition meant for that.

[Don Fanucci]

I was only referring to the cells I was working with as making me think about death, not cell death in particular.

Ok, fair enough, but I'm sure you can understand why I made the connection since your opening post reads, "I was doing an experiment this week in which I was looking at cell death and was reminded of some of the creationist positions regarding the genome and death after the fall."

It would be too complicated for here. I would say on the contrary, just as YECs argue the complement system was designed and not evolved. The evidemnce showed that it easily evolved. Similarly, the widespread nature of caspases just shows that it is useful.

No problem, I just thought it interesting.

I would flip that logic around and say that God would not give an irrelevant command that had no relation to anything or would not be useful.

Logic generally isn't flippable. The problem with saying there is a command to multiply therefore the reality of the command obtained pre-fall, makes certain hidden assumptions:

1. The command was obeyed.

2. The command was limited in scope to the pre-fall world. In other words it expired post-fall and therefore had to happen pre-fall in order to be useful.

I'm not at all suggesting that the "command is irrelevant, and had no relation to anything or would not be useful". Where do you get that from my post/s?

What God commanded is a reality today, as we live in a world with 6.8 billion people (as at 2009). It wasn't a useless command at all, it just didn't come to fruition pre-fall, and there's no need for it.

But as I read creationist positions, they seem to equate any mutation with somethng that is bad. In reality, you can have all types of mutations, many of which are silent or exert no phenotype, unles the environment changes. This is yet another thing I was thinking about...would not every human have been clonal, excluding the Y chromosme, at least until after the fall, but even then, unless you are arguing that variation was introduced into the genome have a incredible frequency, by and large, everyone would have looked pretty similar.

Look at it this way,it seems unlikely God would command something that the very act of trying to fulfilling it would make it impossible to fulfill. In fact, post fall, Noah gets the same command. Multiplying (in the absence of death) would lead to every availble space being filled, and resource being consumed.

Natural selection selects for death.

You don't really mean this, do you?

Edited May 23, 2011 by Don Fanucci