Prefall Death

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

I did not claim it meant the end of biological differnce. I said that the earth has suffered under the curse that Adam's sin brought upon it. God said that the earth was cursed on Adam's account. The world has been living under that curse ever since.

Death is not part of God's nature. He is not the engineer of death. Death is the consequence of coming under God's judgment. It is not what God wanted or what He intended. Death is a perversion of life, just as hate is a perversion of love.

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.

Yeah, I and Luftwaffle have already responded to that.

While you are arguing that the "world will be restored...", that belief reflects an opinion that the world will be reset to its previous state that existed prior to sin. It ignores the possibility that had Adam not sinned, the world would have progressed to that condition and presumably other conditions, not return to it.

While it is impossible to precisely know exactly what the New Heaven and New Earth will be like, the Bible makes it very clear that redemption is in and of itself an act of restoration. God is restoring what was lost in the fall. In one way it will be better in that we will be living with Jesus, but the over all condition of the earth without sin will be that death is no longer. Sin is what brought death and decay to the world. It's absence means that death and decay will no longer exist.

Your remark suggests that creation was imperfect but would gradually over time advance to perfection, but that demonstrates an example of a flawed perspective on God's nature. God is perfect in the absolute sense. He is incapable of creating a less than perfect world that needs to become better. God has only one standard of "good" and when God said that the world was good, it meant that He was satisfied with it. God did not create the world to be less than His absolute best.

[LuftWaffle]

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. The "degradation of the genome" argument does not make sense to me because it is not supported by scripture. In fact, it is pretty clear that scripture incorporates death prior to sin does it not? While some could die from non natural causes (ie, accidents), old age must have occurred, which would mean that, for lack of a better word, human genomes were not "perfect" as some would die of old age--they'd just wear out, just as happens to some (the lucky ones!) today.

Hi Don,

I'd like to ask a couple of questions about some of the points you've made in the above:

1. When you say cell-death, are you not committing a non-sequitur by applied what's true for the part to the whole? A dying cell doesn't necessarily prove an organism dies, just like a flat tire doesn't mean your car is flat.

2. What kind of cell-death are you referring to? As far as I know there's controlled cell death and uncontrolled cell death. Controlled cell-death is essential for life and this isn't necessarily precluded in the pre-fall world. Cell-death is merely the anthropomorphic term for deletions of spent cells.

3. The only genomes that are available to study are post-fall genomes. Adam's genome isn't available, so based on what do you say that "old age must have occurred"?

Thanks

You are referring to apoptosis. I wasn't thinking of that. Generally I started thing about death as a result of what I was working on, not in relation to it.

More specifically, I was thinking of aging, as in not being immortal, which is what the state of biological orgainsims would have been in if there was not death.

Yes, I was referring to apoptosis... I understand that apoptosis could play a role in longgevity. Do you know anything about that?

Something else that's interesting, and you'll know more about this than me, is that apoptosis is a very complicated cascade and the mechanisms behind it are quite fascinating. YEC scientists say that this is evidence for intelligent design not only because of it complication, but also because all organisms have it. It seems more likely that a Clever Designer created everything and built this countdown-deletion system in into everything rather than having such a complex system evolving so early in biological history that everything today has it.

Either way, I'm not sure I follow the connection you've made between cell death and pre-fall immortality, which is why I asked if you're assuming cell death implies organism death. Perhaps you can clarify it?

I also have not substantially thought about it, but it would seem that Genesis says that there are other humans in addition to Adam and Eve, otherwise God would have not given the command to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Since this command is prefall, it would seem unlikely that he would give it and yet have it never fulfilled (because Adam and Eve were the only two humans), prefall.

Just because God gave a command in paradise doesn't necessarily mean it must be fulfilled in paradise, so I don't think it's valid to conclude that Adam and Eve were fruitful and multiplied in paradise.

Also because a command exists, it doesn't make sense to conclude that the command was followed. For instance God commanded "Thou shalt not commit adultery", now if we use the same logic, we have to conclude that there is no adultery in the world, because why would God command something and not have it fulfilled. See the problem?

Lastly scripturally there is no evidence for Adam and Eve having had many children prior to Cain. Especially not male children since her statement "I have gotten a man from the Lord"(Gen 4:1) would make no sense if she'd had any boys before him.

Lastly, going back to my original post, its not clear how creationists conclude that the genomes were perfect and non mutable simply because God made them. God only refers to everything he made as "good" and "very good", not perfect (flawless, as would would equate with Christ)

The fact that God claimed creation was very good is only one of a number of reasons why we conclude that and not the only one, so it's not entirely correct saying that we believe genomes were perfect because God called creation good.

[Don Fanucci]

I disagree as once something becomes infertile, you have extinction. on the otherhand, even if you reduce fertility, unless you are removing members of the population, every new birth is a net addition. Because of the nature of how ecosystems are interdependent, you would need to effect fertility rates of every organism, even the plants.

But extinction would only happen if you had death, which is exactly what we're saying didn't happen in paradise. Populations depend on births versus deaths. If you have no deaths and you have no births your current population remains the same size.

I think given that most people were not aware that they were spiritually dead, the physical death of Christ, and the graphic nature in which it occured--clearly sacrificial, better demonstarted the point.

Are you saying that the physical death and resurrection has no importance other than being demonstrative of spiritual rebirth?

I'd also like to know how you see everlasting life. Will our glorified bodies still die in heaven, but our spirits will live on. Will we go through numerous physical bodies in heaven as they age and deplete, as in a sort of reincarnation? If not then why will an immortal body work in heaven but not in paradise?

You are arguing, then, that nature would be held in a sort of suspended animation. Not possible in the natural world, nothing in scripture would suggest that. 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 saying just the opposite re physical death of Christ. As far as what we have in heaven, I doubt that if we had physical bodies they would be the same as what we comprehend our current mortal bodies to be today, but I havn't thought about it.

[LuftWaffle]

Interesting point, our genomes aren't built to repair telomere degradation during DNA synthesis, same with many other organisms today.

I saw that apoptosis (cell death) was already mentioned, but I do find it curious that it's necessary while you're in the womb, an interesting way to come into the world if it was originally designed to have no death.

I probably won't be able to answer in any useful manner, but I am interested in why you say this.

But what about the bacteria in our digestive system, we can't live without them, does their death count? Each bacterium is a living organism in a symbiotic relationship with another organism (us).

The bible distinguishes between nephesh(soully) life and non-nephesh(having no soul) life. Plants, bacteria, insects from a Biblical perspective are biological machines, and not really living, sentient beings.

Edited May 22, 2011 by LuftWaffle

[Don Fanucci]

I did not claim it meant the end of biological differnce. I said that the earth has suffered under the curse that Adam's sin brought upon it. God said that the earth was cursed on Adam's account. The world has been living under that curse ever since.

Death is not part of God's nature. He is not the engineer of death. Death is the consequence of coming under God's judgment. It is not what God wanted or what He intended. Death is a perversion of life, just as hate is a perversion of love.

Well actually it is. He made skins for Adam and Eve, brought plagues, and commanded the Israelities to kill people in droves when needed. Others may bring that judgement, but it is surely in his nature.

While it is impossible to precisely know exactly what the New Heaven and New Earth will be like, the Bible makes it very clear that redemption is in and of itself an act of restoration. God is restoring what was lost in the fall. In one way it will be better in that we will be living with Jesus, but the over all condition of the earth without sin will be that death is no longer. Sin is what brought death and decay to the world. It's absence means that death and decay will no longer exist.

Your remark suggests that creation was imperfect but would gradually over time advance to perfection, but that demonstrates an example of a flawed perspective on God's nature. God is perfect in the absolute sense. He is incapable of creating a less than perfect world that needs to become better. God has only one standard of "good" and when God said that the world was good, it meant that He was satisfied with it. God did not create the world to be less than His absolute best.

I completely disagree with your reasoning, and I think it takes us back to my position on evolution. I believe what God intends his goals to be is perfect. However, clearly, his creations can be imperfect. If everything he made were perfect, Adam and Eve would not have sinned. They couldn't have if they were perfect. However, there is scriputre that is even more evidence and in fact, is somewhat troubling. In Gen 6:6, And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

Clearly what God had created was not perfect. He is troubled and dismayed by the outcome. In fact, he clearly and unequivocably shows who is responsible: "it repenteth me that I have made them". Yes, man wrecked it, but that is shifting responsibility and actually would argue that God is less than omnipotent--he was not in control of what was happening. The fact is, he created everything, and much of it was imperfect in order to meet his goals. I mention this because creationists seem to equate mutation as some sort of post-fall genomic degradation.

[Don Fanucci]

Yes, I was referring to apoptosis... I understand that apoptosis could play a role in longgevity. Do you know anything about that?

Something else that's interesting, and you'll know more about this than me, is that apoptosis is a very complicated cascade and the mechanisms behind it are quite fascinating. YEC scientists say that this is evidence for intelligent design not only because of it complication, but also because all organisms have it. It seems more likely that a Clever Designer created everything and built this countdown-deletion system in into everything rather than having such a complex system evolving so early in biological history that everything today has it.

Either way, I'm not sure I follow the connection you've made between cell death and pre-fall immortality, which is why I asked if you're assuming cell death implies organism death. Perhaps you can clarify it?

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

Just because God gave a command in paradise doesn't necessarily mean it must be fulfilled in paradise, so I don't think it's valid to conclude that Adam and Eve were fruitful and multiplied in paradise.

Also because a command exists, it doesn't make sense to conclude that the command was followed. For instance God commanded "Thou shalt not commit adultery", now if we use the same logic, we have to conclude that there is no adultery in the world, because why would God command something and not have it fulfilled. See the problem?

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.

The fact that God claimed creation was very good is only one of a number of reasons why we conclude that and not the only one, so it's not entirely correct saying that we believe genomes were perfect because God called creation good.

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.

[Guest shiloh357]

Well actually it is. He made skins for Adam and Eve, brought plagues, and commanded the Israelities to kill people in droves when needed. Others may bring that judgement, but it is surely in his nature.

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.

I completely disagree with your reasoning, and I think it takes us back to my position on evolution. I believe what God intends his goals to be is perfect. However, clearly, his creations can be imperfect. If everything he made were perfect, Adam and Eve would not have sinned.They couldn't have if they were perfect.

That is not true. God gave Adam and Eve free will. God did not make them imperfectly, if He did, then you would have to tie God to sin and He would ultimately be responsible for the mess we are in. The Bible lays the blame squarely on Adam. Adam made the wrong decision. Adam brought imperfection to creation.

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.

Thirdly, Adam and Eve were created in God's image. If they are imperfect then one would have to argue that they were fashioned after an imperfect image. Now if you want to make a case that God's image and likeness are imperfect, I would love to see you try.

However, there is scriputre that is even more evidence and in fact, is somewhat troubling. In Gen 6:6, And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

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. Yet, God spared mankind and did not judge man to the point the point that man was beyond redemption in that Noah found grace in God's eyes and God, through Noah filled the earth again. At no point is it claiming that man was created a flawed creature.

Clearly what God had created was not perfect.

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.

He is troubled and dismayed by the outcome. In fact, he clearly and unequivocably shows who is responsible: "it repenteth me that I have made them". Yes, man wrecked it, but that is shifting responsibility and actually would argue that God is less than omnipotent--he was not in control of what was happening.

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.

The fact is, he created everything, and much of it was imperfect in order to meet his goals.

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

[LuftWaffle]

You are arguing, then, that nature would be held in a sort of suspended animation. Not possible in the natural world, nothing in scripture would suggest that.

I not really arguing anything. You're arguing that without mortality there'll be overpopulation. All I'm saying is that that's not a necessary conclusion. If you say it's not possible in the natural world, then you'd be right only in terms of the natural world as we know. Paradise was not the same as this world.

To say that scripture doesn't suggest such as thing, isn't true. Scripture suggests exactly that, and not only for paradise but for the world to come.

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's skull of a fruit bat:

Now I won't say any of this is conclusive, but I think the idea of a vegetarian world isn't as preposterous and you might believe.

I'm saying just the opposite re physical death of Christ. As far as what we have in heaven, I doubt that if we had physical bodies they would be the same as what we comprehend our current mortal bodies to be today, but I havn't thought about it.

Well that's precisely it. We're saying that Adam and Eve's bodies before the fall weren't the same either, that the curse changed us.

[LuftWaffle]

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.

The reason why the ToE seems incompatible with God declaring creation "Good" has nothing to do with mutations, but has everything to do with the amount of death required for mankind to emerge. I'm not aware of any creationist having a moral problem with mutations and if there are any, I don't think they're represented on this forum.

Natural selection selects for death. Using a lot of natural selection in the creative process and then calling death 'the last enemy' seems incompatible. 1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

This implies that God used the last enemy to produce a "good creation".

"Paradise" as it were, would have been built on the corpses and decaying bones of the hopeful monsters that came before.

In terms of everybody looking pretty similar, it depends on how diverse the genome is that you begin with, isn't it. I believe Adam and Eve would have contained the genetic info for every race, colour and creed that we see today. They would have been a mixture of all of them, having likely had mid-brown complexion, wavy hair, brown eyes(but with the recessive alleles to produce blue and green eyes)

And yes, I think humans would have looked rather similar up until the point where God confused the languages at babel. From there you would have had genetic isolation and certain traits racial traits would have emerged.

Edited May 22, 2011 by LuftWaffle

[LuftWaffle]

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.

Edited May 22, 2011 by LuftWaffle