Prefall Death

[OneLight]

Eating of the Tree of Life was the only alternative presented to keep one from dying.

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

This is illogical in that it is based on the false premise that the ONLY reason there is no record of something dying is that death did not exist. Asking me to accept this begs the question. In fact, there might be many reasons why such an event was not recorded. You cannot base any case on a lack of evidence. I would be equally illogical for to ask you to show an scriptural example of animals receiving what we would consider a mortal wound and yet they did not die. An example might be an animal who fell from a great height, or one who was struck by a massive falling tree or beaten by meteors. No such example exists but since you believe what you do you must assume that it did, or that it might have or would in time. This is all silly of course.

It seems that you are doing just that by stating that death came before the fall and that the only way this could not happen is if they ate of the tree of life. This itself in not scriptural, but mere human logic.

[JimiSurvivor]

These scriptures all pertain to people.

Only because human death was what was relevant to the point Paul was making. Nothing in that passage suggests that the decaying state of the world is not connected to Adam's fall.

And specifically we can see that the decaying state of the world is a result of the fall, "To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life" (Genesis 3:17), and that animals didn't eat each other "Then God said,

[Guest shiloh357]

Eating of the Tree of Life was the only alternative presented to keep one from dying.

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

This is illogical in that it is based on the false premise that the ONLY reason there is no record of something dying is that death did not exist. Asking me to accept this begs the question. In fact, there might be many reasons why such an event was not recorded. You cannot base any case on a lack of evidence. I would be equally illogical for to ask you to show an scriptural example of animals receiving what we would consider a mortal wound and yet they did not die. An example might be an animal who fell from a great height, or one who was struck by a massive falling tree or beaten by meteors. No such example exists but since you believe what you do you must assume that it did, or that it might have or would in time. This is all silly of course.

Actually, none of those events would have occurred in the world before the fall. There was no death, sickness, injury, pain, etc. before the fall.

So now, we have creatures who cannot die of old age AND because God continually manipulates and micromanages the environment. Trees are not allowed to fall on animals. Goats are warned by God before they stumble and slip into a ravines. There are no accidents of that sort or if there are the animals heal instantly like Wolverine. This story gets bigger and bigger as possibilities. Like a gas your theory expands until it fills the container which in this case includes countless creatures and countless configurations of circumstances for endless ages.

Life was a lot different before sin came on to the scence. It is not a theory. It is biblical truth. All of death, disease and decay can be tied directly to Adam's fall.

[Guest shiloh357]

Eating of the Tree of Life was the only alternative presented to keep one from dying.

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

This is illogical in that it is based on the false premise that the ONLY reason there is no record of something dying is that death did not exist. Asking me to accept this begs the question. In fact, there might be many reasons why such an event was not recorded. You cannot base any case on a lack of evidence. I would be equally illogical for to ask you to show an scriptural example of animals receiving what we would consider a mortal wound and yet they did not die. An example might be an animal who fell from a great height, or one who was struck by a massive falling tree or beaten by meteors. No such example exists but since you believe what you do you must assume that it did, or that it might have or would in time. This is all silly of course.

Actually, none of those events would have occurred in the world before the fall. There was no death, sickness, injury, pain, etc. before the fall.

So now, we have creatures who cannot die of old age AND because God continually manipulates and micromanages the environment. Trees are not allowed to fall on animals. Goats are warned by God before they stumble and slip into a ravines. There are no accidents of that sort or if there are the animals heal instantly like Wolverine. This story gets bigger and bigger as possibilities. Like a gas your theory expands until it fills the container which in this case includes countless creatures and countless configurations of circumstances for endless ages.

Life was a lot different before sin came on to the scene. It is not a theory. It is biblical truth. All of death, disease and decay can be tied directly to Adam's fall.

[methinkshe]

Life was a lot different before sin came on to the scene. It is not a theory. It is biblical truth. All of death, disease and decay can be tied directly to Adam's fall.

Shiloh,

I have huge respect for your Biblical knowledge and understanding and your sincere seeking for truth and would be most grateful for your help on the above point.

This is where I am at the moment.

God told Adam: ".....but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.

[Guest shiloh357]

Now, I can only assume that this order existed from the beginning - i.e. "death" of seeds leading to multiplcatiion was part of God's original and perfect plan for plant life.

Now the questions start:

1) IF (and it is a big IF) death was originally beneficial (at least in terms of plant life) inasmuch as it lead to multiplication, could it be that death as we now perceive it was a satanic corruption of God's original purpose concerning death - i.e. that it belonged to the plant order and was designed by God as a means of multiplication?

Now my mind jumps to the following passages:

John 12:24" I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds."

and:

I Corinthians 15:36 "How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies."

Thanks for your questions. First of all, in terms of death where plants are concerned. The Bible never includes plants as living creatures. They are not "alive" in the same way humans and animals are alive. Plants have no conscience, no awareness of existences. They do not have a brain and central nervous system. They do not have a will nor emotions. Plants do not have the breath of life and they do not have a soul. So eating a piece of fruit or vegetable was not a problem before the fall. All creatures were intended to be vegetarians, as was man prior to the fall. What we would NOT expect to see prior to the fall trees trees falling due to age and decay and termite infestation.

When God told Noah to round up the animals, none of the families of living things Noah was commanded to bring on to the ark were plants or vegetation (except what they would use for food) for the purpose of preserving those forming of living things. So plant life dying prior to the fall is not a problem and is not what is referred to when we are talking about no pre-fall death. What we are referring to is the death of creatures that have within them the breath of life. God gave animlals and man nepesh chaiah (breath of life).

Now to your first question: IF (and it is a big IF) death was originally beneficial (at least in terms of plant life) inasmuch as it lead to multiplication, could it be that death as we now perceive it was a satanic corruption of God's original purpose concerning death - i.e. that it belonged to the plant order and was designed by God as a means of multiplication?

Plants do not "die" in the biblical sense, so there was no original beneficial form of death. There is no satanic corruption of death. Death is itself a corruption or perversion of life. It is an undoing of what God made. It is the polar opposite of life. God created things to live. He did not engineer death into His creation.

Death is not "satanic." Satan is not the author of death. Satan is not the author of anything. Satan has no creative ability. He is still just an angel and while angels are supernatural, they are not divine. True creative ability belongs to God alone. In fact, the Hebrew word for "create" used in Genesis 1 is used in connection with God exclusively in Scripure. It is never used to refer to anything that man makes. All Satan can do is pervert creation.

Death as we know it, is the consequence for disobedience and is a perversion and undoing of life.

2) Was God's original intent if Adam had not fallen that he should have lived forever on earth along with his wife and following generations, or could it have been that God's intent (if Adam had not sinned) for humankind was to be translated, as were Enoch and Elijah, from earthly body to spiritual body, from his earthly dwelling to a heavenly dwelling? And here my mind jumps to the following passsage from 1 Corinthians 15.

No, earth was created by God for man. There was no danger of ovecrowding, which is where I think your question is leading. One thing to keep in mind is that the topography of the earth before the fall, was probably a lot different than we know

today. In fact, that topography probably did not change until the flood. There was probably a lot more land, smaller oceans and seas. and all of the land was hospitable as opposed to what we have today in areas where humans cannot live (swamps, desert, and the extremes of the North Pole and Antartica).

We really have no point of reference for anything other than what we know and it is natrual to assume that what we know about biological life is the way it has always been, but the Bible paints a different picture. It was a supernatural envioronment and it will be a long time before we fully understand what was lost.

I hope this doesn't all sound wildly speculative but I have to admit to being dissatisfied with all the answers concerning pre-fall death that I have read either on this thread or elsewhere.

There is a limit to what we can know and there is a limit even to speculation. Intelligent speculation is not bad, so long as we recognize it for what it is.

[methinkshe]

Now, I can only assume that this order existed from the beginning - i.e. "death" of seeds leading to multiplcatiion was part of God's original and perfect plan for plant life.

Now the questions start:

1) IF (and it is a big IF) death was originally beneficial (at least in terms of plant life) inasmuch as it lead to multiplication, could it be that death as we now perceive it was a satanic corruption of God's original purpose concerning death - i.e. that it belonged to the plant order and was designed by God as a means of multiplication?

Now my mind jumps to the following passages:

John 12:24" I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds."

and:

I Corinthians 15:36 "How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies."

Thanks for your questions. First of all, in terms of death where plants are concerned. The Bible never includes plants as living creatures. They are not "alive" in the same way humans and animals are alive. Plants have no conscience, no awareness of existences. They do not have a brain and central nervous system. They do not have a will nor emotions. Plants do not have the breath of life and they do not have a soul. So eating a piece of fruit or vegetable was not a problem before the fall. All creatures were intended to be vegetarians, as was man prior to the fall. What we would NOT expect to see prior to the fall trees trees falling due to age and decay and termite infestation.

When God told Noah to round up the animals, none of the families of living things Noah was commanded to bring on to the ark were plants or vegetation (except what they would use for food) for the purpose of preserving those forming of living things. So plant life dying prior to the fall is not a problem and is not what is referred to when we are talking about no pre-fall death. What we are referring to is the death of creatures that have within them the breath of life. God gave animlals and man nepesh chaiah (breath of life).

Now to your first question: IF (and it is a big IF) death was originally beneficial (at least in terms of plant life) inasmuch as it lead to multiplication, could it be that death as we now perceive it was a satanic corruption of God's original purpose concerning death - i.e. that it belonged to the plant order and was designed by God as a means of multiplication?

Plants do not "die" in the biblical sense, so there was no original beneficial form of death. There is no satanic corruption of death. Death is itself a corruption or perversion of life. It is an undoing of what God made. It is the polar opposite of life. God created things to live. He did not engineer death into His creation.

Death is not "satanic." Satan is not the author of death. Satan is not the author of anything. Satan has no creative ability. He is still just an angel and while angels are supernatural, they are not divine. True creative ability belongs to God alone. In fact, the Hebrew word for "create" used in Genesis 1 is used in connection with God exclusively in Scripure. It is never used to refer to anything that man makes. All Satan can do is pervert creation.

Death as we know it, is the consequence for disobedience and is a perversion and undoing of life.

2) Was God's original intent if Adam had not fallen that he should have lived forever on earth along with his wife and following generations, or could it have been that God's intent (if Adam had not sinned) for humankind was to be translated, as were Enoch and Elijah, from earthly body to spiritual body, from his earthly dwelling to a heavenly dwelling? And here my mind jumps to the following passsage from 1 Corinthians 15.

No, earth was created by God for man. There was no danger of ovecrowding, which is where I think your question is leading. One thing to keep in mind is that the topography of the earth before the fall, was probably a lot different than we know

today. In fact, that topography probably did not change until the flood. There was probably a lot more land, smaller oceans and seas. and all of the land was hospitable as opposed to what we have today in areas where humans cannot live (swamps, desert, and the extremes of the North Pole and Antartica).

We really have no point of reference for anything other than what we know and it is natrual to assume that what we know about biological life is the way it has always been, but the Bible paints a different picture. It was a supernatural envioronment and it will be a long time before we fully understand what was lost.

I hope this doesn't all sound wildly speculative but I have to admit to being dissatisfied with all the answers concerning pre-fall death that I have read either on this thread or elsewhere.

There is a limit to what we can know and there is a limit even to speculation. Intelligent speculation is not bad, so long as we recognize it for what it is.

Thankyou, Shiloh. This is all very helpful.

May I ask a few more questions following on from this?

No, earth was created by God for man. There was no danger of ovecrowding, which is where I think your question is leading. One thing to keep in mind is that the topography of the earth before the fall, was probably a lot different than we know

today. In fact, that topography probably did not change until the flood. There was probably a lot more land, smaller oceans and seas. and all of the land was hospitable as opposed to what we have today in areas where humans cannot live (swamps, desert, and the extremes of the North Pole and Antartica).

No, I am not at all concerned by overcrowding.

What I am trying to understand is the difference between earthly man whose abode is on earth and spiritual man whose abode is in heaven.

Maybe I have made some wrong assumtptions in my thinking which is as follows.

I assume that God's perfect will for mankind, represented by Adam, was that his eternal state would be spiritual, that is, fit to dwell in heaven, and not that he should remain earthbound, if I may express it like that - it is very clumsy, I know. (I am thinking again of the passage in 1 Cornithians that I quoted in my previous post). Thus there must have been a way that Adam, had he not sinned, could be translated from earthly man to spiritual/heavenly man - hence my mention of Enoch and Elijah. If he was not originally destined to die, then how was he to become fit for heaven, i.e. have a spiritual/heavenly body?

I know I might be oversteppoing the mark here since I also accept that God, in His omniscience, knew that Adam WOULD sin. So maybe God did not need/have an alternative plan for Adam had he not sinned.

Also, what about animal death? Are insects included in the "containing the breath of llife" order of animals? How could a grass eating animal not munch on a grass-dwelling insect causing its death?

I hope you do not think I am trying to split hairs - that really is not my intention. I just want to understand the truth. I KNOW God's Word IS true, but I am also aware of my lack of understanding.

[Guest shiloh357]

May I ask a few more questions following on from this?

Quote

No, earth was created by God for man. There was no danger of ovecrowding, which is where I think your question is leading. One thing to keep in mind is that the topography of the earth before the fall, was probably a lot different than we know

today. In fact, that topography probably did not change until the flood. There was probably a lot more land, smaller oceans and seas. and all of the land was hospitable as opposed to what we have today in areas where humans cannot live (swamps, desert, and the extremes of the North Pole and Antartica).

No, I am not at all concerned by overcrowding.

What I am trying to understand is the difference between earthly man whose abode is on earth and spiritual man whose abode is in heaven.

Ultimately, in the New Heven and New Earth, the spiritual man's abode will be on earth. Earth was deisgned for man. In fact, the New Jerusalem will descend out of heven to earth and God Himself will be on the earth dwelling with man.

Maybe I have made some wrong assumtptions in my thinking which is as follows.

I assume that God's perfect will for mankind, represented by Adam, was that his eternal state would be spiritual, that is, fit to dwell in heaven, and not that he should remain earthbound, if I may express it like that - it is very clumsy, I know.

There is nothing from Scripture to indicate that God ever intended man to dwell permanently in Heaven. Man's abode is earth. It is likely that earth was designed to be a microcosm of Heaven. Just as God is the Sovereign of the universe man was given dominion over the earth and over the all works of God's hands.

(I am thinking again of the passage in 1 Cornithians that I quoted in my previous post). Thus there must have been a way that Adam, had he not sinned, could be translated from earthly man to spiritual/heavenly man - hence my mention of Enoch and Elijah. If he was not originally destined to die, then how was he to become fit for heaven, i.e. have a spiritual/heavenly body?

Adam was created to be earthly man made in God's image. God made Adam EXACTLY how He wanted Him, so there was no need translate Him. God was fellowshipping with Adam on earth. Why would Adam need to go to heaven?? Secondly Elijah and Enoch were sinners like you and me and their translation to heaven are exceptional events. They are exceptions, but not the rule. I would not try to create a belief system out of what happened to them.

I know I might be oversteppoing the mark here since I also accept that God, in His omniscience, knew that Adam WOULD sin. So maybe God did not need/have an alternative plan for Adam had he not sinned.

I am just glad did have a plan in place redeem us!

Also, what about animal death? Are insects included in the "containing the breath of llife" order of animals? How could a grass eating animal not munch on a grass-dwelling insect causing its death?

I do not believe that insects were part of the original creation, just as I do not believe that cancer-eating bacteria was part of the original creation either. Just as thorns and thistles, diease, decay and everything assoicated with those things did not occur prior to the fall, I don't think insects and diease-causing parasites were there either. In fact, Noah is not expected to take any insects on to the ark. Now keep in mind, that is my opinion. I am not stating that as dogmatic, absolute fact.

We live in a broken world and often we assume that the what we expereince in this broken world is normal. We have no point of reference for anything else.

I hope you do not think I am trying to split hairs - that really is not my intention. I just want to understand the truth. I KNOW God's Word IS true, but I am also aware of my lack of understanding.

We all suffer from a lack of understanding. I am sure at some time in eternity, we will find answers to many of our questions and we may be surprised at how simple the answers were, after all.

[methinkshe]

May I ask a few more questions following on from this?

Quote

No, earth was created by God for man. There was no danger of ovecrowding, which is where I think your question is leading. One thing to keep in mind is that the topography of the earth before the fall, was probably a lot different than we know

today. In fact, that topography probably did not change until the flood. There was probably a lot more land, smaller oceans and seas. and all of the land was hospitable as opposed to what we have today in areas where humans cannot live (swamps, desert, and the extremes of the North Pole and Antartica).

No, I am not at all concerned by overcrowding.

What I am trying to understand is the difference between earthly man whose abode is on earth and spiritual man whose abode is in heaven.

Ultimately, in the New Heven and New Earth, the spiritual man's abode will be on earth. Earth was deisgned for man. In fact, the New Jerusalem will descend out of heven to earth and God Himself will be on the earth dwelling with man.

Maybe I have made some wrong assumtptions in my thinking which is as follows.

I assume that God's perfect will for mankind, represented by Adam, was that his eternal state would be spiritual, that is, fit to dwell in heaven, and not that he should remain earthbound, if I may express it like that - it is very clumsy, I know.

There is nothing from Scripture to indicate that God ever intended man to dwell permanently in Heaven. Man's abode is earth. It is likely that earth was designed to be a microcosm of Heaven. Just as God is the Sovereign of the universe man was given dominion over the earth and over the all works of God's hands.

(I am thinking again of the passage in 1 Cornithians that I quoted in my previous post). Thus there must have been a way that Adam, had he not sinned, could be translated from earthly man to spiritual/heavenly man - hence my mention of Enoch and Elijah. If he was not originally destined to die, then how was he to become fit for heaven, i.e. have a spiritual/heavenly body?

Adam was created to be earthly man made in God's image. God made Adam EXACTLY how He wanted Him, so there was no need translate Him. God was fellowshipping with Adam on earth. Why would Adam need to go to heaven?? Secondly Elijah and Enoch were sinners like you and me and their translation to heaven are exceptional events. They are exceptions, but not the rule. I would not try to create a belief system out of what happened to them.

I know I might be oversteppoing the mark here since I also accept that God, in His omniscience, knew that Adam WOULD sin. So maybe God did not need/have an alternative plan for Adam had he not sinned.

I am just glad did have a plan in place redeem us!

Also, what about animal death? Are insects included in the "containing the breath of llife" order of animals? How could a grass eating animal not munch on a grass-dwelling insect causing its death?

I do not believe that insects were part of the original creation, just as I do not believe that cancer-eating bacteria was part of the original creation either. Just as thorns and thistles, diease, decay and everything assoicated with those things did not occur prior to the fall, I don't think insects and diease-causing parasites were there either. In fact, Noah is not expected to take any insects on to the ark. Now keep in mind, that is my opinion. I am not stating that as dogmatic, absolute fact.

We live in a broken world and often we assume that the what we expereince in this broken world is normal. We have no point of reference for anything else.

I hope you do not think I am trying to split hairs - that really is not my intention. I just want to understand the truth. I KNOW God's Word IS true, but I am also aware of my lack of understanding.

We all suffer from a lack of understanding. I am sure at some time in eternity, we will find answers to many of our questions and we may be surprised at how simple the answers were, after all.

Thanks, Shiloh, I very much appreciate your insights and your willingness to share them with me. They have been a great help.

[Da Servant]

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.

The degradation of the genome is not directly spelled out in scripture, but turn to God's comments in Genesis where he says that his spirit shall not always strive with man, because that he also is flesh. After the flood, UV rays from the sun were allowed to enter the earth, being previously prevented by the giant water bubble that surrounded the earth before the flood, which was a source of much of the water God used in the flood. It has been a speculation of mine that UV rays damages the body's ability to absorb oxygen as efficiently as possible thus allowing for rapid cellular degradation. Thoughts please.