Prefall Death

[Guest]

OH yes it does. God claims to be perfect. If God is capable of making errors then we cannot trust Him in terms of Salvation. If imperfection can come from God then He cannot be trusted to be able to perfectly preserve those He has saved. If God's plan for the creation of man is flawed, then so might His plan of salvation.

I've said just the opposite but you have your fingers in your ears (actually hands over your eyes). God's plan was perfect and to execute it, he needed imperfect beings. Think about it, your argument does not make sense. If everything that he touched was perfect, then there could be no room for imperfection, and Adam and Eve would have never left Eden.

Dear One Does It Make Sense To Accuse God (Again)

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin,

when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:13-15

See

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights,

with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. James 1:17

____________

Believe

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

But as many as received him,

to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:10-12

And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

___________

Poisoned

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay:

for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not?

or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it,

He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

Willingly Poisoned

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?

for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 2 Peter 3:3-6

Rather Than Give Credit

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers:

all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things,

and by him all things consist. Colossians 1:16-17

Where Credit Is Due

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed:

and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 1 Corinthians 12:3

How Eternally

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things,

and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

Sad

Blessed are they that do his commandments,

that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. Revelation 22:14-15

[Guest shiloh357]

Technically it is a valid argument to say that sin was not a creative act of God, but the fact that Adam was already sinful before he actually committed sin, makes us conclude that, at least, sinfulness must have been a creative act of God. The question is: was Adam already sinful at the moment of his creation or he became sinful afterwards? But how can somebody who is not sinful become sinful?

Adam was not sinful prior to committing sin. That is the point. To make sin a creative act of God is to attribute sin to a God who cannot look upon it, much less create it.

Became sinful when he decided to be disobedient.

[Don Fanucci]

I note everytime we discus scripture, I use the text, and related text, and then you have to reinterpret it to tell me someone the textual meaning ios something other than is written?

Only when it is necessary because the Hebrew language is far more precise than English despite having fewer words. Hebrew is a very nuanced language and has a more complex grammatical structure than English. Somtimes, there things in Hebrew for which English has no way translating.

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

But I did not say "greatly multiply your pain." The Hebrew nuanced of rabbah, rabbah simply indicates that your pain will be "exeedingly great." You miquoted my statement. You need to read what I post.

This is your statement, which is crystal clear: "Her pain in childbearing is post fall, so prior to the fall, she would have had no pain in childbearing had she born a child." You claimed that there would have been no pain in childbirth. That claim is at odds with the text (see following)

If I have zero apples and I add one apple, I have increased the number of apples from zero to one.

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.

You are trying to take purely face value approach to the text instead of a literal approach. You are trying to make your case rest solely on an English translation without grasping the important Hebrew realities behind it.

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.

Either God is responsible for everything, or he is resonsible for some things, but other things are out of his control. Is there imperfection in the universe? Of course, look at our current state. But God made it all, he's sovereign--its all his. Therefore, God can create imperfection as a means to his end, which we would both agree is perfect.

God created everything perfect. You have absolutely NO biblical basis to say otherwise. That the universe became imperfect does not mean that God lost control of anything. Keep in mind that God knew it would happen and already engineered a plan to restore it.

And you have just agreed with me. 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. 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? 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. The plan for Adam and mankind and the second Adam is clear. Adam could be created imperfect, allowing for his disobedient transgression. In fact, going back to our disagreement over what God's image means, as I contended, it does not mean a copy of God. 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.

[~candice~]

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

[Don Fanucci]

Nope. Wrong again. Jorge said it best:

"Your emphasis is placed upon Adam's 'propensity' to sin as a sign of imperfection in God's manufacture. You are mistaken in that assumption."

* You were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, until iniquity was found in you. ( Eze 28:15)

Actually, Jorge said it wrong: From Barnes' notes: "The "perfection" was false, unsuspected until the "iniquity" which lay beneath was found out. "

The same for Adam. We both agree he ended imperfect. We disagree how he started. Adam could not have been perfect if he sinned. The only way this could have happened is if the sin would have been out of his control (and even in this case, I don't know that we can "inadvertently" sin), if for example there were two baskets of fruit, one provided by the serpent and one from some other tree--but both indistinguishable. He would then have chosen and gotten the forbidden fruit by chance. But he didn't. His choice required judgement, decision making, discernment, thought, outright intent (disobedience). These are imperfect qualities prexisting in a pre sin Adam that caused him to sin. Otherwise perfect qualities would have prevented him from taking the fruit from Eve. Remember, Adam was uniquely created--he was made hands-on by God, with no other input, and he was made as an adult, with no parents. God was solely responsible for his entire being.

Since there is no reason to re-invent the wheel, I will again defer to Jorge since he put it so much more elegantly than I can:

"Adam was not created to be a powerless marionette

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?

No I am not wrong. You are mixing contexts. The problem again goes to the difference between denotation and connotation. You are hung up lexical definitions. But even in English grammar word usage is more important than lexical definitions because when used in different contexts the understanding and connotation is different. The connotational nuance of tov meod as it is used in Genesis is perfection. God looked upon it and saw that it was very good, and thus perfect. He needed to add nothing to it or take anything away from it. He was fullly satisfied with what He made.

Well since we have been discussing the use of a word in the same chapter, addressing the same subject, you don't really have a case. 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. 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.

God was not pleased with Enoch in terms of His sinful condition. But He was pleased with the faith of Enoch. Enoch pleased God to the extent a fallen sinner can please God. The only person who ever fully pleased God is Jesus. I made the clear distinctiion between what Enoch was and what he did.

God was very pleased with Enoch, so pleased that he took him (Enoch did not die)--that's pretty happy if you ask me. If he had been pleased with his actions, he would have said so. But what God did to Enoch is unequivocal in that he was pleased with the individual. You are too wed to your YEC fundamentalism. You make these extensive interpretations to try to suit yourself, when it is clear what scripture is saying.

You are ascribing sin to a creative act of God, which is impossible, biblically. You are really swimming in dangerous waters. You are claiming that God is responsible for sin. You are making what amounts to one of the most slanderous, blasphemous claims about God that can be made.

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. 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.

The Bible says that sin did not come into the world until Adam sinned (rom 5:12), but according to YOU, sin was already in the world prior to the fall and you are claiming that it was part of a creative act/purpose of God. You are so out in left field it is mind-boggling.

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

[Guest]

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?

[Don Fanucci]

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

No I do not think there is.

[~candice~]

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?

[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?

[~candice~]

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.