OEC and The New Heavens and New Earth

[Spock]

Just becuase YOU haven't seen it in the Scriptures doesn't mean I am the one making assumptions. Adam died spritiually the minute he disobeyed God. His physical death is connected to that because God said the following:

And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return." (Gen 3:17-19)

So it is pretty clear that curse of death extended to man spiritually and physically due to Adam's disoebdience. So if man were already set to die physically even if he hadn't sinned, that curse makes no sense. So if man hadn't died spiritually, he would not have died physically.

There is nothing in this passage that says that death in the physical sense was part of the curse, just that till he died he would have to toil under the curse.

I agree. I don't think that verse proves a connection between physical and spiritual death. You seem to be speculating, Shiloh.

Gen 2:17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

I think we all agree this refers to Adam's spiritual death, or separation from God, due to Adam's disobedience.

However, Adam lived to be 930 years old, so this can't be referring to physical death, which did not occur within a day, as the verse suggests.

So, it is possible that physical death was a natural part of God's creation. Immortality was intended for us, given by the tree of life, then taken away at the fall of man (see verse below). Therefore, death is a consequence of the fall, but not necessarily caused by it. Also, as someone else stated (can't find the post), God took away our immortality (the tree of life) after the fall to protect us from the pain and misery of eternal separation from God (aka hell on earth). It will be returned in the new heaven and new earth.Gen 3:23-25And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

I think someone else posted something similar, but I couldn't find it.

This makes a lot of sense to me.

Up until today, I guess I've believed the death was physical because I assumed man had eternal life (no physical death) if he didn't eat the fruit. Now, it may not be exactly as that.

I think I will have to ponder this a wee bit more, and perhaps get another cup of coffee.

Good reflective thoughts by those who take a different position from my original one-especially sheniy and Looking for Answers.

[Guest shiloh357]

 If Genesis doesn't teach the moral lesson that in Adam all have sinned, how can Paul write Romans 5:12 and the verses after it?

 

Paul is making a historical statement about Genesis 3.   Paul is explaining the need for Jesus in the light of what Adam did in the Garden.  If Adam didn't historically sin, then Jesus' death makes no sense.   Jesus didn't have to experience actual death for the sake of fictional event that never happened.  Paul treats Adam's disobedience as being just as historical as Jesus' death on the cross.  

 

Genesis 3 doesn't teach any kind of moral lesson, it is not kind of genre.  You are trying make the Bible say something it doesn't say, simply because you are not prepared to take God at His word.   Why can't you trust God's word??

[Guest shiloh357]

I am always amazed at reading threads like this how easily it is to lead people away from the truth.  Years ago I wondered how anyone could be duped in to following the anti-Christ, and how he could deceive even the very elect of God.   This thread shows me that it wouldn't be that hard at all.  People are hungry for someone, anyone to give them an excuse, any excuse they can cling to  that will justify rejecting the clear and present truth that is contained in God's word..

[Sheniy]

The last phrase in Hebrew reads, "m'menoo ki b'yom akhelkha m'menoomot t'mut"  The grammatical structure in the Heberw indicates both an immediate death and a process of death.

1. You've mentioned before that you're not an expert on the hebrew language. Can you please provide references for this interpretation?

2. God's word is intended to be read and understood by all men, not just those with an intimate understanding of the grammatical structure of Hebrew.

I still hold to my previous assertion that that verse doesn't necessarily prove that physical death was caused by the fall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, if it was meant as literal history, why is the fall of mankind not referenced in any other book of the Old Testament? And, as I posted to LookingForAnswers, a parable doesn't need to account for every aspect of the narrative, e.g., "why would an immortal being need a Tree of Life?" All it needs is the moral of the story.

Also, unlike Shiloh, I don't have to jump through hermeneutic hoops to resolve other events relative to the fall of man.

It reads like a parable, a parable that is literally fleshed-out in the opening of John's Gospel.

 

The creation account of Genesis 1-3 does not read as a parable by any stretch of the imagination.  It has none of the hallmarks of a parable.

 

So talking snakes and "magic" trees aren't the imaginative hallmarks of an Aesop's parable?

And I asked you what you thought Genesis 1-3 was, not what you thought it wasn't.

 

Again with the mockery of the word of God.  Why do you hate the Bible so much???  Sorry, but you don't anything about how textual analysis works.

 

OldSchool: I think there are a lot of metaphorical aspects of the first few chapters of Genesis. In fact, the whole bible is analogous in nature, including that parts that also happened literally. God definitely uses history to teach us. He also used it as part of prophecy or foreshadowing of the future.  There are countless examples of this.

As for the "imaginative" parts of the bible: I think we need to be careful rejecting something as actually happening just because it is hard to believe. This, I believe, is the basis for all of Shiloh's arguments and the reason he gets so heated at times. I do agree with him on this...to a point.

 

But the bible was not intended to be taken completely literally in every part. The words it uses don't always refer to physical things.

We all see through a glass darkly, we only know in part. I honestly believe when we find out the truth of what actually happened, it will be much different than what we've concocted with our limited, fallible minds and the little information that we have.

Shiloh: Was that verbal lashing really necessary? OldSchool has some legitimate questions. And he seems to be a Christian, so why would you assume he hates the bible? Please, could you be a bit kinder in your posts. It is getting harder and harder to remain civil with you.

1Cr 13:2

If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

[Spock]

I am always amazed at reading threads like this how easily it is to lead people away from the truth. Years ago I wondered how anyone could be duped in to following the anti-Christ, and how he could deceive even the very elect of God. This thread shows me that it wouldn't be that hard at all. People are hungry for someone, anyone to give them an excuse, any excuse they can cling to that will justify rejecting the clear and present truth that is contained in God's word..

Shiloh, tell me what harm there is if it is possible man only died spiritually (separated from God) because of the curse and leave out the physical death? I have always thought the original sin brought BOTH spiritual and physical death into the world for man, but why do you think it is important for people to HAVE TO believe it is more than spiritual?

I know the New Testament says now, "eternal life is a GIFT from God...." And it only became a gift through Christ.

"For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our lord..."

Death= spiritual, physical! or both?

[Spock]

Greetings organic medicine,

You said.....

" I am new here ,and not of a protestant or American background,so my refences may be diffrent from yours.

First of all ,I believe in an old earth ,but also in Creation by God, within a limited time . I also believe that the bible is God's Testament to His flock ,

before He finally judges us . It is not the only testament He has put out, since He created the 'world' but the LAST,and therefore the most important. "

Spock now:You are indicating more than one Bible or testament that God has written. What do you base this on? A big red flag went up for me-Mormons believing the Book of Mormon is the word of God which we know it isn't.

Please explain if you don't mind. Thanks. Oh, mind me asking, what country do you live in?

Spock out

[Spock]

Where did everyone go? Did I miss the rapture?

[Shar]

I am always amazed at reading threads like this how easily it is to lead people away from the truth.  Years ago I wondered how anyone could be duped in to following the anti-Christ, and how he could deceive even the very elect of God.   This thread shows me that it wouldn't be that hard at all.  People are hungry for someone, anyone to give them an excuse, any excuse they can cling to  that will justify rejecting the clear and present truth that is contained in God's word..

 

I will have to agree with Shiloh about death being both physical and spiritual.  The L-rd says that "the wages of sin is DEATH, but the Gift of G-d is Eternal Life through Jesus Christ our L-rd.

 

Adam and Eve were made complete and perfect.  G-d does not make any thing void or lacking.  What He makes is good and perfect.

They were given free will and could choose to disobey.

They were allowed to eat from all in the garden, including the Tree of Life, except for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

The Tree of Life could cause them to live forever.  However, when they ate of the forbidden tree, they sinned and their wages for that sin was Death.  Now, they would eventually physically die, (no longer access to the Tree of Life), and die spiritually - separation from G-d. 

We who believe in the L-rd, have passed from death to life, and have been given the gift of eternal life.  We are no longer separated from G-d, but we all will still physically die. We will then forever be with the L-rd and we will be granted the right to eat from the Tree of Life. See Rev. 22:14.

[Sheniy]

 

 

 

 

 

 I am new here ,and not of a protestant or American background,so my refences may be diffrent from yours.

 First of all ,I believe in an old earth ,but also in Creation by God, within a limited time . I also believe that the bible is God's Testament to His flock ,

before He finally judges us . It is not the only testament He has put out, since He created the 'world' but the LAST,and therefore the most important. 

 

If  we see the bible ,as saying everything God has ever had to say to us since time began ,we will never grow to be the great créations we were,

but like children ,who cannot let go of our true ,but basic exercise book .   I think God maybe preparing us for Heaven ,right here on earth ,by challenging us . If people lose their faith because there is an  'error in the bible' ,they don't have the gift of the 'Spirit' ,which cannot be doubted,  while All the Facts one can discuss without ever being sure . 

Hi organic!

 

Just curious, what else do you look to as God's word?   You mentioned the "gift of the Spirit".  Is your background pentacostal or something similar?

 

[Guest shiloh357]

1. You've mentioned before that you're not an expert on the hebrew language. Can you please provide references for this interpretation?

 

Yes I can.  

 

The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, which is a standard reference for students of Hebrew has this to say about the word, "mut" (Heb. to die):

 

"The normative OT teaching about death is presented i Gen. 3:3 where God warns Adam and EVe that death is the result of rebellion against His commands.  Since God's purpose for our first parents was never ending life, the introduction of death was an undresiralbe, but necessary result of disobedience.  The physical corruption of the physical of the human body and the consequent suffering and pain brought about by the Fall were only the obvious symptoms of death.  Death is the consequence and the punishment of sin.  It originated with sin.  A grand theme of the OT is God's holiness, which separates Him from all that is not in harmony with His character.  Death, then in the OT means ulimate separation from God due to sin and sin is any rebellion or lack of conformity to His holy will.  All men are then in a sense what the Hebrews call, "sons of death," that is, they deserve to die because they are sinners."  (TWOT, vol. 1, p 497)

 

 

2. God's word is intended to be read and understood by all men, not just those with an intimate understanding of the grammatical structure of Hebrew.

I still hold to my previous assertion that that verse doesn't necessarily prove that physical death was caused by the fall.

 

2. God's word is intended to be read and understood by all men, not just those with an intimate understanding of the grammatical structure of Hebrew.

 

The problem with that is that one doesn't need to know one letter of Hebrew to know and understand that God's word.   The Bible makes it very clear that physical death and decay in this world is the product of sin.   Jesus had to die physically in order to redeem us from death, and the effects of redemption are not limited to the spiritual sphere.  God is intimately involved in every area of the human experience, not just in the spirtiual.

 

The book of Revelation makes it clear that the results of redemption include the eradication of sin and both Physical and spiritual death.   So really to deny that sin didn't bring on physical death, sickness, disease and universal decay is to reject the testimony of Scripture.

 

Was that verbal lashing really necessary? OldSchool has some legitimate questions.

 

He isn't asking anything.  He is asserting that Gen. 1-3 can be comparied to Aesop's fables, which is a mockery of Scripture.   He is rejecting the testimony of Scripture for the sake of liberal and ublblical stance.