Does Aging Prove Genesis Is True?

[ClothedInGrace]

Natural death occurs when the bodies ability to repair itself, fight off disease etc. is overtaken by breakdown. Adam and Eves ability to sustain life indefinatly came from the Tree of Life, but after the sin natural death of their mortal bodies was their fate.

Death is normal, this world never was to be our permanent home.

Of course, but this all assumes that Genesis is true. How does someone explain aging and death without Genesis? Why do our bodies stop working? Why do we all age at the same rate and die around 100-120 years?

 

[Speedwell]

How did we come into existence? God and His power, or random mutation and natural selection?

False dichotomy. Random variation and natural selection as a process is no barrier to divine providence.

Was it as written in Genesis, or as the teachers of this age say?

The historic and literal approach to Genesis is not an interpretation: it is how the book was written. Nowhere in Genesis is there any indication that the creation story was not literal, as God Himself speaks to Israel saying this:

Exodus 20:11
"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy."

As usual, bald assertion rather than explanation or discussion. For example, what is your explanation for the change of voicing in that verse which would ordinarily indicate a parenthetical insertion, rather than the direct speech of God?

Don't worry, I don't really expect one.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

False dichotomy. Random variation and natural selection as a process is no barrier to divine providence.


As usual, bald assertion rather than explanation or discussion. For example, what is your explanation for the change of voicing in that verse which would ordinarily indicate a parenthetical insertion, rather than the direct speech of God?

Don't worry, I don't really expect one.

Well, I don't really expect you to believe God's word either. There are many deceived people all puffed up in their worldly wisdom. I am always skeptical of those who call themselves Christians but deny the word of God, but it is for another thread I suppose.

 

[Colter]

Of course, but this all assumes that Genesis is true. How does someone explain aging and death without Genesis? Why do our bodies stop working? Why do we all age at the same rate and die around 100-120 years?

It appears to be a natural cycle.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

It appears to be a natural cycle.

Why is it natural though? Cells have no reason to start shutting down.

 

[Speedwell]

I believe that Jesus genealogy mentioned in both Luke and Mathew of his mother and his legal but not biological father traced back to king David then back to the first created man Adam is accurate , do you ? Did Jesus ? How do you interpret that ?

Oh my goodness! Are we going to see all the mangy old apologetic dogs and ponies? We've already had the "Jesus is not a liar" argument. Now we have the "genealogy" argument. I can't credit that you find them convincing yourselves, why should we?
How many genealogies like that do you suppose were floating around back then? It was, after all, an age of tremendous messianic expectation. We don't know which one of them Jesus saw, much less what He believed. Luke doesn't really vouch for his and Matthew fiddled with the one he used for numerological reasons.

During the 19th century it was fashionable to construct genealogies showing Queen Victoria's descent from King Arthur. Which one do you suppose she believed in?

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Do you believe Adam would have died had he not eat of the tree with the forbidden fruit ?

Adams sin bought death. Otherwise Adam would have seen no death because he was God's perfect creation.

 

[Speedwell]

Why is it natural though? Cells have no reason to start shutting down.

As discussed earlier in this thread, there may be good evolutionary causes behind limited life spans. It is the survival of the species, not the individual, which is critical for evolution.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

As discussed earlier in this thread, there may be good evolutionary causes behind limited life spans. It is the survival of the species, not the individual, which is critical for evolution.

So is death and aging the product of evolution in your view?

 

[Speedwell]

So is death and aging the product of evolution in your view?

Yes. I take the Garden story in Genesis to be an etiological narrative intended to explain how we acquired the self-aware intelligence (not possessed by the other creatures) which allow us to contemplate the consequences of our actions and to contemplate our own mortality as well. Or, as St. Paul would have it, how sin and death came into the world.

I don't believe it had anything at all to do with the mere cessation of biological life.

 

[Colter]

Why is it natural though? Cells have no reason to start shutting down.

The answer to your question is that it's by design. We live on average long enough to have children and raise them. Other life forms seem to be designed to follow this same cycle.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Yes. I take the Garden story in Genesis to be an etiological narrative intended to explain how we acquired the self-aware intelligence (not possessed by the other creatures) which allow us to contemplate the consequences of our actions and to contemplate our own mortality as well. Or, as St. Paul would have it, how sin and death came into the world.

I don't believe it had anything at all to do with the mere cessation of biological life.

Do you believe that death evolved as a necessity, even though species and individuals could have lived much longer? I'm asking this in response to your previous post where you said survival of the species--not the individual--is critical for evolution. You said limited life spans could have evolutionary causes.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

The answer to your question is that it's by design. We live on average long enough to have children and raise them. Other life forms seem to be designed to follow this same cycle.

Well obviously. I believe in Genesis and it says that God shortened our lifespans to 120 years... Do you believe that our lifespans are the result of evolution?

 

[Colter]

Well obviously. I believe in Genesis and it says that God shortened our lifespans to 120 years... Do you believe that our lifespans are the result of evolution?

I believe evolution is Gods technique of creation. Evolution contains within it the purposive potential of Gods unfolding plan. I believe Adam and Eve were an incarnate pair which were to be the worlds new spiritual rulers after the previous fall of the beast.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

I believe evolution is Gods technique of creation. Evolution contains within it the purposive potential of Gods unfolding plan. I believe Adam and Eve were an incarnate pair which were to be the worlds new spiritual rulers after the previous fall of the beast.

Where do you get your belief from?

 

[Colter]

Where do you get your belief from?

Well, I've always seen the earth as very old. Then there is the fossil evidence in the layers, so death has been around since life began. Gen has lots of odd parts and pieces like Cain's fear of people out in the world away from his parents tribe.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Then there is the fossil evidence in the layers, so death has been around since life began

Do you believe death has always been? Or is death the result of sin in Genesis 3?

Gen has lots of odd parts and pieces like Cain's fear of people out in the world away from his parents tribe.

I think you are trying to say that the Bible doesn't attempt to explain where those other people came from, and that's because no explanation is needed: it doesn't take a genius to understand that those people are descendants of Adam and Eve. That's for another thread, though.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, I don't really expect you to believe God's word either. There are many deceived people all puffed up in their worldly wisdom. I am always skeptical of those who call themselves Christians but deny the word of God, but it is for another thread I suppose.

It doesn't matter which thread it is. Creation/evolution discussions always come down to the same thing: arrogant assertions and slander.

Despite your condescending attitude, your strutting pride, no one in this discussion is "denying the Word of God."
We are merely discussing interpretation.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

It doesn't matter which thread it is. Creation/evolution discussions always come down to the same thing: arrogant assertions and slander.

Despite your condescending attitude, your strutting pride, no one in this discussion is "denying the Word of God."
We are merely discussing interpretation.

How do you justify your belief that Genesis was not meant to be interpreted literally?

 

[Speedwell]

How do you justify your belief that Genesis was not meant to be interpreted literally?

Evidence internal to the texts, for the most part. Most of it is historical narrative in one form or another, but any time historical narrative is attempted (even now) there is tension between the "facts" and the narrative structure. Basically, the degree to which facts are allowed to stand in the way of a good story has varied considerably over time and place and the literary agenda of the author. Of course, you will say that God could not have inspired such a narrative, it must be 100% accurate literal history for you to allow it divine inspiration. But nobody wrote history like that then and nobody expected it and they thought it was "true" anyway.
Most of the discussions we get into about Genesis are really just about the Garden story, which is clearly a form of historical narrative known as an etiology. All cultures produce them, because all peoples desire to know the answers to the same basic questions: Where did we come from? Why are we here? Why are things always so screwed up when we know they could be better?
You can believe if you like that of all the hundreds of such stories the Garden story is the one and only which is also "100% accurate factual history," but it doesn't matter, really. For centuries people believed that the story was more or less true in the absence of information to the contrary, but that's not why the story was important to them, that's not why God told us the story to begin with.
Evidently versions of it survived as oral tradition before it was finally written down. The elements desired by a professional story teller are all there; puns and other wordplay, the anthropomorphization of non-human characters, etc. It would make a good panto. You would need a story-teller, some musicians, and three or four actors with masks and simple props all on a square of carpet rolled out in the souk. Add some topical references, bawdy asides and other horseplay and at the end the angel chases Adam and Eve into the crowd with a sword, Ta Daa. I would sure throw down a coin to see it.