A question for Theistic Evolutionists

[PROPHECYKID]

I have a question for everyone who believes in Theistic Evolution. I know most or all of you do not believe in a literal reading of the book of Genesis. I want to ask a question based on the following scripture:

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

and verse 14 says:

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

So the question I want to ask is this. If this scripture is true, it means that they was no death in the world before Adam sinned. This scripture cannot be true if the evolutionary theory is also true because before Adam or the first man came on the scene there was a lot of death. And this scripture is speaking about physical death. So how do you reconcile the two.

 

[PersephonesTear]

I have a question for everyone who believes in Theistic Evolution. I know most or all of you do not believe in a literal reading of the book of Genesis. I want to ask a question based on the following scripture:

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

and verse 14 says:

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

So the question I want to ask is this. If this scripture is true, it means that they was no death in the world before Adam sinned. This scripture cannot be true if the evolutionary theory is also true because before Adam or the first man came on the scene there was a lot of death. And this scripture is speaking about physical death. So how do you reconcile the two.

I think the obvious answer here is that these scriptures are not talking about physical death, as you claim. They are talking about spiritual death.

I'd say there are plenty of questions to be worked out, and earnestly searching for truth is certainly worth it.

How about this:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

Why do they need to be fruitful and multiply if there is no physical death? Why do the animals, the birds, and the fish before them need to be fruitful and multiply if there is no physical death? It would be pointless.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

I think the obvious answer here is that these scriptures are not talking about physical death, as you claim. They are talking about spiritual death.

I'd say there are plenty of questions to be worked out, and earnestly searching for truth is certainly worth it.

Do you then not believe that when Adam and Eve came into being they were never supposed to live forever? So you do not believe that physical death is as a result of sin?

How about this:


Why do they need to be fruitful and multiply if there is no physical death? Why do the animals, the birds, and the fish before them need to be fruitful and multiply if there is no physical death? It would be pointless.

If you believe the bible then at that point the only humans on earth were Adam and Eve, so it make perfect sense for God to tell them to be fruitful and multiply, since it was only the two of them at that time.

 

[Assyrian]

I have a question for everyone who believes in Theistic Evolution. I know most or all of you do not believe in a literal reading of the book of Genesis. I want to ask a question based on the following scripture:

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

and verse 14 says:

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

So the question I want to ask is this. If this scripture is true, it means that they was no death in the world before Adam sinned. This scripture cannot be true if the evolutionary theory is also true because before Adam or the first man came on the scene there was a lot of death. And this scripture is speaking about physical death. So how do you reconcile the two.

Romans 5:12 tells us that death that came into the world 'spread to all men because all sinned'. That is only talking about a death that spread through the human race, not a death that affected animal. In fact Paul tells you how the death spread, because all sinned. Animal don't sin so the death that came with the first sin cannot affect them this way. So if the bible doesn't say that animal death is the result of the fall it isn't a problem with animals dying before the fall.

Verse 14 which you quoted shows you that Paul interpreted Adam figuratively too, Adam... who is the figure of him that was to come.

Do you then not believe that when Adam and Eve came into being they were never supposed to live forever? So you do not believe that physical death is as a result of sin?

did Adam and eve die physically the day that ate the fruit Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. Or were they still alive physically the next day? If they didn't die physically the day they ate the fruit, what sort of death was God warning about when he said they would die on the day they ate it?

 

[disciple1938]

your opinion is noted and appreciated. God Bless you and keep studying.

 

[food4thought]

Assyrian: a note on your response to PK... in the Hebrew, the passage is more accurately rendered "dying you shall surely die". literally, it says "you will die die". It implies the idea of a double death... hence my understanding that Adam's spiritual death led to his physical death.

Hope this helps understanding.

 

[lesliedellow]

Do you then not believe that when Adam and Eve came into being they were never supposed to live forever? So you do not believe that physical death is as a result of sin?

No, physical death is not the result of sin. It is ultimately the result of the second law of thermodynamics, and, amongst other things, that works itself out through a shortening of our telomeres as we age. Everything else wears out, and our bodies are no different.

 

[elopez]

So the question I want to ask is this. If this scripture is true, it means that they was no death in the world before Adam sinned. This scripture cannot be true if the evolutionary theory is also true because before Adam or the first man came on the scene there was a lot of death. And this scripture is speaking about physical death. So how do you reconcile the two.

The Scripture is talking about human death, not plant, animal, or pre - Adam species death. Animals must have ate each other, and plants, and plants must have died themselves.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

I am amazed that you guys actually believe that Adam and Eve were always going to die physically.

Jesus died for our sins. Did Jesus not have to die physically to pay for our sins?

The wages of sin is death right? What is the wage that Jesus paid? Do anyone of you want to dare say that Jesus died spiritually and his death was not physical?

And Adam and Eve were eating from the tree of life. God's Tree of Life. And you guys think they were always going to die?

Why do you think that after they sinned they were removed from the garden and could no longer eat from the tree of life.

 

[Papias]

Assyrian's post showed pretty clearly how the scripture is clear about Adam's fall causing spiritual death. There is another place that his position is supported by scripture.

Prophecykid wrote:

And Adam and Eve were eating from the tree of life. God's Tree of Life. And you guys think they were always going to die?

Why do you think that after they sinned they were removed from the garden and could no longer eat from the tree of life.

But that's not what the scripture says. It never says they had eaten from the tree of life, ever.

In fact, it says the opposite - that they had never eaten from it, and that if they did, they would live forever. That clearly shows that Adam was not immortal at any time, and was always going to die.

here is Gen 2:22:

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
​

Also, a deathless world would mean no children,and wouldn't function because all the chemical cycles on earth require death. God is not illogical, he would certainly make a functional world. The old must die to make room for children, and God himself, when on earth as Jesus, said "let the little children come to me". This is true for all animal species, human or otherwise. Here is an example from the past here:

It's funny that this still comes up. The mantisplosion is a good place to start, perhaps.


From before:

Please. Misinterpretations like the idea that there was no animal death before the fall make the Bible look silly. Aside from the obvious problems (like what did gulper eels eat, or what were spider webs for), there are so many other problems with the all-vegan world idea that I don't know where to start.

Simple math might be a good place. A praying mantis lays hundreds of eggs per season. If all of those live (because there is no death), then from 1 mantis pair in year 1, you'll have:

Year: Number of Mantids:
1 2
2 200
3 20000
4 2000000
5 2E+08
6 2E+10
7 2E+12
8 2E+14
9 2E+16
10 2E+18
11 2E+20
12 2E+22
13 2E+24
14 2E+26
15 2E+28
16 2E+30
17 2E+32
18 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (just to show what kind of numbers we have)
19 2E+36
20 2E+38

So that means that by around year 12, mantids cover the earth to the depth of 1 mile, and by year 16, the writhing mass of mantids engulfs the moon, expanding at an ever increasing speed to engulf the sun the next year and the whole solar system (including the Kuiper belt) the year after that. The mantisplosion! Things go even faster for many other insect species, because they reproduce faster.

Silly? Of course it is. Things get silly when one mistakes a metaphor for a literal statement, like having pomegranet on one's face or livestock on one's chest.

From:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7542459/#post56943417 (which is also a whole previous thread on this topic.)

In love-

Papias

 

[lesliedellow]

I am amazed that you guys actually believe that Adam and Eve were always going to die physically.

Jesus died for our sins. Did Jesus not have to die physically to pay for our sins?

The way in which the death of Jesus reconciled us to God has been debated down the centuries, and will probably never reach a conclusion everybody is agreed upon.

The wages of sin is death right?

Well, Paul certainly did have in mind our long term prospects in eternity.

Do anyone of you want to dare say that Jesus died spiritually and his death was not physical?

I do not know anybody who doubts that Jesus' body ceased to function after the crucifixion.

And Adam and Eve were eating from the tree of life. God's Tree of Life. And you guys think they were always going to die?

Us guys do not read Genesis literally, remember?

Why do you think that after they sinned they were removed from the garden and could no longer eat from the tree of life.

In terms of the story, they were removed from the garden because they had got ideas above their station. They were guilty of that all pervasive human sin called pride.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

Assyrian's post showed pretty clearly how the scripture is clear about Adam's fall causing spiritual death. There is another place that his position is supported by scripture.

Prophecykid wrote:



But that's not what the scripture says. It never says they had eaten from the tree of life, ever.

In fact, it says the opposite - that they had never eaten from it, and that if they did, they would live forever. That clearly shows that Adam was not immortal at any time, and was always going to die.

here is Gen 2:22:

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
​

Also, a deathless world would mean no children,and wouldn't function because all the chemical cycles on earth require death. God is not illogical, he would certainly make a functional world. The old must die to make room for children, and God himself, when on earth as Jesus, said "let the little children come to me". This is true for all animal species, human or otherwise. Here is an example from the past here:

It's funny that this still comes up. The mantisplosion is a good place to start, perhaps.


From before:

From:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7542459/#post56943417 (which is also a whole previous thread on this topic.)

In love-

Papias

Well this is clearly going nowhere.

The text you quoted proves that as long as you eat from the tree of life you will live forever.

God provided the tree of life for them to eat.

Once they ate from the tree of knowledge, good and evil, God could not allow them to live forever which is why he kicked them out.

Also, Jesus paid for out sins by dying physically. How can the wages of sin be just a spiritual death?

 

[PROPHECYKID]

The way in which the death of Jesus reconciled us to God has been debated down the centuries, and will probably never reach a conclusion everybody is agreed upon.

I don't think anyone debates that Jesus died physically though.

I do not know anybody who doubts that Jesus' body ceased to function after the crucifixion.

So the wage of sin would be out bodies ceasing to function at least in one aspect. Jesus can't pay out wage if it was not what we ourselves were supposed to pay.

Us guys do not read Genesis literally, remember?

Fine, the above points would suffice.

In terms of the story, they were removed from the garden because they had got ideas above their station. They were guilty of that all pervasive sin called pride.

That's not true. Not ideas but knowledge. They knew things they were not supposed to know. There is nothing in Genesis which suggests they were filled with pride. They just knew what they should not have known.

Your description suits the devil. He is the one who had ideas above his station because he was plotting to overthrow God.

 

[lesliedellow]

That's not true. Not ideas but knowledge. They knew things they were not supposed to know. There is nothing in Genesis which suggests they were filled with pride. They just knew what they should not have known.

If wanting to be on a par with God, in terms of the knowledge they possessed, was not pride, exactly what would you call it?

 

[Papias]

The text you quoted proves that as long as you eat from the tree of life you will live forever.

Simply false. Here, read it again:

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden


If one had to continually eat from the tree of life to be keep living, then God would have said "....unless we send him out eventually, he will be able to keep eating from the tree of life, and stay immortal". But he didn't. In fact, he made it abundantly clear in many places in that text that eating once was sufficient.

First, God said "he might", showing that Adam hadn't already been eating. Second, he said "take also", again saying that Adam hadn't already been eating, and third, God said "now", and sent him out of the garden - showing that this was an immediate concern. If God only had to eventually make sure Adam didn't keep eating, he could have sent him out next week, or next year, or next century, or a million years later. Fourth, God said "and live forever", and not "and be able to keep living as long as he kept eating", and so on.

Not only that, but don't you agree that your idea makes for a pretty wimpy tree of life - that one needs to keep eating, like taking a daily medication - as opposed to a real tree of life, which grants immortality with one bite?

I understand that you have been taught the story of the wimpy tree of life. I've heard it too from street preachers and such. However, it is a human idea, which not only is not supported by the Word of God, but directly contradicts the Word of God, as we saw in Gen 3:22, above. If you are concerned about avoiding the teachings of men and listening to the Word of God, you can start by dropping the wimpy tree of life idea.

Once they ate from the tree of knowledge, good and evil, God could not allow them to live forever which is why he kicked them out.

What? That makes no sense. Having knowledge doesn't change whether or not one is allowed to live forever. Why would it? They could have simply had knowledge and been immortal. But, as the scripture shows, they were already mortal, and so of course they were mortal when they left.

Also, Jesus paid for out sins by dying physically. How can the wages of sin be just a spiritual death?

Because that's what God wanted. Look, if you are going to say that substitutional atonement is illogical, there are tons of other points too, like "why would an unjust death pay for deserved death?" Or "why does it count as a death when Jesus was up and fine in a few days, which isn't real death?" or "why would a just God put up with (even demand!) an unjust death of an innocent person for any reason?" and so on. The bottom line in all these and yours is that Jesus death was God's plan.

You also didn't address the fact of the mantisplosion, nor the idea that a world without death is simply non-functional., nor the fact that no where, in any of the common bibles (even the longer ones like the Catholic or Ethiopian Bibles), does it ever say that Adam's fall brought physical death to animals, or that Adam and Eve started out immortal, or that supports the wimpy tree of life idea.

I'm open to hear if you have scripture that clearly states any of those.

Trusting God-

Papias

 

[Assyrian]

Assyrian: a note on your response to PK... in the Hebrew, the passage is more accurately rendered "dying you shall surely die". literally, it says "you will die die". It implies the idea of a double death... hence my understanding that Adam's spiritual death led to his physical death.

Hope this helps understanding.

I have come across this argument but it completely ignores Hebrew grammar and what the construction means. In English 'we are going to eat' does not mean you are travelling at the time. In Hebrew the combination of the infinitive and finite form of a verb does not mean the action happens twice, instead it is used to strengthen and emphasise the meaning of the verb, which is why it it translate 'surely die'.

 

[RedRover]

If this scripture is true, it means that they was no death in the world before Adam sinned.

Paul does not say there was no death in the world. He says there was no sin in the world. He said that sin results in death. Even the Bible shows us there was death in the world when Cain was worried that someone would slay or murder him. We know from the study of skeletons that go back before Adam and Eve that violence was a very common form of death back then.

 

[RedRover]

Not only that, but don't you agree that your idea makes for a pretty wimpy tree of life - that one needs to keep eating, like taking a daily medication - as opposed to a real tree of life, which grants immortality with one bite?

I may need more then one bite. The tree of life is by the river of life that proceeds from the throne of God.

The River of Life

22 And he showed me a pure[a] river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

 

[theFijian]

I have a question for everyone who believes in Theistic Evolution. I know most or all of you do not believe in a literal reading of the book of Genesis. I want to ask a question based on the following scripture:

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

and verse 14 says:

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

So the question I want to ask is this. If this scripture is true, it means that they was no death in the world before Adam sinned. This scripture cannot be true if the evolutionary theory is also true because before Adam or the first man came on the scene there was a lot of death. And this scripture is speaking about physical death. So how do you reconcile the two.

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

If Genesis is to be read literally then why did Adam and Eve not die the day they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

 

[rcorlew]

The ideology that states that one must read the Bible literally in order for it to be true is very pervasive, and can be quite compelling. One thing that should be noted though is the complete lack of technological knowledge of the Jews throughout the Old Testament. The Hebrew language is filled with vagueness and ambiguities; the person(s) credited with being the first humans are Adam and Eve. Adam is not a name as we understand names, the word Adam means man, as in mankind. Likewise, Eve means beginning, nothing more.

Before trying to use the Bible to define science it might do a person well to answer the question "What is the purpose of the Bible?" That is the same question you should ask whenever you read any text; there may be evidence of quantum mechanics in a cookbook that does not mean that the cookbook is written to explain quantum mechanics. The fact that the cookbook contains details of quantum mechanics is completely incidental and outside the scope and capabilities of a cookbook and most likely far beyond the understanding of most cooks. We are finally getting a clearer picture of the sciences, imagine trying to explain DNA replication to a group of people 3,500 years ago whose language was devoid to technical diversity. The word we assume to mean "day" could also mean "age", "epoch", "year" as one example.

The Bible was written to point to Jesus. Take a piece of paper and write the name Jesus in the center, then all around that name write all 66 books of the Bible arranged like flower petals. Then draw an arrow from each book of the Bible that points to the name Jesus; that is what the Bible is for.

Just a point of thought, God formed us from the dust of the ground which is completely scientifically true. We are made from the same dust of the Earth and will return to it.