Carnivores and the Fall

[Assyrian]

But see God didnt say death would be instantaneous but rather it would be inevitable.

God did not say it would be instantaneous, he did say occur the same day. Gen 2:17 for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. It wasn't just that Adam would surely die, he would surely die in the day he ate the fruit. I would disagree with The Barbarian (sorry) on one thing, the text does say Adam death would be inevitable, that is what the 'surely die' mean, but it is saying that it was inevitable he would die on the day he ate the fruit.

I realise this is hard to get you mind around. The language is plain but the implications can shake you understanding of scripture to the core. It says Adam would die the same day he ate the fruit, which he didn't. Which either means the bible is wrong, or God is not speaking in the plain literal sense you assume must speak in. One word of comfort here. The disciples had just the same problem with Jesus when he kept speaking to them in metaphors and parables.

In fact, God had a plan since the beginning that His Son would lay down His life and be pinned to a cross for the sins of humanity. In fact, Genesis 3:21, we see our first example of grace, "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them." A grace that would see its culmination on the cross.

Amen.

I would say though that this is not the first example of grace. I think the Tree of Life was a picture of the cross too. What other tree can give everlasting life? As you say the cross was God's plan from the beginning, is it surprising that we find a picture of God plan in the garden?

If death was instantaneous, what would be verdict?

I don't see the problem about the verdict. It was the same verdict the Ephesians had, they were dead in the trespasses and sins in which they walked Eph 2:1&2 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience. It is the same verdict Paul faced when he first sinned Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

There is a whole lot of problems fundamentally with humanity pre-existing before Adam and Eve and this is one of them, the denial of sin. Or did sin happen corporately? See.

Could have been corporate, or Adam and Eve are simply a picture of the whole human race. We have the same question about children. At what stage are they aware enough of right and wrong, of God's command, to be held responsible? For Paul it was a particular point. He came to understand what God's law said, and broke it. Maybe there was a particular point for the human race when we first became aware of God's command. And sinned. Maybe it took God giving that first command to the first humans he thought ready to understand, if not to obey. God always knew we would never be able to do that, grace was always plan A.

John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." Evolution is suggesting the lineage of Jesus includes clean and unclean animals? That paints a pretty sight. God before the foundation of the earth planned to save a race upon literally millions of generations of animals, swimming and creeping, and preying and killing upon each other until finally the ape climb down out of the trees, stood upright and lost his hair.

According to your interpretation, God made humans out of mud. You could express the same incredulity that Christ became the descendent of a creature moulded out of filthy sticky mud. Perhaps you have lost sight of just how amazing and wonderful the incarnation is. The wonder is that God became man, not "human is fine, we are great, I can understand God wanting to become one of us, but not a creature descended from ape". (But the gorilla, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a simian!') The real problem with unclean is not the symbolism of ritually unclean animals, or even grubbily unclean mud, but Christ being born of a morally unclean sinful human race.

Because the guppy in the pond committed the original sin when it cannibalized his sickly weaker siblings according to evolution.

Only if it knew it was wrong.

I am in absolute agreement with this statement though Adam wasnt conceived how I was conceived.

How was Adam made any differently to us? Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.

 

[GenemZ]

If you can not refute em? Ignore em.

A LONG-HELD VIEW
http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/chap1.html
​

But, you are not being ignored. That dust from the perpetual mental fist fight will clear. Who will tend to your wounds?



.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you can not refute em? Ignore em.

Or if you're a creationist, just insist that Genesis says what you want it to say, instead of what it actually says.

That's how it always ends.

 

[GenemZ]

Or if you're a creationist, just insist that Genesis says what you want it to say, instead of what it actually says.

That's how it always ends.

Then, you settle it for us, Barbarian.

What does it ACTUALLY SAY?






.

 

[GenemZ]

A LONG-HELD VIEW
http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/chap1.html​

 

[The Barbarian]

Then, you settle it for us, Barbarian.

What does it ACTUALLY SAY?

Gen. 2:17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

Literalists are sure it's all literally true. Until it says something they don't like.

 

[ChristianSoldier85]

God did not say it would be instantaneous, he did say occur the same day. Gen 2:17 for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. It wasn't just that Adam would surely die, he would surely die in the day he ate the fruit. I would disagree with The Barbarian (sorry) on one thing, the text does say Adam death would be inevitable, that is what the 'surely die' mean, but it is saying that it was inevitable he would die on the day he ate the fruit.

I realise this is hard to get you mind around. The language is plain but the implications can shake you understanding of scripture to the core. It says Adam would die the same day he ate the fruit, which he didn't. Which either means the bible is wrong, or God is not speaking in the plain literal sense you assume must speak in. One word of comfort here. The disciples had just the same problem with Jesus when he kept speaking to them in metaphors and parables.

Amen.

Amen.

1 Corinthians 15:21-22 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all made alive. Yes, and Adam did die that day in a both spiritual and physical fashion. The wages of sin is death. But permitted to live and procreate under the grace of God, to live out the remainder of their mortal lives. One can see a foreshadow and type of God's plan of salvation and atonement in the animals slain to provide Adam and Eve clothes.

I don't see the problem about the verdict. It was the same verdict the Ephesians had, they were dead in the trespasses and sins in which they walked Eph 2:1&2 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience. It is the same verdict Paul faced when he first sinned Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

Absolutely, I was speculating on taking that bit of Genesis ultra-literally about "thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" if it had been carried out as a divine judgement.

Could have been corporate, or Adam and Eve are simply a picture of the whole human race. We have the same question about children. At what stage are they aware enough of right and wrong, of God's command, to be held responsible? For Paul it was a particular point. He came to understand what God's law said, and broke it. Maybe there was a particular point for the human race when we first became aware of God's command. And sinned. Maybe it took God giving that first command to the first humans he thought ready to understand, if not to obey. God always knew we would never be able to do that, grace was always plan A.

So it took billions of years worth of earth history and millions of years of evolution before God could fellowship with humanity before we could praise our heavenly father. That God created a savage earth, an near endless cycle of constant brutality and death. One could ask in theory "God, what took you so long?" "Why did it take you so long, Lord?" "So death passes onto..... death?"

According to your interpretation, God made humans out of mud. You could express the same incredulity that Christ became the descendent of a creature moulded out of filthy sticky mud. Perhaps you have lost sight of just how amazing and wonderful the incarnation is. The wonder is that God became man, not "human is fine, we are great, I can understand God wanting to become one of us, but not a creature descended from ape". (But the gorilla, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a simian!') The real problem with unclean is not the symbolism of ritually unclean animals, or even grubbily unclean mud, but Christ being born of a morally unclean sinful human race.

Only if it knew it was wrong.

Because evolution flagrantly contradicts both the scriptures and the love of God, demonstrated here.

Roman 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.

Romans 5:17 For if by one man's offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.

How was Adam made any differently to us? Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.

Yes, Adam once fellowshipped with God and it was very good. Before sin entered world and death by sin.

 

[GenemZ]

Gen. 2:17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

Literalists are sure it's all literally true. Until it says something they don't like.

Just when it finally looks like we are going to get somewhere? You go ahead and quote from some translation I have never seen before. "thou shalt die the death?"

Gotta ask.. Was that simply off the top of your head? I have read many translations over the years, but not that one. What you wrote runs contrary to either a literal translation from the Hebrew, or anything I have seen in print which is interpretative. knowing the Hebrew reveals that its bad interpretative, at that.

What translation were you using?



.

 

[GenemZ]

God did not say it would be instantaneous, he did say occur the same day. Gen 2:17 for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. It wasn't just that Adam would surely die, he would surely die in the day he ate the fruit. I would disagree with The Barbarian (sorry) on one thing, the text does say Adam death would be inevitable, that is what the 'surely die' mean, but it is saying that it was inevitable he would die on the day he ate the fruit.

You still refuse to see that it was spiritual death that was immediate?

Ephesians 2:1
"As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins."


Ephesians 2:5
"made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved."​

Men who are unregenerate are spiritually DEAD. Jesus said so.

Luke 9:59-60
"He said to another man, "Follow me."
But the man replied, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father."​

Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God."

​

Jesus covered both deaths. Let the dead (spiritual death) bury their own dead (physical death).

That is why the Hebrew states... ..."eat, in dying, you shall die." First came the immediate spiritual death of Adam, and then the physical death much later, as a result of the first death.


​

"death" + "death" = "in dying you shall die."​

I am waiting for an evolution in your thinking.

I hope to study your progress.





.​

 

[The Barbarian]

Just when it finally looks like we are going to get somewhere? You go ahead and quote from some translation I have never seen before. "thou shalt die the death?"

Gotta ask.. Was that simply off the top of your head? I have read many translations over the years, but not that one. What you wrote runs contrary to either a literal translation from the Hebrew, or anything I have seen in print which is interpretative. knowing the Hebrew reveals that its bad interpretative, at that.

What translation were you using?

Douay. But let's look at the KJV, which also does it pretty well...

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.”

That day, Adam dies spiritually, but not physically. That is the death that came into the world, which did not exist before Adam. The physical death came to him many years later, and that had been going on for a very long time before Adam.

 

[GenemZ]

Douay. But let's look at the KJV, which also does it pretty well...

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.”

That day, Adam dies spiritually, but not physically. That is the death that came into the world, which did not exist before Adam. The physical death came to him many years later, and that had been going on for a very long time before Adam.


You failed to substantiate your statement. You left it so wide open that I must ask what you meant by death having been going on for a very long time before Adam. In this present creation that Adam was a part of? And, how does that settle anything?


.

 

[The Barbarian]

You failed to substantiate your statement. You left it so wide open that I must ask what you meant by death having been going on for a very long time before Adam.

Living things had been dying for over a billion years. Physical death had been around for a long time. But that's not the death God spoke of.

In this present creation that Adam was a part of? And, how does that settle anything?

Because scripture speaks of a new sort of death, the kind Adam brought into the world. The one Jesus came to save us from.

 

[GenemZ]

Living things had been dying for over a billion years. Physical death had been around for a long time. But that's not the death God spoke of.

Those living things that died, did so not as part of the present creation. Just as there will be a new creation on this earth to replace the one we now see.

Isaiah 65:17-20
"Behold, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.
But be glad and rejoice forever
in what I will create,
for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight
and its people a joy.
I will rejoice over Jerusalem
and take delight in my people;
the sound of weeping and of crying
will be heard in it no more.
"Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
he who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere youth;
he who fails to reach a hundred
will be considered accursed."​

Physical death will not be the norm in the next creation. Only those who are cursed by God will die before the 1000 years of the Millennium is up.

Animal life will be transformed,too. It will not be done by evolution.

Isaiah 65:25
"The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
but dust will be the serpent's food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,"
says the LORD."
​

Because scripture speaks of a new sort of death, the kind Adam brought into the world. The one Jesus came to save us from.

Yes. Adam was the first to bring spiritual death into all creations. Fallen angels can not stop being spiritual. Yet, he was the first to physical bring death to this creation.

The physical death you speak of took place prior to this creation. God said that what he produced in this creation was "very good." Yet, death is the Lord's enemy. He could not say "very good," if death were a part of the initial life he created for this creation before Adam fell.

Genesis 1:31
​

"God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.
And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."
​

Death could not have been initially part of this creation, and God say that what he created was very good. .

1 Corinthians 15:25-26
"For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
The last enemy to be destroyed is death."
​

God could not say that this creation was "very good" if death was at that time a part of this creation's function. Physical death entered this creation after Adam fell. The past deaths you speak of were to be found in prehistoric worlds.

If you are interested, you can learn about what I speak of here:

http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html#TableofContent



Grace and peace, GeneZ


.

 

[Jig]

But if you are right then there are no millions and even billions of years. There are only thousands of years.

That's right!

If creation really is as young as you claim it is then we should be able to know that with certainty, assumptions or not.

How so? Using a methodology that cannot equate supernatural activity? The fact is we weren't around to observe what happened 6000 or 6 billion years ago.

Like I said previously, we need a reliable eye-witness account to know truely what happened (like Genesis one). We are dealing with a supernatual agent and His divine work.

Side note: If a global flood was placed into the equation, scientific interpretation would dramatically change.

 

[Jig]

I'd be interested in hearing what you think "uniformitarianism" says. Tell us about it.

I've already told you this once Barbarian. I conform to exactly what is posted in Wikipedia.

Uniformitarianism, in the philosophy of science, assumes that the natural processes that operated in the past are the same as those that can be observed operating in the present. Its methodology is frequently summarized as "the present is the key to the past," because it holds that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the world.

 

[shernren]

How so? Using a methodology that cannot equate supernatural activity? The fact is we weren't around to observe what happened 6000 or 6 billion years ago.

That's a silly argument and you know it.

Do you know for sure that your parents produced you by sexual union? How could you know? After all, you weren't around to observe what happened nine months before your birth. For all you know, everybody around you could be lying to you when they say that's how you were made; you never saw it yourself, so you could never know for sure. And yet you're sure about it anyways.

I could make the same argument over and over again: you can never be sure that Obama won the election fairly (because nobody observes voters voting, right?); you can never be sure that Abraham Lincoln was the first president of the United States; you can never be sure that astronauts landed on the moon ... if all you're going to trust is your own observations then you can't be sure of anything. (And why would you trust even that? Optical illusions show how your senses can be so easily tricked.)

Let's go on to a miracle. How did the disciples know that Jesus was resurrected? After all, none of them actually saw Jesus get up from death. All they got was an empty tomb and some dude who looked, walked, talked, and ate like Jesus. None of them were actually there observing the moment when life re-entered that dead corpse and the power of the Spirit transformed it into everlasting life - and yet they believed it all the same.

The fact is that to observe the consequences of an event is equivalent to observing the event itself, as far as determining whether or not an event occurred.

Like I said previously, we need a reliable eye-witness account to know truely what happened (like Genesis one). We are dealing with a supernatural agent and His divine work.

Genesis is a reliable account, but how do you know it was eye-witness? One might as well read Matthew 23:24 and think Pharisees and scribes were all blind people who swallowed large animals for a living.

Side note: If a global flood was placed into the equation, scientific interpretation would dramatically change.

Why would it? One of the best evidences for the age of the solar system is the radiometric dating of meteor rocks; how were they affected by the Flood? One of the best evidences for the age of the universe is given by the value of Hubble's constant; how was the recession of galaxies affected by the Flood?

 

[Melethiel]

you can never be sure that Abraham Lincoln was the first president of the United States

He wasn't. You're thinking of George Washington.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well, let's see how "uniformitarianism" is in science:

Uniformitarianism is one of the most important unifying concepts in the geosciences. This concept developed in the late 1700s, suggests that catastrophic processes were not responsible for the landforms that existed on the Earth's surface. This idea was diametrically opposed to the ideas of that time period which were based on a biblical interpretation of the history of the Earth. Instead, the theory of uniformitarianism suggested that the landscape developed over long periods of time through a variety of slow geologic and geomorphic processes. ​

The term uniformitarianism was first used in 1832 by William Whewell, a University of Cambridge scholar, to present an alternative explanation for the origin of the Earth. The prevailing view at that time was that the Earth was created through supernatural means and had been affected by a series of catastrophic events such as the biblical Flood. This theory is called catastrophism. ​

The ideas behind uniformitarianism originated with the work of Scottish geologist James Hutton. In 1785, Hutton presented at the meetings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh that the Earth had a long history and that this history could be interpreted in terms of processes currently observed. For example, he suggested that deep soil profiles were formed by the weathering of bedrock over thousands of years. He also suggested that supernatural theories were not needed to explain the geologic history of the Earth.​

​

Hutton's ideas did not gain major support of the scientific community until the work of Sir Charles Lyell. In the three volume publication Principles of Geology (1830-1833), Lyell presented a variety of geologic evidence from England, France, Italy, and Spain to prove Hutton's ideas correct and to reject the theory of catastrophism.
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/10c.html

Notice that it was not accepted in science until sufficient supporting evidence was presented. Rather than a philosophy, it was a hypothesis, until evidence was found to confirm it. I could still be a philosophy in some disciplines, I suppose, but ideas confirmed by evidence are not philosophies in science.

 

[The Barbarian]

Er... the first president after the colonies were free from English rule, was John Hanson (1781-1782)

Washington was the first president of the United States under the Constitution. Hanson was the first president under the Articles of Confederation.

He was also referred to as a "Moor" by some, meaning partially black, although this has not been confirmed.

 

[GenemZ]

LOL...


Ignore the ones that you can not deal with. Only deal with the ones that has as much weakness in reasoning as your own.