Death before the Fall of Man

[Vance]

Personally, I think it was impossible for them to have sinned before entering the Garden (either literally, or whatever event this is figurative for) since sin is not a particular act itself, but it is knowing disobedience of God's will. Sin was only possible when God gave them something to disobey.

Now, whether this was a literal specific instruction (don't touch that fruit!") or a more general instilling of the sense of inherent moral laws, I have no idea.

 

[Remus]

No, and again, my view is not a majority view here among TE's. It is my own theology. But I believe they were moved into the garden as they entered the "age of accountability." When they became aware of God and therefore Sin, God removed them from their environment and placed them in the Garden with Him that He had prepared for them.

Interesting. So, do you think they had souls prior to being placed in the garden?

Excellent question!!! The short of it is I don't. I don't suspect that it was a literal day, but I find it intriguing that the creationist seem to think that it is not literally "in that day" while at the same time requiring a belief in the other days as literal 24 hour periods. My point is to question how this is possibly consistent in their beliefs.

It's all about context and how it is written in hebrew. See below for more info.

For me, the point is that the scriptures suggest an immediate result or at least very quickly after the action of choosing to not follow God, yet Adam physically lived for a long time after that. I suggest that the death would be immediate only if it is a spritual death.

Ah, I see the problem. Actually, the scripture does not suggest an immediate result. The context and the form of the hebrew word in this verse means a general period of time. If you like, you can compare it to these other verses where the same form is used: Gen 5:1-2, Gen 31:40, Gen 35:3.

 

[GodSaves]

Metaphorical? Did you really say you think it was metaphorical?

But there is no reason to suggest that the literal interpretation of it would mean in those times--none. So is it literal or not? If it is literal, then it cannot have been physical death, as they didn't die on that day, in that day, when, or then. Adam lived a long, long time--as did Eve.

Ah, man, Herev, you beat me to it.

Consistency, Godsaves! You can't be arguing for strict literalism on the one hand and then start arguing metaphorical language when it suits your needs. My gosh, next you will be saying that Song of Solomon is a metaphor for Christ and the Church!

It is like the sharks smelt blood and came a running.

Ah, you want consistency. I believe both physical death and spiritual death began that day. You believe only spiritual. You say that the death God refered to in Genesis 2:17 is spiritual, only. You believe God created physical death for man to suffer before the fall of man.

I never argued for strict literalism. You gave me that attribute through your assumptions. I believe to read the Bible literally and read it differently when the language insists otherwise. By the way Vance, nice jab at making fun of me on the Song of Solomon part.

I am being open to the scriptures to correct me. Are you?

Genesis 3
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

This verse shows that man also suffered physical death that day. Not that man physically died that day, but man will now be subject to physical death. This was man's first choice, eat of the tree of life, or the tree of knowledge.

Why is that theistic evolutionists seem to think that man would have needed to continually eat of the tree of life to live? I think it is rather logical to think that if man could eat just once from the tree of knowledge and fall from grace, then man could have eaten just once from the tree of life and sustained life(both physical and spiritually) in grace forever.

I am not making an arguement against spiritual death. That was one of the two results suffered that day. Physical death came into the picture that day because man could now not eat of the tree of life. The only thing I can think of as to why theistic evolutionists want to dismiss this thought is to keep the evolutionary theory going. I believe man was created at the moment to have the potential to live forever spiritually and physically. God, out of love, gave man the choice to choose that life, or to choose the life of knowing good as well as evil. That choice is represented in the two distinct trees. A rather simple choice, where God already told man what would happen, and yet man still chooses to neglect God's Word. Much like today.

I believe the stumbling block is saying God is the one who wants us to die physical and suffer the emotional turmoil that comes from death. That He meant this to be before the fall of man. That it is not the result of the fall nor sin. This is the teaching of the physical death before the fall of man.

John 15:13
Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

1 John 4
8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

1 John 4
16And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.

So there is no greater love then to give your physical life for your friends. And God is love. But yet God created physical death before the fall of man and God meant for physical death to happen to man, not sin. On the other hand God is love. And there is no greater love then to give your physical life for a friend.

Herev, you have said that when man came to the point in evolution that he understood God, or knew of God, he was plucked from where he was and was put into the Garden of Eden, right?

But before that things died, physically, right? Men who were almost men died. And these almost men, had no love from God that would sustain them for their physical life. And there was no love from God for them to have a spiritual life. Right? There was no tree of life for these beings.

So Adam and Eve were plucked, and now in the Garden of Eden. When the other almost men realized God, would they too have been plucked and put into the Garden of Eden? Because they would now know God, so they too must have a chance at physical and spiritual eternity, right? Or did God destroy those almost men, since He got Adam and Eve and was done with them?

Herev, you believe Adam and Eve needed to eat of the tree of life regularly to sustain the physical life right? So what if Adam went searching the earth for fun, would he have needed to pack some tree of life fruit just in case?

I am not trying to poke fun at you, I would like to better understand your theology.

Just for clarification. Fruit from a tree does not have a seperate life of its own away from the tree. The fruit is part of the tree. And if the fruit is taken off the tree, the tree does not die. And you can't say the fruit died, because it had no seperate life of its own.

God Bless

 

[herev]

Interesting. So, do you think they had souls prior to being placed in the garden?


It's all about context and how it is written in hebrew. See below for more info.


Ah, I see the problem. Actually, the scripture does not suggest an immediate result. The context and the form of the hebrew word in this verse means a general period of time. If you like, you can compare it to these other verses where the same form is used: Gen 5:1-2, Gen 31:40, Gen 35:3.

Souls before--I don't know. I do think if they did, it would be the same as a child prior to the age of accountability.
As to the Hebrew context, I'll check that and come back. May be a day or so before I can sit down with my Hebrew professor.

 

[herev]

It is like the sharks smelt blood and came a running.

lol!

Ah, you want consistency. I believe both physical death and spiritual death began that day. You believe only spiritual. You say that the death God refered to in Genesis 2:17 is spiritual, only. You believe God created physical death for man to suffer before the fall of man.

Here, we may actually be much closer than ever before. Actually, your previous posts have not suggested at all that you think spiritual death had anything to do with it. I also think both (see my post: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=9498394&postcount=14. ) As they would be denied access to the Tree of Life.

I never argued for strict literalism. You gave me that attribute through your assumptions. I believe to read the Bible literally and read it differently when the language insists otherwise.

OK, well, you have to admit, I've not heard anyone in your camp suggest that any part of the creation accounts can be taken as metaphorical, but I'll take your word for it; though it does sound like it's getting close to what Vance said--picing and choosing.

I am being open to the scriptures to correct me. Are you?

always,

Genesis 3
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

This verse shows that man also suffered physical death that day. Not that man physically died that day, but man will now be subject to physical death. This was man's first choice, eat of the tree of life, or the tree of knowledge.

I see nothing to suggest that Adam or Eve were sitting between two trees trying to choose what to eat. I see no reason to suggest that that he had never eaten of the tree of life before, though I understand that interpretation. But otherwise, ok.

Why is that theistic evolutionists seem to think that man would have needed to continually eat of the tree of life to live? I think it is rather logical to think that if man could eat just once from the tree of knowledge and fall from grace, then man could have eaten just once from the tree of life and sustained life(both physical and spiritually) in grace forever.

It would be odd for man to have that type of power, since even Lucifer as an archangel and an angel of light had no such power. Sin is sin is sin. I do not think that God would have made it possible for man to have achieved a sinful state and yet at the same time be irrevocably a recipient of grace. Sin separates from God--and I don't think that God would have allowed otherwise. But that's just my opinion.

I am not making an arguement against spiritual death. That was one of the two results suffered that day. Physical death came into the picture that day because man could now not eat of the tree of life.

I agree with this

The only thing I can think of as to why theistic evolutionists want to dismiss this thought is to keep the evolutionary theory going. I believe man was created at the moment to have the potential to live forever spiritually and physically. God, out of love, gave man the choice to choose that life, or to choose the life of knowing good as well as evil. That choice is represented in the two distinct trees. A rather simple choice, where God already told man what would happen, and yet man still chooses to neglect God's Word. Much like today.

NO, since I believe this too and I am a TE. But your use of the word potential is interesting. It is no different than what I have said. if he only had the potential to live forever, then the body was not created for that--which is what I have been saying. And I still don't see that man was given a direct choice between the two. He was told to eat of anything but...

I believe the stumbling block is saying God is the one who wants us to die physical and suffer the emotional turmoil that comes from death. That He meant this to be before the fall of man. That it is not the result of the fall nor sin. This is the teaching of the physical death before the fall of man.

But that's not what I said. What I said is that the moment they were placed in the Garden, God did not want them to die. That death occured in the rest of the earth has no bearing on what God intended for the garden. So it is not the teaching of death before the fall for all of us.

So there is no greater love then to give your physical life for your friends. And God is love. But yet God created physical death before the fall of man and God meant for physical death to happen to man, not sin. On the other hand God is love. And there is no greater love then to give your physical life for a friend.

see last answer--same

Herev, you have said that when man came to the point in evolution that he understood God, or knew of God, he was plucked from where he was and was put into the Garden of Eden, right?

yes--that is my view

But before that things died, physically, right? Men who were almost men died. And these almost men, had no love from God that would sustain them for their physical life. And there was no love from God for them to have a spiritual life. Right? There was no tree of life for these beings.

I would not say there was no love for them. We die now and God loves us. Trees, lillies, lions, dogs, cats, all die--and God loves them. But otherwise, yes, death is a part of life on this planet--and it doesn't diminish God's love

So Adam and Eve were plucked, and now in the Garden of Eden. When the other almost men realized God, would they too have been plucked and put into the Garden of Eden? Because they would now know God, so they too must have a chance at physical and spiritual eternity, right? Or did God destroy those almost men, since He got Adam and Eve and was done with them?

I don't know how soon those things (the maturation, if you want to call it that, of others) would have happened in relation to when Adam and Eve sinned. We know that by the time their son, Cain, was grown, there were other peoples populating the earth (in the land of nod)

Herev, you believe Adam and Eve needed to eat of the tree of life regularly to sustain the physical life right? So what if Adam went searching the earth for fun, would he have needed to pack some tree of life fruit just in case?

I don't know why Adam would leave the Garden--in my mind that would be the same as the original sin.

I am not trying to poke fun at you, I would like to better understand your theology.

I've never pretended my theology was going to make sense to others. But it works for me.

Just for clarification. Fruit from a tree does not have a seperate life of its own away from the tree. The fruit is part of the tree. And if the fruit is taken off the tree, the tree does not die. And you can't say the fruit died, because it had no seperate life of its own.

God Bless

And so, Jesus was wrong when he said that when the branch would be cut off from the vine, it would die?

 

[herev]

Ah, I see the problem. Actually, the scripture does not suggest an immediate result. The context and the form of the hebrew word in this verse means a general period of time. If you like, you can compare it to these other verses where the same form is used: Gen 5:1-2, Gen 31:40, Gen 35:3.

According to my professor of Hebrew (Dr. Dora R. Mbuwayesango, Hood Theological Seminary, Salisbury, NC), the term must be taken in context to determine it's meaning. There is no distinction with that term from meaning that literal day to that time period. So it is a choice to interpet one way or the other.

According to The New Jerome Biblical Commentary:edited by Raymond E. Brown, Prentice Hall, 1988, p. 12:
"Verse 17: you shall die: 'To die' here means to be cut off, excluded from community with God, as in Ezek 18 and in other P texts; the man and the woman will be driven from the garden of God, not Killed."

According to The New Interpreter's BibleLeander Keck, Convener, Abingdom Press, Nashville, TN. p 351-352)
"Over against the tree of life, the tree of knowledge raises the possiblity of human death. The two trees represent two possible futures; life and death. To be separated from the tree of life (3:22-24) represents the broken nature of the relationship, with death being inevitable. 'The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life,/ but lawlesness takes away lives' (Prov 11:30 RSV; see Prov 3:18; 113:12; 15:4; Dan 4:10-12). The metaphor of eating, so prominent in this text, signifies the taking of something into one's very self with effects on one's total being ('you are what you eat').
'You shall die" stipulates a negative consequence, a specific penalty for eating, but he meaning remains difficult to discern. It does not mean 'you shall become mortal'; they already are mortal beings. Death as such belongs to God's created order. It seems to imply capital punishment without delay (though 'in that day' could mean 'when' mo9re generally, so the NIV); yet, they do not die and God nowhere takes back the threat. It may e that death (and life) has a comprehensive meaning in this story (as in the OT generally; seee Hos 13:1), associated with a breakdown in relationships to God, to each other, and to the created order. This larger view of death comes to a climax when humans are excluded from the tree of life and lose the opportunity to overcome their natural mortality. So death does become perveasive within their lives even in the garden."

 

[Remus]

According to my professor of Hebrew (Dr. Dora R. Mbuwayesango, Hood Theological Seminary, Salisbury, NC), the term must be taken in context to determine it's meaning.

Agreed.

This next statement makes me curious of the question that you posed to Dr. Mbuwayesango.

There is no distinction with that term from meaning that literal day to that time period.

This is true; however, there is a distinction in the form that this word is used in the different places that has to be taken into account. Notes on this verse from the NET Bible state:

tn Heb “dying you will die.” The imperfect verb form here has the nuance of the specific future because it is introduced with the temporal clause, “when you eat…you will die.” That certainty is underscored with the infinitive absolute, “you will surely die.”

Compare that to the notes on Gen 1:5:

sn The first day. The exegetical evidence suggests the word “day” in this chapter refers to a literal twenty-four hour day. It is true that the word can refer to a longer period of time (see Isa 61:2, or the idiom in 2:4, “in the day,” that is, “when”). But this chapter uses “day,” “night,” “morning,” “evening,” “years,” and “seasons.” Consistency would require sorting out how all these terms could be used to express ages. Also, when the Hebrew word yom (<oy) is used with a numerical adjective, it refers to a literal day. Furthermore, the commandment to keep the sabbath clearly favors this interpretation. One is to work for six days and then rest on the seventh, just as God did when he worked at creation.

If you would like to look at the hewbrew yourself, blueletterbible . com (sorry for the spaces, can't link yet). You can see that the form of the word "yowm" is different in these two verses.

So it is a choice to interpet one way or the other.

Again, I agree as long as it is in context. This should not be taken to mean that we can interpret the word to fit our opinions.

 

[Remus]

GodSaves, I'm sorry. I just noticed that I've taken this thread off topic a bit. If it goes much further, I'll pull it out into its own thread.

 

[Vance]

Personally, I think part of the problem stems from the concept that physical death is evil, and thus not from God. I do not see this at all. Since physical death is simply a transformation from one existence to another (possibly even another physical life), it should not be viewed as causing some evil loss or damage.

Sin is evil, disobedience of God. Some who sin live long lives physically. Some who are righteous live very short physical lives. Animals physically die without sin (not to mention every other form of life). Even pain and suffering while on earth are not sinful in and of themselves, or even the result of sin. Again, the righteous suffer every bit as much pain and suffering while on earth as those who have rejected God's gift of redemption.

So, when it gets down to it, it is not physical life or death which distinguishes the saved and unsaved, we all experience birth, life, physical death, and yet eternal life (which might also involve a renewal of our physical bodies and/or a physical existence).

The only distinguishing factor among all humans is whether we are in communion with God (spiritual life) or whether we have not yet accepted the redemptive gift and are still in spiritual death.

For this reason, I read the Genesis 2 story as God telling us that all have an ingrained drive to be selfish, seek our own way, and thus disobey God's laws, in other words, sin. This sin causes us to be separated from God, and thus spiritually dead. The Genesis 2 story also provides a forward view of what life in communion with God would be like (the Garden, walking with God, etc), whether or not such a state existed at some point in the past (as even some TE's believe). I just don't know about this point, and it really doesn't matter to me, because the TRUTH of what God is telling by the story is still TRUTH either way.

This truth thus sets up the need for redemption and God's redemptive gift of His Son, the acceptance of which puts us back into communion with God, and thus renews our spiritual life.

For me, physical life or death doesn't even enter into it. And, again, I came to believe this before I knew didley-squat about evolution.

 

[GodSaves]

GodSaves, I'm sorry. I just noticed that I've taken this thread off topic a bit. If it goes much further, I'll pull it out into its own thread.

No worries, I think it is still within the realm of the topic, which is good enough for me. What I was really hoping for was for theistic evolutionists to present verses that they think leads to the thinking of evolution and physical death before the fall.

I would have really liked a thread that was based soley on the Bible, instead of science vs the Bible.

 

[Vance]

No worries, I think it is still within the realm of the topic, which is good enough for me. What I was really hoping for was for theistic evolutionists to present verses that they think leads to the thinking of evolution and physical death before the fall.

I would have really liked a thread that was based soley on the Bible, instead of science vs the Bible.

I think for the most part, we have stuck purely with the theological aspects and not the scientific.

And I think what you have been shown is that there those who read non-literally have non-scientific reasons for doing so, even if you do not agree with them. While it would be perfectly acceptable to reconsider a traditional reading in light of new evidence from God's Creation (as with geocentrism), the non-literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 has a long history and exists independently of scientific theory.

Thus, it would not be true to say that the non-literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 is simply an attempt to twist Scripture to fit science.

 

[GodSaves]

Personally, I think part of the problem stems from the concept that physical death is evil, and thus not from God. I do not see this at all. Since physical death is simply a transformation from one existence to another (possibly even another physical life), it should not be viewed as causing some evil loss or damage.

Sin is evil, disobedience of God. Some who sin live long lives physically. Some who are righteous live very short physical lives. Animals physically die without sin (not to mention every other form of life). Even pain and suffering while on earth are not sinful in and of themselves, or even the result of sin. Again, the righteous suffer every bit as much pain and suffering while on earth as those who have rejected God's gift of redemption.

So, when it gets down to it, it is not physical life or death which distinguishes the saved and unsaved, we all experience birth, life, physical death, and yet eternal life (which might also involve a renewal of our physical bodies and/or a physical existence).

The only distinguishing factor among all humans is whether we are in communion with God (spiritual life) or whether we have not yet accepted the redemptive gift and are still in spiritual death.

For this reason, I read the Genesis 2 story as God telling us that all have an ingrained drive to be selfish, seek our own way, and thus disobey God's laws, in other words, sin. This sin causes us to be separated from God, and thus spiritually dead. The Genesis 2 story also provides a forward view of what life in communion with God would be like (the Garden, walking with God, etc), whether or not such a state existed at some point in the past (as even some TE's believe). I just don't know about this point, and it really doesn't matter to me, because the TRUTH of what God is telling by the story is still TRUTH either way.

This truth thus sets up the need for redemption and God's redemptive gift of His Son, the acceptance of which puts us back into communion with God, and thus renews our spiritual life.

For me, physical life or death doesn't even enter into it. And, again, I came to believe this before I knew didley-squat about evolution.

I think physical death is the result of sin. Death is thrown into the lake of fire, in Revelations, from this I believe God did not create physical death to be part of life before the fall of man or part of life after Jesus Christ has come and judged the world.

Here is a thought I have been thinking about. Will man have the choice to sin after the great judgement? If so, what will happen as a result of the sin, another fall?

Will man have the ability to sin, or after man having made the choice to be with God, will man not be able to sin?

Not to off tract my own OP, but could some of you answer this question with your own thoughts.

 

[Vance]

Hey, Godsaves, thanks for using the phrases "I think" and "I believe"! No sarcasm intended, I mean it. And you are obviously not alone in this belief, it is one of the ways people have interpreted the Scripture on this issue. But as you can see, it is not the only one.

As to your last question, it is a very good one, and I have absolutely no idea off-hand, I would have to look into the concept. Ultimately, one of three things would have to happen for us NOT to be able to sin, as I see it (again, just initial thinking): We would have to lose our knowledge good and evil, so that all actions are innocent OR we would have to lose our free will to act OR we would have to live in a place/time in which there were no actions which were contrary to God's will. I can't imagine how any of these would happen, but then, I am not God.

 

[GodSaves]

I will apologize for not always inserting "i believe, i think." I usually believe that everyone would understand that what I post are my thoughts and my beliefs. Bad assumption on my part.

Hard question isn't it. It directly relates with the case before the fall of man. If we could understand the life before the fall of man, then we can understand the life we will have in Christ after judgement day. I think there is direct correlation between Genesis, life today, and Revelations.

EDIT: Further thought, why do we even need to know. We should just have faith that all will be according to our LORD and Savior.

God is always giving us choice, and He always tells us the end result of our choice. The basic choice is be in God, or don't. Eat of the tree of knowledge or don't. Believe in Jesus Christ or don't. He told Adam and Eve what would happen if they ate of the tree of knowledge, and He has told us what will happen if we don't believe in Jesus Christ. So easy to understand, we know the end result when all is done, said and finished. But yet we still want to rebel, even already knowing the consequences. Amazing, isn't it. Amazing that Jesus did all the suffering and dying, and only told us to believe in Him, love Him, and love everyone else. Even when we have the easier road, and He took the harder road for us, we can't do what is asked. Oh, we can love Him, that is easy enough, right? But are we truly loving Him, if we don't keep His commandments, such as love everyone else as yourself?

What a blessing for us, that Jesus will still forgive us, no matter how many times we go against Him or lack faith in His Word, in His power, of in Him. His arms are spread open, nailed open even, to accept us, forgiving us, and bringing us unto Himself. Amazing.

There are no words for what He did, but there is a word or two for me. Sinner, wretch, evil, undeserving...

 

[herev]

Agreed.

This next statement makes me curious of the question that you posed to Dr. Mbuwayesango.

This is true; however, there is a distinction in the form that this word is used in the different places that has to be taken into account. Notes on this verse from the NET Bible state:

Compare that to the notes on Gen 1:5:

If you would like to look at the hewbrew yourself, blueletterbible . com (sorry for the spaces, can't link yet). You can see that the form of the word "yowm" is different in these two verses.

Again, I agree as long as it is in context. This should not be taken to mean that we can interpret the word to fit our opinions.

I will find a better time to ask Dr. Dora. I caught her off guard in the hall with only an English translation. her Hebrew is excellent, her English?

 

[herev]

I think physical death is the result of sin. Death is thrown into the lake of fire, in Revelations, from this I believe God did not create physical death to be part of life before the fall of man or part of life after Jesus Christ has come and judged the world.

Here is a thought I have been thinking about. Will man have the choice to sin after the great judgement? If so, what will happen as a result of the sin, another fall?

Will man have the ability to sin, or after man having made the choice to be with God, will man not be able to sin?

Not to off tract my own OP, but could some of you answer this question with your own thoughts.

This is a question that has only recently (the last 2 weeks) come up in my mind. I am taking a course in Theodicy (the Study of God in the face of Evil). Since I believe free will is the author of evil and not God, then what happens if we have free will in heaven? I would think we would have free will in heaven since after all, Satan chose to turn from God and we will be then higher than the angels. Without deeper analysis (which I haven't done yet), my first inclination is to say that we will have the ability to do so, but the wisdom not to--I will be pondering this for a while!

 

[herev]

Agreed.

This next statement makes me curious of the question that you posed to Dr. Mbuwayesango.

This is true; however, there is a distinction in the form that this word is used in the different places that has to be taken into account. Notes on this verse from the NET Bible state:

Compare that to the notes on Gen 1:5:

If you would like to look at the hewbrew yourself, blueletterbible . com (sorry for the spaces, can't link yet). You can see that the form of the word "yowm" is different in these two verses.

Again, I agree as long as it is in context. This should not be taken to mean that we can interpret the word to fit our opinions.

This is all I can say on this as I do not personally read Hebrew, YET. I spent some time with Dr. Mbuwayesango. According to her, it is the same term, translated differently according to style. In prophetic literatiure, it is tranlated "In that day." In Genesis, it is translated, "In the day". In the beginning of our conversation, she thought I was asking on my own behalf. She told me I was trying to tranlate Genesis with prophetic language (and that I should know better!)
anyway, again, since I don't speak Hebrew, perhaps I could PM you her email?

 

[Remus]

I'm good. Thanks.