Explain the Fall

[dad]

I would also like to point out that no where in genesis does it say that death and decay were caused by the fall. Oh, sure, it says it in later NT chapters, but why would god withhold that information from his chosen people, the Jews?

God's people were in the garden, but no Jews, at the time. That was much later. God's chosen now, are those that chose Him, so really, there was only a window of time when His people were mainly the Jews.
That aside, if we look at the scripture it says that if Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they would die. (start to die, not croak on the spot)-which they did. This is where death entered the world. The original plan, apparently then was not death and disease. A angel guard even had to be posted to keep now sinful man from trying to sneak back into the garden, and get some fruit from the tree of life, and live forever.
To get a clearer picture, we would need to look at other parts of the bible.

 

[philadiddle]

In short, many Christians claim that all "deficiencies" in human design are due to the Fall. Also, many Christians claim that all "bad" organisms were only designed/altered after the Fall. (as in, before the Fall, T-rex ate grapefruits, after the fall, T-rex ate his dino-buddies.) As a third point, many Christians believe that things like Cancer are only possible "because of" the Fall.

Now, my question is going to be: why?

Many Christians believe in that because they have accepted the fundamentalist view of YEC, and a literal interpretation of Genesis. Your problem seems to be that you think this is what Christianity is all about, but it's not. Dr. Reihmer of Canadian Bible College in Calgary, AB. was my brothers Old Testiment prof. He has a PhD in theology and majored in Hebrew. His well educated interpretation (as well as many other educated theologens) is that the first 6 chapters of Genesis are all allegory. When it says that God made the birds in the air and the fish in the sea etc, it's true, just not literal. Evolution seems to be how he did it. The problem with your post thus far is that you're trying to attack Christianity, but you're really just attacking bad theology. So why do so many christians believe YEC? Because of ppl like Hovind who've made it their mission to convert everyone to their POV. But that's not what Christianity is all about.

Because honestly, at the moment, the "because of the Fall!" awnser doesn't really tell me anything.
Also, not being able to make a "fitting" theory, should give you some food for thought. As in, you really want to give Pete's Awnser, but notice yourself that it's a bit crappy, and then just respond with "I dont know why god did it". But at that point, you lose one of the advantages of the Literal Biblical Worldview. After all, in the battle between YEC and science, one of the reasons for choosing for YEC is that science still has holes. So the choice is between

YEC worldview: No evidence, but it "fits", and has no holes in it.
Science worldview: Mountains of evidence, but it has some holes.

At this point, choosing YEC might be "wise". However, if YEC is shown to have holes in it (because you can't truly explain both the Fall and an all loving God at the same time), the situation becomes.

YEC worldview: No evidence, and some pretty fundemental holes.
Science worldview: Mountains of evidence, and still some holes.

The choice then becomes much clearer.

As someone who doesn't take everything in the Bible literally, i completely agree with all of this

1. Why exactly should the Fall cause diseases/carnivores/etc? What exactly IS the Fall?

allegory

2. How does this reconcile with God's plan for the world; how does it reflect on God's personality?

no reconciling is needed since it's allegory, and i don't see why you would bring God's personality into it, it seems like a moot point.

3. Is God's personality as predicted by the Fall the same one as the personality that He's often claimed to have? (all knowing, all loving, etc)

the fall has never had anything to do with God's personality, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Oh, and just for a certain poster: If you're going to say that there aren't any Christians who claim that all deficiencies are due to the Fall, PLEASE DON'T.

there are MANY christians who DON'T claim all deficiencies are due to the fall. It's interesting that some ppl twist religions to justify flying airplanes into buildings, but you don't seem to label the entire religion based on that. Yet, some ppl say things about Christianity that are true, and u make it out to be an "all or none" issue.

Situation 1:
My 95 year old grandpa dies in his sleep.

Situation 2:

my 5 year old daughter gets cancer, suffers horrible pain, and eventually dies.

If you honestly think that situation 1 is "just as bad" as situation 2, your emotional system is so alien to me that you might as well leave the discussion. If that's not what you meant, please elaborate.

can u tell me how it should work out? what is fair? and explain to me what your basis for "fairness" is. remember, it has to be applicable to all ppl for all time.

Notice the little atheist icon under my name. My care-factor if someone "rejects" god is exactly zero.

So yeah, situation 2 is worse.

You're confusing 2 points of view. You are saying that situation 2 is worse based on the point of view of atheism. Then you say there can't be a God because it is so unfair. You start with 1 assumption to cut down another. If God is real and a 5 year old girl dies of cancer but has accepted Jesus as her savior, then there is an eternity of joy for her. It's not so unfair. Besides, why should she live longer? Can u give me a reason for that?

PS. in the above paragraph i'm trying to get u to understand. Pls don't respond with "heaven is to create hope for the weak and hell is a scare tactic". The point is that given the assumption that God exists what's fair isn't always what u may see as fair.

 

[dad]

So yeah, in short:

1. Why exactly should the Fall cause diseases/carnivores/etc? What exactly IS the Fall?
2. How does this reconcile with God's plan for the world; how does it reflect on God's personality?
3. Is God's personality as predicted by the Fall the same one as the personality that He's often claimed to have? (all knowing, all loving, etc)
....

1) If the original perfection were messed up, all kinds of adjustments would be needed, or result. Now with a lot of things dying, we would need some things to eat the dead. I could see some adaptions were needed, and changes in diet perhaps?
Now, remember, it was the devil who led man to sin, because he hates us, and would like to see us all dead if he could. Why? I don't know. He has been busy stirring up wars, and hatred, to kill as many as possible since then. Also, any other thing he could do, like disease, abortion, introducing lifestyles that result in no children, abortion, etc. This is how the fall of man is linked to all these things.
2) From the getgo, in the garden we were promised a savior one day, to save us from our mess. This was the plan, and what the world is all about to this day, as He came, and is coming in glory to rule forever soon.
3) He changes not, in those ways, He is Love. It is we who are way out on our own, in a temporary universe that will pass away 'soon', as the new heavens are revealed.

 

[philadiddle]

Exactly! God has a predicament. How does a God who is just and loving, pour his love on someone who is unjust?

Salvation through grace. God is merciful, the unjust only need to ask forgiveness. That seems more then fair to me.

 

[z3ro]

That aside, if we look at the scripture it says that if Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they would die. (start to die, not croak on the spot)-which they did. This is where death entered the world.

You're wrong; you're own holy book contradicts you. After a&e ate the fruit, god was relieved that he didn't eat from the tree of life, and become immortal like them. If they weren't immortal, that means they were mortal. So death already existed.

Oh, and a&e ate fruit from the garden, which means they needed to eat. How did they digest nutrients if the fruit didn't die?

 

[philadiddle]

You're wrong; you're own holy book contradicts you.

why do ppl who don't believe in the Bible accept the literal point of view? is it cause that makes it easy to cut it down? A-L-L-E-G-O-R-Y. I applaud the high levels of scientific knowledge on this forum, but i'm constantly disapointed by some ppls understanding of interpretation. Try to make your point believing that the first 6 chapters in Genesis are allegory.

 

[Calminian]

Many Christians believe in that because they have accepted the fundamentalist view of YEC, and a literal interpretation of Genesis. Your problem seems to be that you think this is what Christianity is all about, but it's not.

The fall of the first Adam is the logical foundation to the need for the second Adam. Of course there are many professing christians that believe the second Adam is allegory also.

Dr. Reihmer of Canadian Bible College in Calgary, AB. was my brothers Old Testiment prof. He has a PhD in theology and majored in Hebrew. His well educated interpretation (as well as many other educated theologens) is that the first 6 chapters of Genesis are all allegory.

He's just one of many compromising theologians of our day. The problem is any atheist can read the text and see it was not meant to be allegory. His conclusions are not based on exegesis but on modern naturalistic theories.

I think profs. like this mean well but actually hurt the gospel inadvertently.

When it says that God made the birds in the air and the fish in the sea etc, it's true, just not literal. Evolution seems to be how he did it. The problem with your post thus far is that you're trying to attack Christianity, but you're really just attacking bad theology. So why do so many christians believe YEC? Because of ppl like Hovind who've made it their mission to convert everyone to their POV. But that's not what Christianity is all about.

He's actually not attacking your position. He's attacking the straight forward reading of the text that even liberal hebrew scholars believe was the author's intent. Whether he's moved by your interpretation to believe God is a different story. I'll let him speak for himself.

As someone who doesn't take everything in the Bible literally,

This issue is basic hermeneutics, not literalism. No YECs takes everything in scripture literally. None of them believe Jesus is a loaf o bread. They let the context determine it for them. You are letting naturalistic theories determine it for you. What are the allegorical genealogies supposed to teach us. That Moses, King David and Jesus are also allegory? All of these are linked to Adam.

there are MANY christians who DON'T claim all deficiencies are due to the fall.

Which really puts you in a tougher predicament. Why did God design (through evolution) certain animals to cause suffering and death? If not in response to sin, then what? Looking forward to hearing your case.

 

[Calminian]

why do ppl who don't believe in the Bible accept the literal point of view?

Because they don't have a motive to read anything else into it. Christians who believe in a non-narrative/historical genesis do so because they mistakenly believe science falsifies it. Since they want the Bible to be true, they compromise in their interpretive approach. Unbelieving scholars have no such motive. They are actually more objective. Not totally objective, but more.

A-L-L-E-G-O-R-Y. I applaud the high levels of scientific knowledge on this forum, but i'm constantly disapointed by some ppls understanding of interpretation. Try to make your point believing that the first 6 chapters in Genesis are allegory.

Here's the problem with the allegory argument. If one can simply pass off as allegory all the portions in scripture they think have been falsified, then all other religious people can do the same with their religious books. Every time an ostensible contradiction pops up they just cry allegory and prove their book is divine. I don't think the Bible needs that kind of defense.

 

[dad]

You're wrong; you're own holy book contradicts you. After a&e ate the fruit, god was relieved that he didn't eat from the tree of life, and become immortal like them. If they weren't immortal, that means they were mortal. So death already existed.

'All the trees of the garden may you eat' they were told, except the death one. Can you show me where they never ate that tree of life?

Oh, and a&e ate fruit from the garden, which means they needed to eat. How did they digest nutrients if the fruit didn't die?

Does fruit die in heaven? There's lots there. I don't know, from my present only experience that seems hard to swallow. But look at the trees in the garden. The tree was still alive, and the fruit was designed to be eaten.

 

[Nemoralis]

That He is holy, just, and loving.

No, he's not. At least not by his own admission.

Isaiah 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Anyway, Adam and Eve didn't sin when they ate from the tree. You can't sin unless you know what's wrong and what's right, but they didn't know the difference between right and wrong until they ate the from the Tree. They didn't know that disobeying God's word was wrong, therefore 1) God's punishment was unjust or 2) the Bible is an allegory that does contain errors because it was written by men.

 

[dad]

No, he's not. At least not by his own admission.

Isaiah 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

From the same chapter " 21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

Just because He made darkness, or evil for some reason, doesn't mean He is evil in any way.
1Jo 1:5 - This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. Ps 116:5 - Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; yea, our God is merciful.

Anyway, Adam and Eve didn't sin when they ate from the tree.

If there was no sin yet, I guess not, but listened to the voice of the serpent instead of God, and disobeyed. They were told what would happen, and not to do it.

You can't sin unless you know what's wrong and what's right, but they didn't know the difference between right and wrong until they ate the from the Tree. They didn't know that disobeying God's word was wrong, therefore 1) God's punishment was unjust or 2) the Bible is an allegory that does contain errors because it was written by men.

Wrong, they were disobedient to God and He had to let them go to the school of hard knocks.

 

[dad]

No, he's not. At least not by his own admission.

Isaiah 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

From the same chapter " 21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

Just because He made darkness, or evil for some reason, doesn't mean He is evil in any way.
1Jo 1:5 - This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. Ps 116:5 - Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; yea, our God is merciful.

Anyway, Adam and Eve didn't sin when they ate from the tree.

If there was no sin yet, I guess not, but listened to the voice of the serpent instead of God, and disobeyed. They were told what would happen, and not to do it.

You can't sin unless you know what's wrong and what's right, but they didn't know the difference between right and wrong until they ate the from the Tree. They didn't know that disobeying God's word was wrong, therefore 1) God's punishment was unjust or 2) the Bible is an allegory that does contain errors because it was written by men.

Wrong, they were disobedient to God and He had to let them go to the school of hard knocks.

 

[awstar]

Anyway, Adam and Eve didn't sin when they ate from the tree. You can't sin unless you know what's wrong and what's right, but they didn't know the difference between right and wrong until they ate the from the Tree. They didn't know that disobeying God's word was wrong, therefore 1) God's punishment was unjust or 2) the Bible is an allegory that does contain errors because it was written by men.

If you step off a twenty story building do you experience the consequence of the law of gravity whether you know about gravity or not? Is gravity unjust for letting the consequences happen, just because you didn't know about them? Or is it faithful to its nature?

 

[Freodin]

Somehow I don´t think that "the Fall" is well-though out as an explanation - neither as allegory nor as literal truth.

I as well would consider that the authors of Genesis meant this as a literal explanation - an explanation for an observation.

People die. Death is seen as something bad. Why do bad things happen? - Because God punished us for being bad! Case closed.

Well, this IS a valid explanation - but it loses out as soon as the some other observations are included, some of them not availiable to the authors of Genesis.

Not only humans die - all animals do. Why? Why has God punished them for something they had nothing to do with? Is that the act of a loving God? Would not the punishment - death for human - be much more effective if seen in contrast with the unpunished rest of the world?
Well, perhaps there was a necessary connection: death for humans means death for animals as well. I cannot imagine such a connection, but I am open for suggestions.

But there is another level: not only humans and animals die - all other things "die" as well, up to the scale of stars and galaxies. Now why would a loving God change that?
Why would have change the laws of physics so that far away stars expend their energy, collapse and explode - something that humans would never notice?

Why punish "all of creation" when the only part that needed to be punished were (two) humans?

 

[awstar]

Salvation through grace. God is merciful, the unjust only need to ask forgiveness. That seems more then fair to me.

Actually there's more to it than this. God the Father, -- being just -- requires his sentence to be paid. Being a merciful God, God the Son gets down from His thrown and pays the price Himself, taking the wrath of God the Father upon Himself on the cross. Thus, a just God the Father can now forgive because God the Son absorbed the cost Himself. What's fair about it? Justice is served -- but it's definitely not fair. We who are unjust are declared justified at the expense of the one who truly is just but took our sin as if it were His.

 

[dad]

Not only humans die - all animals do. Why? Why has God punished them for something they had nothing to do with?

Good question. The same thing happened at the flood, animals needed to go as well, except for the ones on the ark.

Is that the act of a loving God? Would not the punishment - death for human - be much more effective if seen in contrast with the unpunished rest of the world?

Not if we were the name of the game here, on earth.

Well, perhaps there was a necessary connection: death for humans means death for animals as well. I cannot imagine such a connection, but I am open for suggestions.

Like the stars, they were created for us? I don't know.

But there is another level: not only humans and animals die - all other things "die" as well, up to the scale of stars and galaxies. Now why would a loving God change that?
Why would have change the laws of physics so that far away stars expend their energy, collapse and explode - something that humans would never notice?

Well, we don't know that happened at the fall. But the good news is that it won't be that way all that long, we can expect a new universe without the death.

Why punish "all of creation" when the only part that needed to be punished were (two) humans?

If He needed to seperate us from the spiritual for some reason for awhile, that would explain it. The split left the universe physical only.

 

[Nemoralis]

Just because He made darkness, or evil for some reason, doesn't mean He is evil in any way.

Whatever you say, buddy.

If there was no sin yet, I guess not, but listened to the voice of the serpent instead of God, and disobeyed. They were told what would happen, and not to do it.

They were told not to eat the fruit - true - but they had no way of knowing that disobeying was wrong, because they didn't know right from wrong until after they had eaten the fruit.

The entirety of Genesis is based on the presumption that Adam and Eve knew that disobeying was wrong. But they didn't.

If you step off a twenty story building do you experience the consequence of the law of gravity whether you know about gravity or not? Is gravity unjust for letting the consequences happen, just because you didn't know about them? Or is it faithful to its nature?

Your analogy is bogus because gravity is not portayed by it's followers [sic] as a loving, benevolent creater. Gravity is a force - it doesn't have a choice to change its nature when ignorant people are unaware of its effects.

 

[dad]

They were told not to eat the fruit - true - but they had no way of knowing that disobeying was wrong, because they didn't know right from wrong until after they had eaten the fruit.

They had a way of talking to God, as He walked in the garden, and talked to them. They had a way to know they were told not to eat it, and that they would surely die if they did. But they listened to the devil who said God was lying instead. 'Oh, you won't really die, God was fibbing you, eat and see' and 'there, see, you aren't dead....yet, hahahahaha'

The entirety of Genesis is based on the presumption that Adam and Eve knew that disobeying was wrong. But they didn't.

They never really knew evil, but they knew right and wrong I'd say. Going against God was just not right.

 

[Nemoralis]

They had a way of talking to God, as He walked in the garden, and talked to them.

Right...and he never explained to them the difference between right and wrong, good and evil.

They had a way to know they were told not to eat it, and that they would surely die if they did.

This is true. They were told not to eat it.

But they listened to the devil who said God was lying instead.

How were they to know it was wrong to trust the devil? They still didn't know the difference between right and wrong or good and evil until after they ate the fruit. They didn't know that listening to the snake was wrong.

They never really knew evil, but they knew right and wrong I'd say. Going against God was just not right.

You, who accuse more liberal Christians of interpreting the Bible too loosely, are trying to make assumptions about the meaning of God's word? How odd. And "just not right" is not an answer.

Like I've already said, they had no way of knowing that going against God was "just not right" until after they had eaten the fruit.

 

[nvxplorer]

But they listened to the devil...

Nowhere in the OT is the serpent said to be the devil. In fact, the word devil appears in only four passages in the OT, it is used in plural form, and each passage deals with sacrifice.