Explain the Fall

[Edx]

Now, yes. But is it so in heaven? Perhaps the bacteria have new jobs there. Say, eating the leftovers, so there is no waste? I think it is hard to shake our concepts of how things now work, for a place where it is so very wonderfully different.

Again, then, why eat at all?

Not that it matters, Im talking to a guy that makes up these fairytales then believes them.

 

[Calminian]

In order to digest food, something needs to die. Whether or not thats cells or bacteria, it makes no difference.

Ed

You are confusing modern biological terms with biblical terms. Plants and other simple organisms are not “alive” in a biblical sense of nephesh chayyah (the living creature) as the animals and man are (see Genesis 1:21, 24 and 2:7, where these Hebrew words are used).

I would suggest this article: The Genesis Question, which addresses plant death. This is a common misconception unfortunately made popular by Hugh Ross.

Even the term death was used very differently by the hebrews than by us. It carried the meaning of separation. Physical death was separation between the body and soul. Spiritual death was the relational separation of man from God. In Genesis 2 the hebrew literally reads:

Gen. 2:17 and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it — dying thou dost die.’

This seems to address both the instant spiritual separation from God as well as the gradual physical death to come.

 

[Edx]

You are confusing modern biological terms with biblical terms. Plants and other simple organisms are not “alive” in a biblical sense of nephesh chayyah (the living creature) as the animals and man are (see Genesis 1:21, 24 and 2:7, where these Hebrew words are used).

So "death" means a spiritual death, not a literal one. Thank you.

Ed

 

[dad]

Again, then, why eat at all?

Not that it matters, Im talking to a guy that makes up these fairytales then believes them.

I don't know why you might think eating in heaven is a fairy tale. Jesus has a wedding feast for those who believe after He returns. He even talked about drinking wine with us, after He arose. The tree of life also, we know is in heaven.
To answer your question, I guess for pleasure. Maybe for parties, and socializing as well.

 

[Nemoralis]

This is getting back to what we were discussing earlier.

It wasn't the tree of right and wrong, but good and evil.

I get what you are saying here, I think. You are saying that Adam and Eve knew right and wrong but did not know about good and evil. To me, this doesn't make sense. This is what I said earlier about that:

How can you know right from wrong if you don't know good from evil? God is good, and he is right. The snake is evil, and he is wrong. They go hand in hand. God should have given them a complete understanding of it so that Eve would have been more prepared.

And...

How did they know to obey? Because God said they should obey. But how did they know that God was right? They didn't because they hadn't eaten of the tree and did not know good from evil. They couldn't distinguish between God's goodness and the snake's evilness.

And...

Without the knowledge that the snake was evil and God was good, Eve could not have made a proper choice.

I'd like you to address these specific points, if you don't mind. Post #50.
Nem

 

[Nemoralis]

Well, these things are deep, and I gess we don't really know. Heres my take, I could be wrong.
Some creatures were made with 'souls'. The creatures in the garden, maybe all of them, and I believe would have lived forever also. Some creatures, however I think were not made thus. As an example, lets say trilobites, not that we know this. One day, God took Adam and Eve, on His mobile throne on a tour of the world outside the garden, and they even saw earth from space, the first astronauts! (must admit, just threw that in, but why not?) Anyhow, He took them to see some of the nice busy cambrian creatures somewhere, busily working to prepare the new planet for our eventual spread out from Eden. Where they went, an old trilobite lived, and the visit was timed so that they would see the creature die. God wanted to really get them to understand the concept.
They never forgot that, and the many things He explained to them over the years, there in that perfect garden after that.
But we know the story, so God promised a savior, which did come long years later. He is about to return, and rule forever, where they will all live happily ever after!

Is there any Biblical support for this at all? Your stories are nice, but irrelevant unless your religion can back them up.

I know that the Bible could not have included every minor detail about Creation and Adam and Eve's life, or no one would read it, but these are huge questions. God should have been able to foresee some of later humanity's big questions about the Bible and included answers in the text, especially when regarding such a huge question as Creation. Don't you think God should have spent maybe a little more time on this than devoting large, pointless sections of the Bible to things like "Jason begat Bob, and Bob begat John, and John begat Mary, and Mary begat Sue..." ? It's a bit of a waste of text, don't you think?

 

[Edx]

I don't know why you might think eating in heaven is a fairy tale. Jesus has a wedding feast for those who believe after He returns. He even talked about drinking wine with us, after He arose. The tree of life also, we know is in heaven.
To answer your question, I guess for pleasure. Maybe for parties, and socializing as well.

Nevermind, I just pictured what you actually think heaven would be like.

 

[Calminian]

So "death" means a spiritual death, not a literal one. Thank you.

Death means separation. In Genesis 2-3 it refers to both spiritual and physical death. It can also mean several other things depending on the context.

 

[Nemoralis]

Death means separation. In Genesis 2-3 it refers to both spiritual and physical death. It can also mean several other things depending on the context.

So you do believe that there was no death, neither spiritual nor physical, before the Fall? And to you, death only refers to those organisms whose bodily fluids contain hemoglobin?

 

[Calminian]

So you do believe that there was no death, neither spiritual nor physical, before the Fall?

This is implicit in the record.

And to you, death only refers to those organisms whose bodily fluids contain hemoglobin?

Fluids that contain hemoglobin? Again I've noticed a tendency for critiques of the Bible to want apply modern nomenclature to the Bible.

Gen. 1:21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Gen. 1:24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.

Gen. 2:7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

These are passages where the hebrew word nephesh is used. Plants and other small organisms are not given this description. Obviously the writers did not feel plants die, nor are alive in the same sense as animals and people.

Of these, with nephesh life, the Bible says the life is in its blood, as the hebrews defined blood.

 

[dad]

I get what you are saying here, I think. You are saying that Adam and Eve knew right and wrong but did not know about good and evil. To me, this doesn't make sense. This is what I said earlier about that:

They knew good, and right and wrong. They got their evil emersion course from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

I'd like you to address these specific points, if you don't mind. Post #50.
Nem

from post 50
So he's not omnipotent. Besides, my first sentence in the piece you quoted stil stands.

Just because He stays good doesn't mean He isn't all powerful.

How can you know right from wrong if you don't know good from evil? God is good, and he is right. The snake is evil, and he is wrong. They go hand in hand. God should have given them a complete understanding of it so that Eve would have been more prepared.

I think He did. They knew what death was, and yet they listened to the devil. Of course, he lied, and said, you won't exactly really die. God just doesn't want you to have all this nice knowledge, like He has. They bit, hook line and sinker.

How did they know to obey? Because God said they should obey. But how did they know that God was right? They didn't because they hadn't eaten of the tree and did not know good from evil. They couldn't distinguish between God's goodness and the snake's evilness.

Well, I think God told em real good and clear. But if it is a demonstration for the universe, why, it all works our better than we know for more witnesses than we may ever dream, who may have saved themselves a hell of a time.

They go hand in hand. Besides, without the knowledge of good and evil they would have had no way to know that God was good (and should be obeyed) and the snake was evil.

They had one way, He was right there often walking and talking with them in the garden, their loving creator.

Yes, I see what you're getting at. But without the knowledge that the snake was evil and God was good, Eve could not have made a proper choice.

The snake was the test, they should have refused, avoided it like the plague, and not even been talking to the devil, or near that tree! They were already on their way there, and all the deveil had to do was reel em in, and close the deal.

But it kills all of the cells in the fruit as well as (possibly) the seed within the fruit, which is a new organism ready to germinate and grow. Do you believe that there was no death before the fall?

I believe that men and beasts, mostly, and maybe even plants in the garden were forever. In heaven, the trees are alive, but we still eat the fruits. I don't know that there it will be as here in this physical world, the way trees grow, and bacteria work, etc. But I have no doubt it will not hurt or destroy us or the tree if we eat our lucious fruits.

 

[Nemoralis]

Dad - you still haven't answered the question. You are repeating the same stuff over and over, but either you don't really understand what I'm saying or you've realized now that you don't have an answer.

They knew good, and right and wrong. They got their evil emersion course from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

How could they distinguish between Good and Evil when they had no knowledge of Evil? Really, they didn't even have a proper knowledge of Good either. They couldn't recognize God as Good and the snake as Evil because they had not yet eaten of the tree. This is my theory, and you have not refuted it.

I think He did. They knew what death was, and yet they listened to the devil.

They didn't really know what death was because they had never seen it (your odd story doesn't really apply, as it has no evidence). They listened to the Devil because his story sounded better. They can't be falted for listening to him because they didn't have the ability to distinguish betwee Good and Evil (yet).

Well, I think God told em real good and clear.

God told them not to eat of the tree because they would die, a concept that they couldn't fully understand. The snake told them that they would gain knowledge from the tree and not die. Which should they have believed? God, obviously, IF they had had the ability to know that God was good and the snake was evil. Unfortunately, they did not.

But if it is a demonstration for the universe, why, it all works our better than we know for more witnesses than we may ever dream, who may have saved themselves a hell of a time.

This sentence is nonsensical.

They had one way, He was right there often walking and talking with them in the garden, their loving creator.

Yes, but they could only have distinguished between Good and Evil if they had knowledge of both. They did not.

The snake was the test, they should have refused, avoided it like the plague, and not even been talking to the devil, or near that tree!

Who says? You are opperating under the assumption that Adam and Eve knew Evil. You can't truly know Good unless you know its opposite. They knew Good (God) but they didn't know Evil (snake). When they met the snake, they had not yet eaten of the tree, and they had no way of knowing that the snake was evil. It's as simple as that.

Nem

 

[Calminian]

How could they distinguish between Good and Evil when they had no knowledge of Evil? Really, they didn't even have a proper knowledge of Good either. They couldn't recognize God as Good and the snake as Evil because they had not yet eaten of the tree. This is my theory, and you have not refuted it.

Nemoralis, how can you say Adam had no knowledge of the wrongness of eating from the tree when the record clearly states God explained it to him? He did have the knowledge of this evil. That was the only knowledge he had in this area (as far as we know from the text). The fact that Adam hadn't eaten from the tree yet did not mean he was incapable of comprehending issues of right and wrong, upon them being revealed to him. It seems you are trying to impose your own ideas on the story and on the nature of Adam.

They didn't really know what death was because they had never seen it (your odd story doesn't really apply, as it has no evidence). They listened to the Devil because his story sounded better. They can't be falted for listening to him because they didn't have the ability to distinguish betwee Good and Evil (yet).

Bingo! You’re applying your own ideas to Adam’s condition instead of deriving them from the text. The key word in Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, is Knowledge. It's not the Tree of Understanding of Good and Evil (Oh man, I gotta patent that one! ). Or the Tree of Comprehension. Adam received knowledge of the wrongness of eating from the tree directly from God. Why would you believe this to be impossible? The rest on the subject he learned from eating the fruit.

God told them not to eat of the tree because they would die, a concept that they couldn't fully understand.

Why not? It amazes me when people say this. I myself could have explained this to Adam, even if he had never seen a horror picture. How much better could God have done?

The snake told them that they would gain knowledge from the tree and not die. Which should they have believed? God, obviously, IF they had had the ability to know that God was good and the snake was evil. Unfortunately, they did not.

Again you have an unbiblical view of Adam. Why would you believe Adam had not the ability to grasp what God was saying? Adam was unaware of various evils, but not stupid.

Yes, but they could only have distinguished between Good and Evil if they had knowledge of both. They did not.

Actually this sentence is nonsensical. Adam was unaware of many things, but that doesn’t mean he had not the ability to understand something revealed to him. He didn't lack understanding or comprehension or brain power, he lacked knowledge.

Who says? You are opperating under the assumption that Adam and Eve knew Evil. You can't truly know Good unless you know its opposite. They knew Good (God) but they didn't know Evil (snake). When they met the snake, they had not yet eaten of the tree, and they had no way of knowing that the snake was evil. It's as simple as that.

I’m afraid your thinking needs some work in this area. The wickedness of the snake is not the issue. God may or may not have explained to Adam the nature of snake. But we do know He explained the nature of the act of eating of the ToK. You don't’ seem to want to believe he had the ability to understand based on a false understanding of his unfallen nature.

 

[dad]

How could they distinguish between Good and Evil when they had no knowledge of Evil?

I didn't say that, I said right and wrong, not good and evil.

Really, they didn't even have a proper knowledge of Good either. They couldn't recognize God as Good and the snake as Evil because they had not yet eaten of the tree. This is my theory, and you have not refuted it.

The evil was Adam and Eve disobeying, which I think He made clear was not the right thing to do, and the concequences. The snake was a test. The devil only exists by permission of God, as he did in that garden. The evil wasn't the snake persay, but the path of disobedience and seperating ourselves from Him, and what He knew was for our beast, and His will. At least thats the way I see it.

They didn't really know what death was because they had never seen it (your odd story doesn't really apply, as it has no evidence).

It does. Look at today, we have His bible. He always gets through, and makes a way to get through to us. Why would it be different then? We know He walked in that garden, and talked with them. We who know Him know He is a cool Guy, and really doesn't leave us in the dark about these things. His pattern is clear. Now as for showing them death, why not? What better way to understand the concept? He is known to have space wheels, just look in Eze 1! His motis operendi is well known.

They listened to the Devil because his story sounded better. They can't be falted for listening to him because they didn't have the ability to distinguish betwee Good and Evil (yet).

This makes God out to be the villian of the story. 'Oh, that mean nasty robot operator didn't program the robots right.' Knowing Him fills in the gaps of the story. Whenever you have a doubt, if you want to know the key to understand it, about the bible, or God, apply this universal, immortal truth to it, and it likely will crack the case wide open, and that is....
"God IS Love" Whatever He does, He does in love, somehow, though we may not see it right away.

God told them not to eat of the tree because they would die, a concept that they couldn't fully understand.

I tried to explain, He did make them understand, and that is part of being a good, loving God.

The snake told them that they would gain knowledge from the tree and not die. Which should they have believed? God, obviously, IF they had had the ability to know that God was good and the snake was evil. Unfortunately, they did not.

Don't blame the snake, he was a test, and allowed by God. But there may be some truth to the idea that Adam and Eve were closer to God after the fall than before! They started to learn they needed Him, and had made a bad mistake. It will all work out for the good.

This sentence is nonsensical.

OK. I'll slow down, and use punctuation a bit. There are untold billions of witnesses to this great experiment. Watching how horrible it turned out for us here on earth may save many more beings than may ever live on earth, out there in God's universe, from the same fate. They may see that the path of going away from God and His will is clearly the wrong thing to do, and why. So, it isn't all in vain, this suffering. Even for man, we will forever remember the lessons of the first several thousand years of our existance, and rebellion.

Yes, but they could only have distinguished between Good and Evil if they had knowledge of both. They did not.

True, they just really knew the good, but also, some right and wrong.

Who says? You are opperating under the assumption that Adam and Eve knew Evil. You can't truly know Good unless you know its opposite. They knew Good (God) but they didn't know Evil (snake). When they met the snake, they had not yet eaten of the tree, and they had no way of knowing that the snake was evil. It's as simple as that.

It was not the snake or the tree they should have feared, but God. They should have obeyed, and knew they should. So God was 'good', and the evil was to go away from, or disobey that good, and listen to the devil, let alone obey his lies and believe them.
Bottom line, God must have let Adam and his wife know some right from wrong, and some idea of the concequences, death. Even the devil knew this, thats why he said, 'Oh, you won't surely die, not really...'

 

[awstar]

We still have "sin", so what did Jesus' death really do? Why did Jesus need to die before God will forgive? That doesnt make any sence, unless god needs things to die in order to forgive people. Oh wait, that is exactly what the Bible says.

If you steal $10 dollars from me and I forgive you, I absorb the cost of your sin. I don't demand the $10 dollars back. Adam takes a perfect life that belongs to God and screws it up. If God is to forgive us (children of Adam), someone has to absorb the cost of our sin. When Jesus died on the cross, Jesus gave His perfect life (which the Bible says is in the blood) to replace the life Adam screwed up (which was passed on to his offspring in the blood). That's why Jesus had to be born of a virgin, so He wouldn't inherit Adam's blood, so His shed blood would be perfect payment for Adam's sin. That's why evolution is so devious in its declaration that God did not create Adam. It suggests we have no need to confess we have inherited Adam's imperfect life and thereby have no need of a Redeemer Saviour.

 

[Dannager]

If you steal $10 dollars from me and I forgive you, I absorb the cost of your sin. I don't demand the $10 dollars back. Adam takes a perfect life that belongs to God and screws it up. If God is to forgive us (children of Adam), someone has to absorb the cost of our sin. When Jesus died on the cross, Jesus gave His perfect life (which the Bible says is in the blood) to replace the life Adam screwed up (which was passed on to his offspring in the blood). That's why Jesus had to be born of a virgin, so He wouldn't inherit Adam's blood, so His shed blood would be perfect payment for Adam's sin. That's why evolution is so devious in its declaration that God did not create Adam. It suggests we have no need to confess we have inherited Adam's imperfect life and thereby have no need of a Redeemer Saviour.

I'm sorry, I could've sworn you just attributed a human trait (namely, devious) to a scientific theory (the theory of evolution). Evolution is science. Science doesn't give a damn about morality. Science doesn't care what sins you need to confess. Science doesn't care about biblical Adam. Anything you think the theory of evolution declares beyond that change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next occurs is attributed to it solely by your uneducated assumptions.

 

[awstar]

I'm sorry, I could've sworn you just attributed a human trait (namely, devious) to a scientific theory (the theory of evolution). Evolution is science. Science doesn't give a damn about morality. Science doesn't care what sins you need to confess. Science doesn't care about biblical Adam. Anything you think the theory of evolution declares beyond that change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next occurs is attributed to it solely by your uneducated assumptions.

Who do suppose originally wrote those words which are coded into DNA and are expressed as human traits?

I know this question is outside the box for some scientists, but who would you guess it could be?

 

[Mystman]

That's why Jesus had to be born of a virgin, so He wouldn't inherit Adam's blood,

lol

So tell me, who were Mary's ancestors?

 

[FreezBee]

That's why Jesus had to be born of a virgin, so He wouldn't inherit Adam's blood, so His shed blood would be perfect payment for Adam's sin.

lol

So tell me, who were Mary's ancestors?

me too.

Anyway, awstar, it doesn't work ar all! Assume

1. Original sin requires a human father,
2. Eve wasn't a virgin,
3. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit within the womb of Eve

Tell me: where's the logical failure? Would the non-virginity of Eve have prevented the Holy Spirit from filling her or how is it to be understood?

BTW: I've read that the original sin was supposed to be transferred through the mail sperm, and that's why the impregnation by the Holy Spirit was needed. But that's just in conformance with the assumptions above. The virginity of Mary cannot enter the equation, imho. Please tell me, what I'm missing!

That's why evolution is so devious in its declaration that God did not create Adam. It suggests we have no need to confess we have inherited Adam's imperfect life and thereby have no need of a Redeemer Saviour.

Now, if God in the first round hadn't been so silly as to plant that Tree of Knowledge, then we wouldn't need a Redeemer Saviour. Please do put at least some of the blame on God!


cheers

- FreezBee

 

[Taralee]

me too.

Anyway, awstar, it doesn't work ar all! Assume

1. Original sin requires a human father,
2. Eve wasn't a virgin,
3. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit within the womb of Eve

Tell me: where's the logical failure? Would the non-virginity of Eve have prevented the Holy Spirit from filling her or how is it to be understood?

BTW: I've read that the original sin was supposed to be transferred through the mail sperm, and that's why the impregnation by the Holy Spirit was needed. But that's just in conformance with the assumptions above. The virginity of Mary cannot enter the equation, imho. Please tell me, what I'm missing!


Now, if God in the first round hadn't been so silly as to plant that Tree of Knowledge, then we wouldn't need a Redeemer Saviour. Please do put at least some of the blame on God!


cheers

- FreezBee

God did take the blame when he came in the form of a man and died for us. God made us and he himself took the blame for our sins..