Let's talk about man

[PeacefulSDA]

More importantly, if man had no immune system before the fall why would God suddenly create one for him?

Coming in late to the game as I have, my response may already have been made by another. I don't doubt that man was created with an immune system in place. Before they chose to follow the serpent, they may not have needed one but even that we do not have scripture to know. What we do have is that there were two trees in the middle of the garden; the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. They were only told not to touch the one.

After they ate of the forbidden tree, Genisis 3:22 says:

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."

So Adam and Eve were put out of the garden.

Certainly not a conclusive answer to your OP, but might shed a bit of light in that direction.

 

[mva1985]

What are you talking about? Simplicity or repetition?

Both.

 

[sentipente]

Both.

And how do they help us address the issue at hand?

 

[mva1985]

I think I would agree with some other posters in this thread that we can never know while on this earth if man had an immune system prior to the Garden or not.

And in the grand scheme of Salvation I don't see how it really matters. If someone would point out why that it does I would be glad to read the answer.

 

[sentipente]

Coming in late to the game as I have, my response may already have been made by another. I don't doubt that man was created with an immune system in place. Before they chose to follow the serpent, they may not have needed one but even that we do not have scripture to know. .

Why would the Creator of the Universe give them something they did not need? Come now, let's reason together.

 

[sentipente]

I think I would agree with some other posters in this thread that we can never know while on this earth if man had an immune system prior to the Garden or not.

And in the grand scheme of Salvation I don't see how it really matters. If someone would point out why that it does I would be glad to read the answer.

Consider that man was made in the image of God and that the hidden things of God are revealed in the things that He made. If you refuse to consider the things that He made what are you saying about how you feel about Him?

 

[PeacefulSDA]

Don't follow Bishop Ussher in that. No one knows how long man spent in paradise before the fall.

Plus, time is for human benefit alone. Our time is completely different than God's time. 2 Peter 3:8 says:

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

 

[PeacefulSDA]

Why would the Creator of the Universe give them something they did not need? Come now, let's reason together.

He didn't. If you believe that the Creator is the Alpha and the Omega, that He knows the beginning from the end, He would also know that man would need that immune system and the correct plumbing to deal with the effects of sin. After all, He created the solution for the sin problem in the beginning as well

Rev. 13:8:

All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.

 

[sentipente]

After all, He created the solution for the sin problem in the beginning as well

You have accepted a misinterpretation of that passage. Love is the solution for the sin problem. Love will always do whatever is necessary to protect the object of its affection. The moment I decided to have children I automatically was committed to doing whatever is necessary to protect them. That is all the text means. Too many have made it seem that God had this plan for when man would sin. The writer was simply stating in practical terms the extent of His love. God did not "prepare" for sin.

 

[JonMiller]

Consider that man was made in the image of God and that the hidden things of God are revealed in the things that He made. If you refuse to consider the things that He made what are you saying about how you feel about Him?

But what His creation displays now doesn't necessarily reflect the perfection of what His creation displayed at the beginning. So while, yes, we can look at His creation now... we can't look at His creation earlier, if there was some change made.

BTW, this issue of being able to extrapolate physical laws both in space and in time is one of the central beleifs of a scientist. It is just no longer valid at the location where God acted.

JM

 

[sentipente]

But what His creation displays now doesn't necessarily reflect the perfection of what His creation displayed at the beginning. So while, yes, we can look at His creation now... we can't look at His creation earlier, if there was some change made.

Why do you keep insisting that some change was made? This is disingenuous because you are the same one who will make claims about periods long ago. If changes have been made you can say nothing about the past. Again, your approach in this discussion is not scientific.

 

[mva1985]

This thread is about important as this question - Can God make a rock that He can not pick up?

The discussion of whether God created man with an immune system prior to the fall is pointless. You don't know. Reasoning together is not going to come up with an answer just a bunch of theories.

 

[sentipente]

The discussion of whether God created man with an immune system prior to the fall is pointless. You don't know. Reasoning together is not going to come up with an answer just a bunch of theories.

I guess it is also pointless to ask if God made man with a nose. Right?

 

[JonMiller]

Why do you keep insisting that some change was made? This is disingenuous because you are the same one who will make claims about periods long ago. If changes have been made you can say nothing about the past. Again, your approach in this discussion is not scientific.

If you take the Adam and Eve account as literal, some change was made... namely the act of creation. If you beleive that the Adam and Eve account is literal, you already beleive that the extrapolation into the past of physical laws is invalid.

I am being scientific, in that I recognise the basic beleifs that science is based upon, and their limitation.

I can say what the past would be like. without God acting. I can't say anything about what it would be like, with God acting. I have no particle or other experimental sign that will tell me when, if, or how He acted.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

I guess it is also pointless to ask if God made man with a nose. Right?

Bascially, yes.

JM

 

[sentipente]

Bascially, yes.

JM

So your best scientific position is that man looked nothing like he does today. He was completely made over to deal with sin. The sad thing is that you probably believe that but only because it provides a haven for you. From what I have no idea. But I get leery of those who are comfortable with empirical testing by claim to be overwhelmed by rational testing.

 

[mva1985]

I guess it is also pointless to ask if God made man with a nose. Right?

I will have to say that I don't appreciate it when relevant parts of my post are not quoted in replies.

It is taken out of context.

 

[sentipente]

If you take the Adam and Eve account as literal, some change was made... namely the act of creation. If you beleive that the Adam and Eve account is literal, you already beleive that the extrapolation into the past of physical laws is invalid.

How do you come to that conclusion Creation occurs all the time. Humans create things all the time. How does past creation invalidate extrapolatin into the past? Any why do you opt for literal over true?

 

[JonMiller]

So your best scientific position is that man looked nothing like he does today. He was completely made over to deal with sin. The sad thing is that you probably believe that but only because it provides a haven for you. From what I have no idea. But I get leery of those who are comfortable with empirical testing by claim to be overwhelmed by rational testing.

No. As I have already said, the scientific position is that Adam and Eve isn't literal, that no creation happened.

JM

 

[sentipente]

I will have to say that I don't appreciate it when relevant parts of my post are not quoted in replies.

It is taken out of context.

You said that it is pointless to consider whether man was made with one organ system. I simply asked the question of another organ system. There are several I could choose from. I did not decontextualize your comment.