Ponder This

[norswede]

Has anyone considered the possibility that the years Adam was recorded to have lived could have started after the fall of man when he became mortal and his days became numbered? Adam and Eve could have lived for thousands or even millions of years as immortal beings in the garden of Eden before the fall.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Has anyone considered the possibility that the years Adam was recorded to have lived could have started after the fall of man when he became mortal and his days became numbered? Adam and Eve could have lived for thousands or even millions of years as immortal beings in the garden of Eden before the fall.

YECs will tell you that doesn't fit with the creation week. Theistic evolutionists will tell you it's physically impossible. Some types of OECs might accept it though.

 

[Greg1234]

Has anyone considered the possibility that the years Adam was recorded to have lived could have started after the fall of man when he became mortal and his days became numbered? Adam and Eve could have lived for thousands or even millions of years as immortal beings in the garden of Eden before the fall.

Interesting...

 

[RND]

Has anyone considered the possibility that the years Adam was recorded to have lived could have started after the fall of man when he became mortal and his days became numbered? Adam and Eve could have lived for thousands or even millions of years as immortal beings in the garden of Eden before the fall.

Oh, sure that's certainly something to ponder. It doesn't seem to fit in the sense that all lengths of years are recorded from the date one is born til the day they died.

The Bible tells us that Adam "lived" 930 years. Why would the narrative say this when your premiss is that these years were actualy part of a death sentence for Adam?

 

[Jig]

Has anyone considered the possibility that the years Adam was recorded to have lived could have started after the fall of man when he became mortal and his days became numbered? Adam and Eve could have lived for thousands or even millions of years as immortal beings in the garden of Eden before the fall.

The only reason to even ponder this idea is because you want to accommodate and make compatible Darwinianism and a literal reading of Genesis.

However, this idea is ridiculous. Keeping with a literal reading one must also accept that there was no death before the Fall. Darwinianism tells us that there was A LOT of death throughout the last several hundred million years.

 

[Assyrian]

The only reason to even ponder this idea is because you want to accommodate and make compatible Darwinianism and a literal reading of Genesis.

However, this idea is ridiculous. Keeping with a literal reading one must also accept that there was no death before the Fall. Darwinianism tells us that there was A LOT of death throughout the last several hundred million years.

Where does a literal reading say no plants or animals died before the fall?

 

[FredInChrist]

Where does a literal reading say no plants or animals died before the fall?

Exactly! How can God threaten Adam with death if Adam has never seen it? The only way Adam could relate to death is from seeing it around him, such as plants and animals dying. Also, how could Adam name animals that have names which refer to violence if these animals never killed before? Clearly, Adam saw these animals eat and thus named them appropriately.

I'd love to see that piece of scripture you are talking about.

In Him, Fred

 

[Jig]

Exactly! How can God threaten Adam with death if Adam has never seen it? The only way Adam could relate to death is from seeing it around him, such as plants and animals dying.

That would not be necessary. Adam was created with innate knowledge. No experience or learning necessary. Who taught Adam how to speak? Who taught Adam how to walk?

Also, how could Adam name animals that have names which refer to violence if these animals never killed before? Clearly, Adam saw these animals eat and thus named them appropriately.

We know what Adam named these animals?? Surely their names have changed since then. We don't even know what language Adam spoke.

 

[Assyrian]

That would not be necessary. Adam was created with innate knowledge. No experience or learning necessary. Who taught Adam how to speak? Who taught Adam how to walk?

God? The text says nothing about Adam being created with innate knowledge, even if he was why would he be created with innate knowledge of that which didn't exist? If Adam was created with innate knowledge why did God have to tell him not to eat of the tree of knowledge? You are saying he did not have innate knowledge of God's command but he did have innate knowledge of the consequence of breaking it? That makes no sense.

We know what Adam named these animals?? Surely their names have changed since then. We don't even know what language Adam spoke.

Aren't the names we have been given in Genesis Hebrew? Adam is Hebrew for man. Adam first calls his wife woman ishshah because was taken from man iysh. That is using Hebrew etymology to give her her name. Later he called her Eve which comes from the Hebrew for life because she was mother of all living. We are told Gen 1:5 God called the light Day yom, and the darkness he called Night layil and that God called the firmament heaven shamayim. You miss it in your English bible because the names God calls them are translated into English, but the original text say these Hebrew words were what God actually called them all.

 

[Jig]

God? The text says nothing about Adam being created with innate knowledge, even if he was why would he be created with innate knowledge of that which didn't exist? If Adam was created with innate knowledge why did God have to tell him not to eat of the tree of knowledge? You are saying he did not have innate knowledge of God's command but he did have innate knowledge of the consequence of breaking it? That makes no sense.

Death may not have existed yet, but obviously it was possible and a real concept to envision and understand. Did Adam have to learn the language he spoke? This is the type of knowledge that I am talking about. Adam was created with innate knowledge that would have been essential to know. Why would God speak of death to someone who didn't understand death? This knowledge was divinity provided, it was not learned by observation.

Aren't the names we have been given in Genesis Hebrew? Adam is Hebrew for man. Adam first calls his wife woman ishshah because was taken from man iysh. That is using Hebrew etymology to give her her name. Later he called her Eve which comes from the Hebrew for life because she was mother of all living. We are told Gen 1:5 God called the light Day yom, and the darkness he called Night layil and that God called the firmament heaven shamayim. You miss it in your English bible because the names God calls them are translated into English, but the original text say these Hebrew words were what God actually called them all.

Adam did not speak in Hebrew. This is all translation. Remember Babel?

 

[juvenissun]

Exactly! How can God threaten Adam with death if Adam has never seen it? The only way Adam could relate to death is from seeing it around him, such as plants and animals dying. Also, how could Adam name animals that have names which refer to violence if these animals never killed before? Clearly, Adam saw these animals eat and thus named them appropriately.

This reminded me the nature of "lie" told by Satan.

God says to Adam: if you eat the fruit, you will "die".
Satan said to A&E: if you eat the fruit, you may not "die".

So, they ate the fruit. Did they "die"?

Both God and satan said the truth. But this one word "die" has two meanings. I would say that what satan said referred to the decease of animals, which Adam can easily understand. If so, satan was certainly telling them the truth. They ate the fruit, and they did not die, like an animal.

But I don't think Adam and Eve really understand what does God says to them. They do not understand the meaning of death told by God. Since there were created, God is always around with them. They never know a situation, in which they will never see God again.

If satan can only tell lies which is easy to be discovered (before or after the acknowledgement/action/experience), then satan must have bankrupted long time ago. The lies satan tells ARE true to a certain degree, or in a certain sense.

... such as the evolution.

 

[Assyrian]

Death may not have existed yet, but obviously it was possible and a real concept to envision and understand. Did Adam have to learn the language he spoke? This is the type of knowledge that I am talking about. Adam was created with innate knowledge that would have been essential to know. Why would God speak of death to someone who didn't understand death? This knowledge was divinity provided, it was not learned by observation.

How would death even be conceivable in a perfect world where everyone was immortal? The bible doesn't say how Adam learned to speak, personally I have no problem with Adam being a parable and language evolving, but if you are going to take it literally, don't assume the stuff you make up to fill the gaps has to be the way it was. What make you think God didn't teach Adam to speak? How did Adam learn the names of the animals? Innate knowledge? or did God encourage Adam to develop his own vocabulary, and do it by bringing the animals to Adam to study and then give names to? Where is the innate understanding there? Yet Adam knew what God meant by death when he warned him not to eat of the tree. God didn't have to explain it to him. Makes much more sense if Adam knew what death was because he had seen animals die. You have to propose this 'innate understanding' concept with absolutely no scriptural basis, to support an equally baseless claim there was no death before the fall.

Adam did not speak in Hebrew. This is all translation. Remember Babel?

If it is a translation then Adam's name wasn't 'Adam' and Eve's wasn't 'Eve'. But Adam is what the bible says God called their name and Eve was what Adam called his wife. Nice Hebrew words. And of course the etymologies don't work if it wasn't originally Hebrew. The story of Babel doesn't say the original language wasn't kept by one group, the confusion was because no other group still understood it.

 

[Assyrian]

This reminded me the nature of "lie" told by Satan.

God says to Adam: if you eat the fruit, you will "die".
Satan said to A&E: if you eat the fruit, you may not "die".

So, they ate the fruit. Did they "die"?

Both God and satan said the truth. But this one word "die" has two meanings. I would say that what satan said referred to the decease of animals, which Adam can easily understand. If so, satan was certainly telling them the truth. They ate the fruit, and they did not die, like an animal.

But I don't think Adam and Eve really understand what does God says to them. They do not understand the meaning of death told by God. Since there were created, God is always around with them. They never know a situation, in which they will never see God again.

Really good point. Interestingly God was using the physical death they saw and understood around them, as a metaphor for spiritual death, being cut off from God, while Satan used literalism to deceive them.

If satan can only tell lies which is easy to be discovered (before or after the acknowledgement/action/experience), then satan must have bankrupted long time ago. The lies satan tells ARE true to a certain degree, or in a certain sense.

... such as the evolution.

I don't know, if you have Christians convinced that because the evidence supports evolution, it must be a lie, wouldn't that be the ultimate con?

 

[juvenissun]

Really good point. Interestingly God was using the physical death they saw and understood around them, as a metaphor for spiritual death, being cut off from God, while Satan used literalism to deceive them.

Really a good (smart) argument. I am speechless on this one.

Except that the then metaphor (The Scripture) eventually becomes literal later (today).

 

[Assyrian]

What makes you think metaphors are meant to become literal? Jesus said he was the true vine, will this beautiful metaphor ever become literal and we all grow leaves?

 

[Jig]

How would death even be conceivable in a perfect world where everyone was immortal?

Remember, I stated this was divinely given innate knowledge. The only real question to ask is: Was God able to conceive of the idea of death before the Fall even though he was perfect? Of course. It can exist as an idea and be understood without experience. When I was younger my parents would tell me not to do something because I would hurt myself in some way. I didn't have to experience myself or observe someone else doing it to understand.

Now what about Satan. Did he know about death before his fall? Satan confused the true definition on purpose and replaced it with another definition. Eve knew the true definition, but was tricked into thinking her definition was somehow faulty.

The bible doesn't say how Adam learned to speak, personally I have no problem with Adam being a parable and language evolving, but if you are going to take it literally, don't assume the stuff you make up to fill the gaps has to be the way it was.

Adam was a real historical figure. The Bible calls him the first man. The genealogies end at him. He is never mentioned to have a father or mother. The Bible speaks of him being created fully without going through childhood.

If you take this account literally, then it is implied that he was created with certain essential pieces of innate knowledge. We see Adam immediately conversing with a known language he had no time to learn.

If it is a translation then Adam's name wasn't 'Adam' and Eve's wasn't 'Eve'. But Adam is what the bible says God called their name and Eve was what Adam called his wife. Nice Hebrew words.

I find this funny that you are saying this in English. Genesis does not say his name is "Adam", it says his name is אָדָם.

And of course the etymologies don't work if it wasn't originally Hebrew.

This is not true. Etymologies can't determine origins on their own, only historical developments in the language from a known starting point - which it will call the origin until something older pops up.

The story of Babel doesn't say the original language wasn't kept by one group, the confusion was because no other group still understood it.

Even if you believe that this original language stayed intact, you'd also have to believe that it didn't evolve from the moment Adam used it to the moment the first chapter of Genesis was penned.

 

[Assyrian]

Remember, I stated this was divinely given innate knowledge. The only real question to ask is: Was God able to conceive of the idea of death before the Fall even though he was perfect? Of course. It can exist as an idea and be understood without experience. When I was younger my parents would tell me not to do something because I would hurt myself in some way. I didn't have to experience myself or observe someone else doing it to understand.

It is not a question of whether God who knows the end from the beginning could understand death, but whether it was a meaningful concept to an immortal human being in a perfect immortal world with no experience of pain or death. Even OT prophets, we are told, did not understand what they were prophesying about. How would Adam have understood what death meant? You knew what 'hurt' meant even if you did not know how those actions would lead to pain. Claiming it is 'divinely given innate knowledge' is just making wild ideas up to fill the holes in your interpretation.

Now what about Satan. Did he know about death before his fall? Satan confused the true definition on purpose and replaced it with another definition. Eve knew the true definition, but was tricked into thinking her definition was somehow faulty.

So you think God gave Satan this innate knowledge too?

Adam was a real historical figure. The Bible calls him the first man. The genealogies end at him. He is never mentioned to have a father or mother. The Bible speaks of him being created fully without going through childhood.

Where does it say he didn't have a childhood? Are you sure you are not just assuming that? There are a lot of people in the bible with no mention of a childhood or father and mother, including Melchizedek. Of course very few characters in parables have fathers and mothers, apart from the prodigal son. It is not much help saying the bible calls Adam the first man when the same passage calls Jesus the second man.

If you take this account literally, then it is implied that he was created with certain essential pieces of innate knowledge. We see Adam immediately conversing with a known language he had no time to learn.

Even if you take the account literally, there is no suggestion how long God spent raising Adam. God certainly spent time child rearing with his other metaphors

Deut 32:10 "He found him in a desert land, and in the howling waste of the wilderness; he encircled him, he cared for him, he kept him as the apple of his eye.
11 Like an eagle that stirs up its nest, that flutters over its young, spreading out its wings, catching them, bearing them on its pinions,
12 the LORD alone guided him, no foreign god was with him.
13 He made him ride on the high places of the land, and he ate the produce of the field, and he suckled him with honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock.
14 Curds from the herd, and milk from the flock, with fat of lambs, rams of Bashan and goats, with the very finest of the wheat-- and you drank foaming wine made from the blood of the grape.
15 "But Jeshurun grew fat, and kicked; you grew fat, stout, and sleek; then he forsook God who made him and scoffed at the Rock of his salvation.

Ezek 16:3 and say, Thus says the Lord GOD to Jerusalem: Your origin and your birth are of the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite.
4 And as for your birth, on the day you were born your cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water to cleanse you, nor rubbed with salt, nor wrapped in swaddling cloths.
5 No eye pitied you, to do any of these things to you out of compassion for you, but you were cast out on the open field, for you were abhorred, on the day that you were born.
6 "And when I passed by you and saw you wallowing in your blood, I said to you in your blood, 'Live!' I said to you in your blood, 'Live!'
7 I made you flourish like a plant of the field. And you grew up and became tall and arrived at full adornment.

I find this funny that you are saying this in English. Genesis does not say his name is "Adam", it says his name is אָדָם.

Pronounced how? The bible says God called him name Adam, not that he spelled his name אָ דָ ם

This is not true. Etymologies can't determine origins on their own, only historical developments in the language from a known starting point - which it will call the origin until something older pops up.

I am not talking about scholars working out the meaning of a name from it etymology. These are etymologies given in the bible as the reason for the names Adam gave his wife.

Even if you believe that this original language stayed intact, you'd also have to believe that it didn't evolve from the moment Adam used it to the moment the first chapter of Genesis was penned.

All the more reason to think the etymologies are part of a parable and the names and their reasons date to when Genesis was written. But if you want to take Genesis literally, then Adam gave the animals the names the Hebrew readers would have known and understood.

 

[Jase]

Death may not have existed yet, but obviously it was possible and a real concept to envision and understand. Did Adam have to learn the language he spoke? This is the type of knowledge that I am talking about. Adam was created with innate knowledge that would have been essential to know. Why would God speak of death to someone who didn't understand death? This knowledge was divinity provided, it was not learned by observation.

What then was the purpose of the Tree of Life, if there was no such thing as death? Who needs a lifegiving tree when you live forever? Seems awfully redundant.

 

[Jig]

How would Adam have understood what death meant?

We both believe Adam knew what the term "death" meant. It would make no logical sense for God to tell Adam he would experience death if he ate a piece of fruit, if he didn't know what death was.

Our difference comes from "where" this knowledge came from. We are both bias with our conclusions because of our current theological position on origins. It's no surprise you disagree with me. You have no other choice if you want to remain faithful to your position.

I have answered this question already. I believe God created Adam whole and complete as a ready able bodied adult. I believe this because my hermeneutic of the first two chapters of Genesis implies this. If this is true, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that Adam must also be mature in other ways too, including in his understanding and knowledge base - it would make good sense. I have stated above Adam was able to understand what "death" was (even though he never observed it) because God supernaturally granted Adam this knowledge to him.

Can God not do such a thing?

Claiming it is 'divinely given innate knowledge' is just making wild ideas up to fill the holes in your interpretation.

Wild ideas? Not really. Given my interpretation of the text is is a very reasonable assumption.

If you applied the same hermeneutic to Genesis 1 and 2 that I do, would you have suggested the text implied something different? My conclusion is rational considering my theological position. I can not help that it directly clashes with your philosophy.

Where does it say he didn't have a childhood?

I know you want to disagree with this but if you read the text literally in Genesis it is not possible to interpret the text as saying he had a childhood. This is especially true for Eve. The text literally says she came from Adam's side and was formed while Adam was sleeping. This could not have been longer than 8 hours, if that!

Pronounced how? The bible says God called him name Adam, not that he spelled his name אָ דָ ם

Did Jesus speak Greek? When an author writes a historical narrative down he typically does so in his own language and translates dialogue into his language as well - this is for his benefit and his audiences. This is what Moses did with the first two chapters of Genesis. God really did name the first man a name that meant "man" (in whatever language God provided to be the first language) and this man actually did name his created wife "mother of all" in this language as well. There is no way to prove what this language was. I just find it a bit illogical to suggest it was the same Hebrew that Moses penned the Pentateuch with.

All the more reason to think the etymologies are part of a parable and the names and their reasons date to when Genesis was written. But if you want to take Genesis literally, then Adam gave the animals the names the Hebrew readers would have known and understood.

 

[Jig]

What then was the purpose of the Tree of Life, if there was no such thing as death? Who needs a lifegiving tree when you live forever? Seems awfully redundant.

This question is off topic but here is a excerpt for your entertainment anyway:

The Genesis narrative suggests that God intended the tree of life to provide Adam and Eve with a sacramental symbol of life in fellowship with and dependence on him. Man’s life, as distinguished from that of the animals, was much more than merely biological; it was also spiritual and found its deepest significance in fellowship with God. Life in the fullness of its physical and spiritual dimensions, however, could remain man’s possession only so long as he remained obedient to God’s command (Gn 2:17). It would seem unlikely that there was ever any intrinsic life-giving efficacy in the chemical properties of the fruit of the tree of life, but God made the fruit life-giving so far as he had sealed his grace to man in the use of it. When by disobedience man lost that which the tree of life signified, he also lost access to the symbol itself.

Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1988), 2105.

It seems that death is not necessary for there to be a tree of life - you have misunderstood its original purpose. But I'm sure your theological and philosophical beliefs will inspire you to disagree with me here.