Proof Genesis is not Literal in every sense...

[GenemZ]

Where does it say it was a spiritual death and not a physical death?

That very day, Adam was removed physically and spiritually from the presence of God. Both of these are a death of relationship, and both are ultimately fatal.

Well, I think Jesus tried to get that idea over to someone once....

Matthew 8:22 niv
"But Jesus told him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.”

Jesus must have known that some of us would finally figure out what he meant by that. Let the spiritually dead (unbeliever) bury their own dead (physicallly dead). Before we are saved we are considered to be dead by God.

Ephesians 2:4-6 nivhttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=2&verse=5&version=31&context=verse
"But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions–it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus."

We are born with a sin nature and spiritually dead. That is why we need to be "born again." Born a second time. Spiritual birth.

Colossians 2:13 niv
"When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins."

We are all born dead spiritually, for when Adam died after he ate, his newly aquired sin nature pushed out the spiritual life, like a gushing blood wound pushes out blood. He died spiritually. This wound was transferred to all of us, for the sin nature is a defect in the flesh that was transferred to all through the father of the human race, Adam.

Romans 5:12 niv
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned."

That is like saying, that Adam died spiritually because of sin. And, because he sinned he took on the fallen nature. And,the fallen nature causes us to sin. And, since we inherit the fallen nature from Adam, we all now are sinners. We are all now born spiritually dead.

John 3:6-7 niv
"Flesh gives birth to flesh (from Adam), but the Spirit (from God's gift) gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ "
Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[GodAtWorkToday]

I agree that it means spiritual death. I just think that it includes a physical death as well. If God had made that statement to you as a week old Christian, would you have interpreted Him to have been warning you of a physical death, a spriritual death, or a complete death that includes both.

Personally, I think the natural assumption would have been 1 or 3. Theologically, I think it is 3.

 

[Vance]

But see that is the difference between a week-old Christian and a mature Christian. There is simply no reason for it to be physical death at all, so why would we add it to the mix when spiritual works just fine?

As for you Adamic curse, I did not say that Jesus came to reverse all the negative consequences of our sin (and those items you listed are just that, or symbolic for just that) whether at the time of the Fall or now, but to redeem us specifically from the death suffered at the time of the Fall. Jesus came to give LIFE and life more abundantly. Even those who have accepted the redemptive gift of salvation and thus are no longer in spiritual death will still have to suffer the natural consequences of our sins and our sinful nature.

The issue of the law comes in like this: before Jesus' redemptive sacrifice the only way to overcome the spiritual separation from God (spiritual death) was to follow the law, including sacfices. Jesus became our full and complete sacrifice, thus providing permanent spiritual life to all those who will accept it. So, yes, Jesus redemptive sacrifice did away with the law, but in doing so overcame the spiritual death suffered at the Fall, rather than needing the law to do that.

 

[GodAtWorkToday]

But see that is the difference between a week-old Christian and a mature Christian. There is simply no reason for it to be physical death at all, so why would we add it to the mix when spiritual works just fine?

As for you Adamic curse, I did not say that Jesus came to reverse all the negative consequences of our sin (and those items you listed are just that, or symbolic for just that) whether at the time of the Fall or now, but to redeem us specifically from the death suffered at the time of the Fall. Jesus came to give LIFE and life more abundantly. Even those who have accepted the redemptive gift of salvation and thus are no longer in spiritual death will still have to suffer the natural consequences of our sins and our sinful nature.

The issue of the law comes in like this: before Jesus' redemptive sacrifice the only way to overcome the spiritual separation from God (spiritual death) was to follow the law, including sacfices. Jesus became our full and complete sacrifice, thus providing permanent spiritual life to all those who will accept it. So, yes, Jesus redemptive sacrifice did away with the law, but in doing so overcame the spiritual death suffered at the Fall, rather than needing the law to do that.

Accepted, with the exception that I still think that a physical death is at least alluded to, and this is the area that can be a stumbling block for the non-Christian or new Christian. God said he would die, and he didn't, so was God wrong? The text does not conclusively show that God clearly stated a spiritual death. Therefore we draw our conclusions from the context of the circumstances that followed.

The only problem with that, is "was it really fair for Adam to only find out what God really meant, after the event?". Therefore, I think it likely, that Adam knew exactly what God meant, and God's judgment upon Adam was therefore just.

So yes, spiritual death is theologically correct, but it does not preclude also having an understanding of how the physical aspect is also dealt with.

 

[GenemZ]

I agree that it means spiritual death. I just think that it includes a physical death as well. If God had made that statement to you as a week old Christian, would you have interpreted Him to have been warning you of a physical death, a spriritual death, or a complete death that includes both.

Personally, I think the natural assumption would have been 1 or 3. Theologically, I think it is 3.

Death is mentioned twice in God's warning to Adam. "In dying, you shall die." It can mean, "surely die." Yet, Adam died spiritually, which ended in his physical death as a result. "In dying (spiritually) you shall die (physically).

One death had to proceed the other. In the day he ate he died spiritually which resulted in physical death later on. There is always an exegete out there to show you that you are wrong. Yet, this unique idiom of Hebrew revealed a literal sense as well. For what is God to say, if in dying one way, will lead to another death?
Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Vance]

Always keep in mind that this issue of the proper reading of Genesis, whether the creation story or the Garden story, has been debated and discussed in literally thousands of books, millions or articles and an infinite number of debates and discussions. And not just recently. These debates and articles and discussions began IMMEDIATELY upon Christianity coming into existence, and even earlier within the Jewish community. The position I have presented is one approach (and, after reviewing most of them, the one I think is correct). The angle Genez presents (a variation indicating that both are meant) is another. And here is yet another, which correlates with Genez's. That is that Adam was placed in the garden (remember that the text indicates that Adam was not created in the Garden, but outside of it and then placed in it), as a mortal, like all other creatures (including possibly all other humans for which He was a representative) at which point Adam was shown the Tree of Life. Now, we have no record of him eating of that tree, but let's think about it. What need is there for a "Tree of Life" giving eternal life if Adam was already immortal when placed in the Garden? So, Adam eats and gains immortality (barring abandoning this immortality as he later did). And God tells him that if he eats of the other tree, he will surely die on that day. Now, we can see Genez' point coming into effect and, in fact, all other possibilities that involve a reference to physical death.

Or, Adam could just be a "typological" reference to Mankind, and the entire story is symbolic for either real events on a broader scale, or more general theological points. There are a lot of possibilities.

The important thing is that, somehow, whichever possibility you favor, you end up with the same theological truths! Isn't that amazing? God at work, surely.

 

[California Tim]

But see that is the difference between a week-old Christian and a mature Christian. There is simply no reason for it to be physical death at all, so why would we add it to the mix when spiritual works just fine?

I can give a couple of reasons why the "physical death" was correctly implied along with spiritual death. First is this:

Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the Tree of Life, and eat, and live forever"****
Therefore the Lord God sent him out from the Garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
So He drove the man out; and at the east of the Garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim, and the flaming sword which turned every direction, to guard the way to the Tree of Life. (Genesis 2:22-24)​

As a direct result and punishment for the sin of Adam and Eve, they were removed from the garden where the tree of life provided physical immortality to man.

Now notice what happens later on:

So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being."* The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is *the Lord from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we* shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I tell you a *mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed-- in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory."
(1 Corinthians 15:39-52).​

It appears that mortality and corruption are synonymous by the above passage. Corruption came about by the curse of sin and included the mortal condition of the human body. Now notice an interesting finale to the resotration of man's relationship to the Creator

And he showed me a *pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3 And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him. Revelation 22:1-3​

Do you notice how in the fall of man, there is a physical separation from the tree of life, while in the final restoration there is a return to the "tree of life"?
Coincidence? I doubt it personally. So while we agree that spiritual death was certainly presented as punishment for sin, it seems equally apparent that physical death was also implied.

 

[Vance]

A possibility, but definitely not a requirement. To me, the corruption Paul is talking about is our sinful nature, which we strive to overcome. This is why he talks about it as two separate things: corruption becoming incorruption and mortality becoming immortality. Sinfulness becoming sinlessness (in the eye of God due to forgiveness and then again, once we enter heaven) and our physical bodies being exchanged for our heavenly bodies, which will not have to suffer physical death.

But we already HAVE immortality since we will all live forever. The only difference is where we will spend that eternity, in Heaven or Hell.

So, here we have (and have long had) these various different perspectives on whether the death suffered at the Fall was spiritual, physical or both. All debatable and, in the end, actually not a salvation issue since we ALL believe that no matter what exactly happened, we are all in a sinful state and in need of redemption. That is all that is essential in that regard. Fine so far.

BUT, many have become so attached to ONE of these possible interpretations that they have developed other concepts around it and have seemed to raise those concepts to the level of essential doctrine. One of them is "no death before the Fall". This whole concept is entirely based on a particular reading of Genesis and a particular reading of Paul's discussion of Adam. And then they use this derived doctrine to argue why a reading of Genesis which includes evolution can't be correct, since it would involve death before the Fall, thus violating their doctrine. Very circular, and an example of how doctrines can build upon each other.

But if you step back and just consider the basic question itself: physical, spiritual or "both", and then factor in the evidence of God's Creation as well, the balance (to the extent you found them balanced) tilts conclusively in favor of spiritual only, since the evidence is very convincing that there was physical death in the world long before the Fall could have taken place.

Unless you consider one other possibility: that the option of physical immortality was presented as an option at the time that God infused His Spirit ("breathed") into Mankind. Mankind collectively failed to achieve that option because it was too selfish and Fell. Adam represents Mankind after the infusion of Spirit which first made us "Man", the Tree of Life represents this option.

Who's to say exactly what happened and when. The important thing is that we all agree upon the basic truths presented in Genesis, so a literal historical reading is obviously not necessary to arrive at those beliefs.

 

[GenemZ]

A possibility, but definitely not a requirement. To me, the corruption Paul is talking about is our sinful nature, which we strive to overcome.

We can not "strive" to overcome the sin nature.

Romans 8:6
"The mind of sinful man [ Or mind set on the flesh] is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is capacity for life and peace (prosperity)."

We can only surrender to the power of grace to enable us, causing us to live as if we overcame the sin nature.

Romans 8:9niv
"You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ."

What we must "strive" for is to overcome evil by seeking truth, to have the Holy Spirit enpower us in that truth in the face of evil. Even our facing down of evil is by grace. What we must strive for is to discern what is the truth, and to then live in it. For we wrestle against what sets itself up against the truth.

Ephesians 6:12niv
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

Grace, not Law..... is God's modus operandi with the New Creation in Christ. We do not strive against the sin nature, we strive to gain truth in grace while being resisted by the Devil.

James 4:7 niv
"Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you."

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Vance]

Yes, I would agree with that.

 

[GodAtWorkToday]

Who's to say exactly what happened and when. The important thing is that we all agree upon the basic truths presented in Genesis, so a literal historical reading is obviously not necessary to arrive at those beliefs.

It is good that we all (at least those in this discussion) can come to the same theological truths, however, while a literal reading might not be necessary, the evolutionary attack upon the authority and accuracy of the Bible, has certainly had the result of a lot of people dismissing the relevance of the Bible.

Because of this, multitudes have failed to listen to the main message contained in the Bible, and thereby have missed out on Salvation. This is why the issue of Genesis, literalness is a salvation issue. It is not for those that would look for the spiritual meaning regardless, and still believe in the authority of the rest, however it very much is a salvation issue for the one, when finding apparent error in the first two chapters of the Bible, dismisses the rest as full of error as well.

This is the GREAT danger, of the evolutionist's position, and the one that devil is most exploiting. Considering this 'fruit' of the evolutionist position, I discern very clearly the 'source' of that position, and I can tell you it is not God, not truth, and not right.

 

[Vance]

On the contrary, it is not the teaching of evolution that is the problem, but the YEC teaching that evolution and Scripture are incompatible. The only ones who will have a problem with the Bible being true after realizing that evolution is true are those who have been indoctrinated with the idea that a person can not believe both. I posted a while back a thread entitled "Why I Post" on this very subject. I will dig it up.

 

[gluadys]

It is good that we all (at least those in this discussion) can come to the same theological truths, however, while a literal reading might not be necessary, the evolutionary attack upon the authority and accuracy of the Bible, has certainly had the result of a lot of people dismissing the relevance of the Bible.3

I would say it is the capitulation of creationists to atheist reasoning about evolution that is a much more serious problem. The first time I heard YEC explained in detail was when Duane Gish came to our campus and gave a lecture. Near the beginning of the lecture he gave a definition of evolution that was obviously biased in favour of an atheistic application. In fact, he used a definition written by Julian Huxley, grandson of the Thomas Huxley known as "Darwin's bulldog". Julian H. was both an accomplished scientist and a fervent atheist who was the Richard Dawkins of his day.

Now the question I had then and still have is "Why would a Christian take the word of an atheist for what evolution is and implies?"

Gish could have chosen any of a dozen other definitions of evolution that were more scientific and did not implicate atheism as essential to evolution.

As I see it, atheist misuse of evolutionary science to promote their philosophy in no way explains why Christians should accept their philosophy. So why do creationists give a privileged hearing to atheists when it comes to evolution, when they would not do so on any other topic?

 

[GenemZ]

On the contrary, it is not the teaching of evolution that is the problem, but the YEC teaching that evolution and Scripture are incompatible. The only ones who will have a problem with the Bible being true after realizing that evolution is true are those who have been indoctrinated with the idea that a person can not believe both. I posted a while back a thread entitled "Why I Post" on this very subject. I will dig it up.

Its sort of like the hyper Calvinists verses Arminianism. Both see the other side's errors, but they can not see their own. And, each uses the error of the other to justify that they must be correct.

Evolution does not explain the present creation. Nor does Young Earth Creationism. Yet, the errors of the other side keep making each one feel justified in that they have to be right. The problem is, full truth is not being revealed by either side. God has designed for certain mutations to take place with certain creatures, but it does not explain evolution's premise. And, believing that this planet is only thousands of years old, leaves TOE types convinced that creationism is a myth. YEC is a myth... Creationism, is not.

Now, I could debate a few details on the following web page, but it does show that neither evolutionists, nor YEC's need be correct.

http://www.ucg.org/booklets/BT/versesofgenesis.htm

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[GodAtWorkToday]

@Genez. One problem with that quoted text (which is otherwise very well written), is that this gap-theory between v1 & v2 has one serious flaw.

An old earth is required for both startlight travel from distant stars and for the time necessary for evolutionary forces to take a simple life form and evolve it into a complex animal or human. The gap-theory might be useful for the former, but doesn't explain the latter, since these things were created on the later days of creation.

Also the text does not at all indicate that God started a process and left it to run its course. It says that God directly created these things, and that they would reproduce after their own kind.
I can see the logic of a long age between 1 & 2, but it does not go far enough to explain the rest. Mind you while several scholars have over time pondered these things and arrived at differing conclusions, it is only in the present time, that we feel the necessity to try to shoehorn the Genesis account into a scientific framework that while called theory, many would debate is still hypothetical.

 

[2Pillars]

My Take:

Most of the Evols, on this board, preach their Religion, or Belief, or Faith in mortal man's science, as fact. They attempt to show that Macro-Evolution has happened, and the Creator has nothing to do with the process.

Professing themselves to be wiser than God, they dismiss His Holy Word, as nothing more than Allegory, teaching stories, or Myth. They claim that God used Evolution as His method of producing life, while ignoring His Holy Word, which says that God CREATED.

IOW, they believe God just lied to us when He told us that Creatures were confined to his "kinds". It's too bad their flawed definitions do not have evidence to support their wild assumptions -- thus, will always remain as "theory".

If one believes Jesus was the True Light (John 1:9) and "THE" source of Life (John 1:4; 14:6) then the doctrine of Evolution is WRONG and FLAWED!

Beware of the ETB's (Evolution True Believers), for MANY of them mask themselves as Christians.



God Bless

 

[Vance]

Well, your take is wrong in almost every regard. I can say this as a fact since it is speaking to what TE's believe and do, and I happen to know what I believe and do. So, this is one of those rare occassions that I can say with absolute assurance that everything 2Pillars just said is false.

 

[2Pillars]

Dear Readers,


I always support whatever I claim or assert on this board with Scripture.

On other hand, Evolution can NOT tell us how and when we became human. Human Intelligence is Not Evolved, and there is No Data which shows this. Human Intelligence is inherited from another Human.

Since Nature produced No Humans, and does not possess Human Intelligence, it is ridiculous to Speculate that we Inherited our Human Intelligence from Mindless Nature.

Therefore, if we believe Jesus was the True Light (John 1:9) and "THE" source of Life (John 1:4; 14:6) then the doctrine of Evolution is WRONG and FLAWED!

Beware of the ETB's (Evolution True Believers), for MANY of them mask themselves as Christians.

God Bless

 

[Vance]

Of course God made us human, he made everything. I think you are mistaking the atheistic belief that evolution happened without God with the theory of evolution itself, which does not say that God was not involved. No more than science needs to mention God's involvement with photosynthesis.

My point was that you made a number of dramatic assertions about theistic evolutionists. Here are six things you say WE believe, state or do:

1. we have a faith, or religious belief in mortal man's science.
2. we attempt to show how it happened without God having anything to do with it.
3. we profess ourselves to be wiser than God
4. we dismiss His Holy Word
5. we say that Scripture is "nothing more" than allegory, story or myth.
6. we believe God lied to us

And then you top it off with an implication that we are not truly Christian at all (which is against the rules of the forum, btw).

This is truly amazing. Each and everyone of those six statements is a bald-faced lie. Not a misunderstanding, since you have been around here long enough to know better, but an intentional statement that is not true. Someone just arriving might be able to claim ignorance of what we truly are saying or what we truly believe. You can not claim such ignorance, and so there is really no excuse for your misrepresentations.

I don't know whether to be more amused or idignant. On the one hand, whenever anyone lies about you, human nature is to be pretty ticked off. On the other hand, I know that those reading the post will just be able to "consider the source".

 

[2Pillars]

My point was that you made a number of dramatic assertions about theistic evolutionists. Here are six things you say WE believe, state or do:

1. we have a faith, or religious belief in mortal man's science.
2. we attempt to show how it happened without God having anything to do with it.
3. we profess ourselves to be wiser than God
4. we dismiss His Holy Word
5. we say that Scripture is "nothing more" than allegory, story or myth.
6. we believe God lied to us

And then you top it off with an implication that we are not truly Christian at all.

Dear Vance,

Where do you see that I referred to Theistic Evolution as being "not truly Christian at all"? I wasn't even talking to you directly, was I?

Do you represent the doctrines of Evolution True Believer's / Atheist' who pretend to be Christian by any chance? I am confuse, please explain.

I believe there was a "waiver clause" in my previous posting (in question) that it was only "My Take" or in other words -- my humble opinion, just like yours.

"Therefore, if we believe Jesus was the True Light (John 1:9) and "THE" source of Life (John 1:4; 14:6) then the doctrine of Evolution is WRONG and FLAWED"!


God Bless