The Fall of Man

Happy new year Thek.,

A tick to mum from me. Before the fall, God said the world was good. Death entered the world because of sin. Death is a necessary ingredient of evolution, and therefore it is unscriptural to assert that God used evolution to create the things we see today.

There are other reasons. Scripture plainly asserts God made each animal after its kind, and the earth was made in six literal days.

Have a close look at the arguments that follow from those who support the notion of theistic evolution. To be able to marry evolution and Scripture, you must disregard the plain teaching of Genesis, and interpret it as some kind of allegory. That is wrong. Scripture is inspired by God. We can be sure that the assertions of Scripture are true and authoritative, whether they be assertions of historical, scientific, or spiritual truth. If we cannot trust the plain assertions of Scripture regarding the physical world, then why trust the spiritual truths taught in Scripture.

Actually, a taking Genesis literally is just one way of interpreting it. As Pope John Paul II (long may he live) stated "Truth cannot contradict Truth". Since we know that the earth is older than 6,000 years we must re-examine Scripture.

Anyway, at a guess I would assume that the Fall of man would be the Fall of man from the natural order of things. i.e., when we became self-serving and evolved to the point where we could be.

Bushido216 said:

Anyway, at a guess I would assume that the Fall of man would be the Fall of man from the natural order of things. i.e., when we became self-serving and evolved to the point where we could be.

Click to expand...

ie interprets the Genesis account of the fall as allegory. The fall could not happen by degrees over time. Man disobeyed God's word. Enter sin.

I think we must simply say that we don't know. God's Creation reveals to us that Genesis 1-3 is not a literal historical account, so we have no account of how Sin entered the world. All we know is that it is here and we need Christ.

thekawasakikid said:

It centred upon the literal, or non-literal, interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis... whereupon my mother asked what I thought was a pretty intriguing question - if the Creation and Fall of Man in Genesis are to be taken non-literally, how did Man fall? Did he fall, or was he always sinful?

Thanks for your time

Click to expand...

Let me run this one past you and see what you think.

What is "sin". The "sin" in Genesis 3 is disobeying God and eating a fruit that God had forbidden. Now, just as an aside, God is pretty stupid according to this tale. Anyone who has ever raised kids knows that as soon as you say "Don't get in the cookie jar.", that is exactly where they go! If you really don't want them in the cookie jar, you don't use this approach.

But anyway, it seeems to me that sin is being selfish and putting your interests ahead of both God and anyone else. Well, guess what? Selfishness is built into natural selection. Natural selection picks traits that are good for the individual, not necessarily the species. It doesn't look ahead and say "you know, getting those big antlers so you can attract the girl elk of your dreams isn't going to work for the group. Those antlers are going to be so big that you guys aren't going to be able to get away from your predators. You'll all be killed." Instead, as long as the individual gets the girl Irish elk, that's all that matters. Natural selection can't work solely for the benefit of else. It can't be completely unselfish.

So selfishness and thus disobedience for our benefit is built right into our genes by the process that designed us.

Micaiah said:

Before the fall, God said the world was good. Death entered the world because of sin.

Click to expand...

Genesis 2:17 says Adam would die "in the day" that he ate the fruit. Adam lived 930 years after he ate the fruit. The death referred to could not have been physical.

In Genesis 1:29 God gives herbs to humans to eat. Thus, man can pull up carrots and onions, to name just two, to eat. This kills them. Physical death was always in the world. It is unscriptural to claim that physical death only began with Adam's sin.

Scripture plainly asserts God made each animal after its kind, and the earth was made in six literal days.

Click to expand...

Genesis 2:4 plainly states that the earth was made in one literal day (beyom). Since God cannot contradict God, this tells you that neither creation story is literal history.

Have a close look at the arguments that follow from those who support the notion of theistic evolution. To be able to marry evolution and Scripture, you must disregard the plain teaching of Genesis, and interpret it as some kind of allegory. That is wrong. Scripture is inspired by God. We can be sure that the assertions of Scripture are true and authoritative, whether they be assertions of historical, scientific, or spiritual truth. If we cannot trust the plain assertions of Scripture regarding the physical world, then why trust the spiritual truths taught in Scripture.

Click to expand...

1. As you said, Scripture is inspired. It does not follow from this that every Scripture is historically and scientifically true. Scripture itself doesn't claim this. The most that it claims (in I Timothy) is that scripture is useful for instruction in righteousness! That's it. So yes, Scriptures are true for spiritual truth, but no claim for any other type.

2. I know I've used this example to counter the last sentence at least 3 times on this forum. No one has ever countered it; yet we keep seeing the same claim made again and again.

You are claiming in the last sentence that:
if a text isn't true in every detail, then we can't trust it in any detail.

But is this true? Do we really judge texts this way? Let's take this out of religion for a moment. Take Shakespeare's Macbeth. The Scottish history is not true at all. Yet the play retains its popularity. Why? Because it does talk to us about spiritual/human truths of greed, lust for power, betrayal, honor, and justice. We accept the spiritual truths as true even tho they are set in a non-true history.

Genesis (particularly Genesis 1) is set in the best science of the day -- Babylonian science. That science is wrong. But the theological truths of Genesis 1-3 are just as true in modern science as they were in Babylonian science. One of the tragedies of Biblical literalism is that, in forcing a literal reading, these theological truths get lost or ignored. How sad!

Micaiah said:

Death entered the world because of sin.

Click to expand...

Although it may be true that spiritual death entered the world because of sin, it does not follow that physical death must also have been caused by sin.

Death is a necessary ingredient of evolution, and therefore it is unscriptural to assert that God used evolution to create the things we see today.

Click to expand...

It would probably be more accurate to say that it is unscriptural to assert that the Bible either requires evolution or that it denies evolution.

Scripture plainly asserts...the earth was made in six literal days.

Click to expand...

No. The scripture plainly asserts that creation took six yoms. Although yom can mean a 24-hour day, it can also mean just those hours in which the sun strikes a particular portion of our planet's surface; or it can mean a generation, an era, or an indefinite period of time. You may choose to favor one of those meanings over another one if you wish--but that is your interpretation. If your Christian brother chooses to favor a different meaning, that is his interpretation.

The context is plainly that a day means a day, unless you want to twist the plain teaching of Scripture to accomodate what is essentially a secular view of origins.

Micaiah said:

The context is plainly that a day means a day, unless you want to twist the plain teaching of Scripture to accomodate what is essentially a secular view of origins.

Click to expand...

Micaiah, the context of Genesis 2:4 is plainly that the heavens and earth were created in one day (beyom). So, you are faced with a choice:

1. Decide that neither story is literal.
2. "yom" in Genesis 2:4 has to be longer than a day. In which case Sinai's interpretation then becomes valid.

As to "accomodating a secular view", what about Luke 2:1. It says the whole world was enrolled. Now, don't you "twist the plain teaching of Scripture" to accomodate secular evidence that not all the world was enrolled.

Even more basic, let's look at that "essentially a secular view of origins" claim more closely. What is the idea of an old earth based on? God's Creation, isn't it? How can that be "secular"?

Also, who decided that a young earth was wrong? Christians. Many of whom were ministers. Hardly "secular" people.

So, trying to dismiss the ideas a "essentially secular" -- not religious -- doesn't work at all. You may disagree with the conclusion, but the idea that old earth is secular and non-religious simply won't stand testing. It is based on God by religious people.

I'm happy to find this thread as I have many of the same questions. I hope you will forgive my unknowing--and appreciate my seeking.

What is a Beyom? And where is it in Genesis? Is it in the original Greek? If so, what English words are substituted for it?

Someone said Adam and Eve [A&E] knew of 'death' because they pulled up carrots and ate them. How does that make them aware of human death? I've been thinking that when God told A&E not to eat of that tree or they would surely 'die,' sounded like this being spoken to a two year old.

"Don't eat THAT red candy over there or you will surely *&$$#@! " To A&E, who didn't know anything but beauty and goodness--what did *8$$#@! mean?

And I agree with whoever said it was bad psychology to point THE TREE out to them. Like DON'T THINK OF A WHITE POLAR BEAR! Oops, too late!

And even if the death spoken of is spiritual death--A&E knew nothing of this. So they could not make an informed decision. . . they could only do that AFTER they knew what sin was. So I don't see them as having 'free will' [free meaning no cost]so much as having "ultimatum will.[Do it and reap ill]"

I hope we discuss this more. Thanks and BLESSINGS2u

thekawasakikid said:

Besides, God's reaction was to banish Adam and Eve from the Garden lest they eat from the Tree of Life also. So that would've meant a circumvention of God's own judgement.

Click to expand...

This is a good point.

However, while I appreciate Lucaspa's thoughts, I don't quite follow you - if natural selection is inherently driven by selfishness (agreed) then you seem to state that selfishness and disobedience are in-built by the process which designed us... but somewhere in the design of the design process, God is involved therefore God designed us to be driven by selfishness and disobedience?

BTW, this is an honest puzzled follow-up and not a cheap shot

Thanks, guys...

Click to expand...

I didn't take it as a cheap shot.

No, God did not design us directly to be driven by selfishness and disobedience. Remember, natural selection is the secondary process used to design us. It's just that disobedience and selfishness is an inevitable side effect of the process. So you can't go back and pin the guilt on God directly. God didn't manufacture us and therefore our selfishness and disobedience are not a manufacturer's defect. Genesis 2 simply describes how people are and the consequences. It doesn't lay the blame at God's door. Neither am I. I am only saying that such disobedience is built into us.

So, why did God use natural selection with this side effect?
Darwinian selection is the only way to get design. Even if God directly designs us, He still uses Darwinian selection in His mind. So, why did God use Darwinian selection working out in nature instead of His mind where God could pick just those designs that were unselfish?

1. If He did that, He was basically making puppets. Genesis 1 is clear that God makes humans for themselves. Not for God. He doesn't want playthings or puppets or even worshippers. So He is willing to put up with the disobedience in order for people to be themselves.
2. This is the only way God could have a universe where the lives of people have meaning. That is, where their choices can determine the future. If God makes them with perfect obedience, then what choices do people have? Remember, we don't have to choose disobedience. In the event, it is pretty impossible not to so choose. However, since God is merciful and forgiving, we don't have to be perfect. So God gets humans to have meaningful lives, but doesn't hold their disobedience irretrievably against them.

kua2u said:

I'm happy to find this thread as I have many of the same questions. I hope you will forgive my unknowing--and appreciate my seeking.

What is a Beyom? And where is it in Genesis? Is it in the original Greek? If so, what English words are substituted for it?

Click to expand...

"Beyom" is Hebrew and is translated as "in the day". You can find it in Genesis 2:4 and 2:17. You can also look in Strong's Concordance for other times it appears in the OT.

Someone said Adam and Eve [A&E] knew of 'death' because they pulled up carrots and ate them. How does that make them aware of human death?

Click to expand...

It doesn't. You have to pay careful attention to the claims. The claim was that physical death was not in the world until Adam and Eve ate the fruit. Physical death for any living creature. My example of God giving herbs to people to eat and the death that results shows that narrow claim to be false. IOW, physical death was in the world before Adam and Eve ate the fruit.

I've been thinking that when God told A&E not to eat of that tree or they would surely 'die,' sounded like this being spoken to a two year old.

Click to expand...

I agree. Of course, since Adam had just been created not too long before, you could say Adam was like a two-year old. However, any parent knows this isn't how you get two year olds to avoid the cookie jar. So, if you insist on a literal reading, you are faced with the problem of why God is so ignorant.

"Don't eat THAT red candy over there or you will surely *&$$#@! " To A&E, who didn't know anything but beauty and goodness--what did *8$$#@! mean?

Click to expand...

GOOD POINT! If death wasn't in the world, then telling them they would die means nothing! So you now have another refutation of the theology that physical death wasn't present until Adam and Eve ate the fruit.

And even if the death spoken of is spiritual death--A&E knew nothing of this. So they could not make an informed decision. . . they could only do that AFTER they knew what sin was. So I don't see them as having 'free will' [free meaning no cost]so much as having "ultimatum will.[Do it and reap ill]"

Click to expand...

Free will simply means that they are not compelled to one action or another. They are free to choose. Consequences are there.

What they were supposed to do is trust God. Just like you are supposed to trust your parents when they say "the stove is hot; touch it and you will be burned." Or, as I remember my two year old "Don't run out into the road or you will get hit by a car." Well, she recognized that getting hit by a car is bad -- because I said so -- but didn't really know. So she did run out in the road one day. Fortunately, there were no cars. So I spanked her. Pain on her bottom and the anger of her father she did understand! She didn't do it again.

Adam and Eve did not trust God. So now we come to the next question: was the spiritual death a free will choice of God? IOW, could God have decided it was not spiritual death? The story doesn't sound like it. Like the stove and the road examples, the consequences are not coming from us the parent. They are part of the situation and we have no control over them. The story sounds like God didn't have any choice about the spiritual death. It was a consequence He couldn't change.

What He did do was deliver a "spanking". Farming would be tough, child bearing would be painful. No more easy life in the Garden. It looks like all this is supposed to remind us to be obedient, but doesn't.

It also looks like God is able to offer a treatment for the spiritual death. Like we can put on analgesics to stop the pain of a burn for touching the stove, God can restore the spiritual life and get around the consequence.

What do you think?

lucaspa said:

Genesis 2:17 says Adam would die "in the day" that he ate the fruit. Adam lived 930 years after he ate the fruit. The death referred to could not have been physical.

Click to expand...

We know from at least one other passage in the bible that the phrase in the day does not mean Adam would die on that day.
It means on that day he would come under the sentence of death.

See how that same phrase is meant in ........

1Kings 2: 36-46.... (for brevity here I will post just the first two verses)
Then the king sent for Shimei and said to him, "Build yourself a house in Jerusalem and live there, but do not go anywhere else. The day you leave and cross the Kidron Valley, you can be sure you will die; your blood will be on your own head."

If we continue to read we see that Shimei did leave the city but did not die on that day, but rather was "sentenced to death" on the day he left.

This how the passage has been historically understood. It is only after Darwin that men began to try to understand it differently.

lucaspa said:

Let me run this one past you and see what you think.

What is "sin". The "sin" in Genesis 3 is disobeying God and eating a fruit that God had forbidden. Now, just as an aside, God is pretty stupid according to this tale. Anyone who has ever raised kids knows that as soon as you say "Don't get in the cookie jar.", that is exactly where they go! If you really don't want them in the cookie jar, you don't use this approach.

Click to expand...

What if God had a purpose which at present you do not fully understand ?
Does this make God pretty stupid?

lucaspa said:

GOOD POINT! If death wasn't in the world, then telling them they would die means nothing! So you now have another refutation of the theology that physical death wasn't present until Adam and Eve ate the fruit.

Click to expand...

But what if death was in the world, but not for men but for animals? (despite what AIG might say )
Historically believers have understood that animals were always subject to death.
Paul tells us that death passed to all men as a result of Adams sin.
It is only recently that it has been suggested AFAIK that animals were made mortal by Adams sin

judge said:

We know from at least one other passage in the bible that the phrase in the day does not mean Adam would die on that day.
It means on that day he would come under the sentence of death.

See how that same phrase is meant in ........

1Kings 2: 36-46.... (for brevity here I will post just the first two verses)
Then the king sent for Shimei and said to him, "Build yourself a house in Jerusalem and live there, but do not go anywhere else. The day you leave and cross the Kidron Valley, you can be sure you will die; your blood will be on your own head."

If we continue to read we see that Shimei did leave the city but did not die on that day, but rather was "sentenced to death" on the day he left.

Click to expand...

Shimei did not die "in the day" simply because he was beyond Solomon's jurisdiction and Solomon could not physically carry out the sentence. Solomon did literally mean "in the day". Not sometime later. As soon as Shimei was back in Jerusalem, Solomon did execute him "in the day". Now, are you saying that God could not have killed Adam in the day? That Adam was somehow beyond God's jurisdiction?

At the most, you can only argue that the passage from I Kings might mean that "in the day" meant something different in Genesis 2. However, you can not say it definitely means something different.

Now, if the passage was historically interpreted differently (and I would like to see your sources, please), then that shows that you have a non-literal interpretation. Which then, of course, brings up the issue why you can't do a non-literal interpretation on the rest of Genesis 1-3.

judge said:

What if God had a purpose which at present you do not fully understand ?
Does this make God pretty stupid?

Click to expand...

It means you are begging the question. I can see a parent setting up the situation to teach their kids a lesson. But the punishment in that case is temporary and does not have eternal consequences. Yet you are saying God set the situation up but then had eternal and inescapable consequences to it.

yes, I can think of serveral possible purposes, but none of them are flattering to God and all result in a God that it is not possible to worship.

Also, I see no reason to accept your idea of mystery when it is possible to devise a solution that does not make God stupid and preserves the theological basics of Christianity. IOW, I am not married to your human, fallible theology like you want me to be.