The Fall of Man

[lucaspa]

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

Well, well. You are modifying your theory in the face of contrary evidence! Nice. Again, document this "historically" among the same people who are offering the theory that death entered the world as a result of Adam's sin. That is what you need to make your argument work.

The verse quoted often says that "death entered the world", not "passed to all men". Perhaps you could specify the verses here, please?

You also have several Biblical verses that say that descendents can't be punished for the transgressions of the ancestor.

Deut. 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the
children be put to death for the fathers (2Chron.25:54) :every man shall be put to
death for his own sin." (2 Kings 14:6)

Ezek. 18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of
the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of
the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon
him."

 

[Sinai]

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

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.

The only ones twisting either the context or the "plain teaching of Scripture" are those who believe their own interpretation is infallible and who refuse to examine the context and wording in the original language in which the scriptures were written to determine what the possible meanings are in a particular passage.

I am not claiming that there is not a basis for your interpretation. Both the wording and part of the context can support your interpretation. You have the right to believe as you do--even if it is contrary to mainstream scientific evidence or is contrary to logic. That's your right.

But the wording and context also support other interpretations that are consistent with the bulk of scientific evidence. If your Christian brother chooses to interpret the scriptures so that it is consistent with the Hebrew words used, the context AND the scientific evidence, that is his right.

I'll support your right to your interpretation, and I'll support your Christian brother's right to his interpretation. But neither interpretation is infallible, and both should probably be willing to look at all the evidence to determine which is most likely correct.

 

[judge]

Well, well. You are modifying your theory in the face of contrary evidence! Nice. [/font]

Hi again Luscapa.
I have only presented one theory here so am not sure how I could have modified anything. Are you confusing me with another poster?

all the best.....judge

 

[lucaspa]

Hi again Luscapa.
I have only presented one theory here so am not sure how I could have modified anything. Are you confusing me with another poster?

Partly I'm confusing you. And partly you are accepting the theory. Micaiah stated the creationist theory in post #3:

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

Notice this doesn't limit death to humans. It is a generic death for all organisms.

Now, when you started posting you didn't contradict that theory. Instead, I had said that, in Genesis 2:17 we were not facing the physical death Micaiah had referred to. "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."

You replied: "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."
Within the context of the discussion, it appeared that you were advocating the generalized "death" Micaiah referred to. And you were referring to physical death, right? Otherwise there was no need to disagree with me.

So, when still later you put forward the idea "But what if death was in the world, but not for men but for animals? (despite what AIG might say )"
1. You are acknowledging the prior theory, but now putting forward a modification.
2. You used the "what if death was in the world" whereas the context up until then (you acknowledge with the "what if") had been that death was not in the world.

So you have now modified the theory. That's not a bad thing. Which is why I gave you the clapping smiley. You are supposed to modify theories in the face of contrary evidence.

Sorry, Judge, but I was looking at the entire context of the conversation, not just on what you personally had said.