The Stumbling Block

[Sinai]

The Bible clearly states that death was not part of creation before the fall of mankind.

It might be relevant to point out that the Bible speaks of "death" in three principal ways:

1. Physical death: The separation of an organism's life from its body; when the organism is a human being, it can also refer to the separation of a person's spirit from his body. This is what most people think of when "death" is mentioned, and is what the Bible means when it says someone lived X years and then died. Another example would be Hebrews 9:27: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment..."

2. Spiritual death: The separation of man's spirit from God while that man is still physically alive in this world. This is the natural state of man on Earth without Christ. Since the person's sins have not been covered over by the blood of Christ, that person is still unredeemed; he is dead to God (see 1 Tim. 5:6).

3. Eternal death: The separation of a person from God's presence forever (also called the second death)--an eternal state of being dead to God.

​

 

[Fineous_Reese]

Well I worship the God of the Bible, who said:

Isaiah 45:6-7
"I am Jehovah, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things."

Clearly you don't worshiip the God who said that because you wouldn't call such a being good. Wonder who you YECs worship?

i've noticed that's one of the favorite verses of atheists

other interesting things to note:
1) from your list, 'evil' has been translated 'calamity' and also 'disaster', which wasn't listed (see also Isaiah 31:2; 47:11 and Amos 3:6 for other examples) so the evil spoken of is not a moral evil and can be done by a Holy and Righteous God, the same one I worship.
2) this was said after the Fall, was calamity mentioned in Scripture before the Fall?

It might be relevant to point out that the Bible speaks of "death" in three principal ways:

1. Physical death: The separation of an organism's life from its body; when the organism is a human being, it can also refer to the separation of a person's spirit from his body. This is what most people think of when "death" is mentioned, and is what the Bible means when it says someone lived X years and then died. Another example would be Hebrews 9:27: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment..."

2. Spiritual death: The separation of man's spirit from God while that man is still physically alive in this world. This is the natural state of man on Earth without Christ. Since the person's sins have not been covered over by the blood of Christ, that person is still unredeemed; he is dead to God (see 1 Tim. 5:6).

3. Eternal death: The separation of a person from God's presence forever (also called the second death)--an eternal state of being dead to God.

cool, thanks for the data same basic question though, was death mentioned in Scripture before the Fall?

 

[Vance]

Well, it is definitely mentioned that plants died, since they were given the plants to eat. More importantly, you are asking someone to prove a negative. The point is that given the possible definitions of "death" it can be argued that there is no indication that there WASN'T death before the Fall. In the absence of the negative, we have the possibility of the positive, ie that there was physical death before the Fall.

 

[Fineous_Reese]

Well, it is definitely mentioned that plants died, since they were given the plants to eat. More importantly, you are asking someone to prove a negative. The point is that given the possible definitions of "death" it can be argued that there is no indication that there WASN'T death before the Fall. In the absence of the negative, we have the possibility of the positive, ie that there was physical death before the Fall.

being picked and eaten isn't the same as dying of old age or disease though.

also, it's not proving a negative, i'll say outright that neither death nor evil(calamity,disaster,etc) is mentioned pre-Fall. if it can be found then there will be some scripture to back up the apparent footprints and fissures. as it is, TE is based on the negative, ie based on what isn't stated but rather what is assumed based on extra-scriptural influences.

now if someone can describe a form of evolution that doesn't involve death i'm interested in hearing more

 

[Vance]

Are you saying death is not always death? Death is not the problem, but old age, disease, etc? I assumed it was something being alive, then it not being alive.

And, yes, it is asking someone to prove a negative. Just because something is NOT mentioned doesn't mean it did not exist. If we are right about the death referred to in the Garden as spiritual death, then that means that the creation accounts are completely silent on the point of physical death before the Fall. When something is silent, then you have to look to other factors to determine what actually happened. God's OTHER revelation of nature itself provides that information in droves.

 

[SBG]

Well, it is definitely mentioned that plants died, since they were given the plants to eat. More importantly, you are asking someone to prove a negative. The point is that given the possible definitions of "death" it can be argued that there is no indication that there WASN'T death before the Fall. In the absence of the negative, we have the possibility of the positive, ie that there was physical death before the Fall.

This is always the fall back position of theistic evolutionists when dealing with death.

First, they make the assumption that Adam and Eve ate the same exact plants we do today.

Second, they assume that Adam and Eve ripped the plants out of the ground so that the *whole* plant dies.

Third, they assume, that because a leaf, stem, or fruit is eaten, the plant dies. Where do we witness this today? If I take an apple from the tree, does the tree die?

If I take a leaf from the plant, does the plant die?

If I take this further such as, if I lose a leg, do I die?

If the answer is no to all of these, where does life reside?

Now, we are talking about death, disease, destruction, pain and sorrow of MANKIND. Not about plants.

If death was created as very good, before sin, we must question Paul's teachings on sin bringing death to the world, and death being an enemy of God. For Paul is clearly talking about death of man, not plants, and not just spiritual death.

This is what happens when you take an evolutionists approach to Scripture, you attribute God with the work of Satan. Then you ask everyone to accept that God is a god of death, disease, pain and sorrow and He has instituted this all before sin ever entered the world.

We are being asked to accept the opposite of what God truly is. This is blaspheme, plain and simple.

Christians need to really sit up and pay attention to what is going on here. To what is happening to the Church, wanting the Body to accept that God does the work of Satan. And furthermore blame God for the results of our sins, rather than ourselves. For they say God instituted death, pain and sorrow, not man by his own sin.

Did God really say He is the God of Life? Did God really die on a cross so that we can live? Or did God want us all to die, suffer, feel pain and experience sorrow?

The Pharisees accused Jesus of being Satan because He casted out a demon. Jesus said Satan doesn't work against Satan. So does Jesus work against Jesus? Does Jesus die, so we can die too?

Or is the Bible True when it says God is a God of Life not death?

Sit up Church and pay attention to the deception at hand. It is Satans will to have God blamed for man's doing and for Satans work. It is Satan who comes in and says don't worry about what I am saying, just unite with me on it, for aren't we suppose to be one? Jesus Christ came to divide brother from brother, father from son, mother from daughter. He does so by bring Truth that will cut like a double-edge sword, that which will divide people against people.

Shall you unite with people who want to attribute God as a god of death, pain and sorrow? Shall you unite with people who want to teach unbelievers that God intended for them to die and suffer? Shall you unite with people who want to blaspheme God and attribute the work of Satan to God?

This is not God's Will. Do not fall for their lies.

 

[Remus]

Well, it is definitely mentioned that plants died, since they were given the plants to eat.

Gen 2:16:
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

They were given the fruit of the trees to eat, not the plants. It wasn't until after the fall that eating plants are mentioned.

Gen 3:18:
Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

 

[Vance]

Gen 2:16:
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

They were given the fruit of the trees to eat, not the plants. It wasn't until after the fall that eating plants are mentioned.

Gen 3:18:
Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

Ah, that is a good point. Most creationists I have seen assert that Mankind was vegetarian before the Fall (some even insist that Mankind was so until the flood), but I am not sure they make the distinction you do.

Your concept would also mean that every animal was also only eating fruits and berries and nuts, etc. Even the lions and Tyrranosaurs. Although the idea of a fruit eating T-Rex is difficult to imagine. "What big teeth you have!" "Better to eat bananas with."

If a Creationist wanted to take the "fruit only" angle, we are truly back to just a complete silence on the issue of death before the Fall if the death mentioned in connection with the Fall was spiritual only.

 

[Fineous_Reese]

Ah, that is a good point. Most creationists I have seen assert that Mankind was vegetarian before the Fall (some even insist that Mankind was so until the flood), but I am not sure they make the distinction you do.

Your concept would also mean that every animal was also only eating fruits and berries and nuts, etc. Even the lions and Tyrranosaurs. Although the idea of a fruit eating T-Rex is difficult to imagine. "What big teeth you have!" "Better to eat bananas with."

If a Creationist wanted to take the "fruit only" angle, we are truly back to just a complete silence on the issue of death before the Fall if the death mentioned in connection with the Fall was spiritual only.

who says the lion and t-rex only had fruit to eat? the verses Remus (happy bday ) mentioned spoke to what man was eating.

[bible]Genesis 1:29-30[/bible]

so the animals were eating plants before adam was. kinda humorous in a sad way, Adam was a special creation of God but after the Fall he was eating with the animals and now some if not all evolutionists are putting man in the same lineage as the animals. how low will we go?

 

[Remus]

Remus (happy bday )

Thanks.

so the animals were eating plants before adam was. kinda humorous in a sad way, Adam was a special creation of God but after the Fall he was eating with the animals and now some if not all evolutionists are putting man in the same lineage as the animals. how low will we go?

It's part of the curse. Had Adam and Eve not sinned, we wouldn't have to 'eat our greens'.

 

[Vance]

OK, now I am confused on the Creationist premise. I thought Remus was saying that there was no plant death before the Fall, that it was just the fruit of the trees, not the plants. Now, you are saying that it was the plants as well. Does that mean there WAS plant death before the Fall?

And, you guys have no problem with the plant eating T-Rex and lion before the Fall (or maybe even flood) that is required by a literal reading?

 

[Remus]

OK, now I am confused on the Creationist premise. I thought Remus was saying that there was no plant death before the Fall, that it was just the fruit of the trees, not the plants. Now, you are saying that it was the plants as well. Does that mean there WAS plant death before the Fall?

I was saying that your statement "it is definitely mentioned that plants died" was incorrect.

And, you guys have no problem with the plant eating T-Rex and lion before the Fall (or maybe even flood) that is required by a literal reading?

I don't have a problem with this. Of course I don't assume that the T-Rex and lion were the same as they were after the flood.

 

[Vance]

Ah, I am sorry, I thought you said:

"They were given the fruit of the trees to eat, not the plants."

My mistake. So, do you think there was plant death before the Fall? Death of microbes or other microscopic life? Some of these have incredibly short life spans today. Did they just pile up on top of each other? I just don't see how a model of "no physical death before the Fall" would work.

Also, keep in mind that this is an entire doctrine derived out of a particular definition of what God meant by "death" when He kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden, and maybe a verse by Paul. There is not a single verse in Scripture which says there was no death before the Fall. I have provided theological arguments why it almost assuredly was NOT meant by either God or Paul to mean physical death.

An awfully big doctrine, entirely contrary to the evidence from nature, and all hanging on the VERY debatable definition of a couple of verses and NO direct statement in Scripture.

 

[Remus]

Ah, I am sorry, I thought you said:

"They were given the fruit of the trees to eat, not the plants."

Well, it does say that for Adam and Eve. Anyway, I concede the point that it isn't clear.

My mistake. So, do you think there was plant death before the Fall? Death of microbes or other microscopic life? Some of these have incredibly short life spans today. Did they just pile up on top of each other? I just don't see how a model of "no physical death before the Fall" would work.

Honestly I haven't worked this issue out for myself so I would have to answer your questions as 'I don't know'. I do believe that in the Garden, things were very different than what we see today.

 

[Vance]

Honestly I haven't worked this issue out for myself so I would have to answer your questions as 'I don't know'. I do believe that in the Garden, things were very different than what we see today.

Fair enough.

Upon further reflection, I think I actually understated my case. Not only is it a thin thread to hang such a big doctrine, the thread is actually even thinner than I described. Even if you were to take the death described at the time of the Fall and referred to by Paul as physical, this could also refer just to Mankind. When you look at it, the idea of no death AT ALL before the Fall is purely a theological construct, based on ideas and concepts, not on Scripture itself. It is based on presumptions of what is "good", the nature of God, etc.

Assuming that there was an actual Garden, I think it is very likely that things were different there. But remember, that Garden was not the planet as a whole. Even read literally, God created the Garden as something distinct, and then kicked Adam and Eve OUT of that Garden, into the world. What was the rest of that world like? Was it a place distinct from the Garden, from the way things were in the Garden?

Also remember that AFTER God created Adam, He placed Adam INTO the Garden. Where was Adam (Mankind?) before being placed in the Garden?

 

[Remus]

Assuming that there was an actual Garden, I think it is very likely that things were different there. But remember, that Garden was not the planet as a whole. Even read literally, God created the Garden as something distinct, and then kicked Adam and Eve OUT of that Garden, into the world. What was the rest of that world like? Was it a place distinct from the Garden, from the way things were in the Garden?

I tend to believe that the rest of the world was much like the Garden. Perhaps not a well 'kept'.

Also remember that AFTER God created Adam, He placed Adam INTO the Garden. Where was Adam (Mankind?) before being placed in the Garden?

He would have been outside of the Garden before being placed there? I think I'm missing the point of your question.

 

[grmorton]

grmorton, you seem to have some (perhaps rightly due) anger against YECs, but NOT ALL YECs were like you, are you and have the same problems as you, and not everyone is/are tuned to your geophysics worldview. i do feel sympathy for your journey here on earth when you "had to reject old age earth" for 25 or whatever years. but you'll probably say "i don't want your sympathy" so just forget i said anything.

I know 90% of all the big name YECs. I have met them face to face. I have met and discussed things with most of them. I know what they say in private and I know what they say in public. In private among themselves they will talk about the problems I speak of. IN public, they never do. That is hypocrisy. They told me that if the earth was old, then the Bible was false. If one beleives that, what is one to do when one becomes convinced that the world is old? The logical thing is to reject Christianity. INstead of saying that one should get a new interpretation the YECs set people up to leave the faith. Yes, I am upset at that. You don't have any idea of the number of young science students who have contacted me for help over the years because what they were taught at their churches wasn't being verified in what they personally saw when studying science. And I am not talking about what they read in books. I am speaking of what they actually see. Having gone through that experience myself, I can assure you that it is quite disconcerting when you realize that your Christian brother is teaching you nonsense about the visible world. It makes one wonder if what they say about the invisible world is worth listening to. And why wouldn't it?

just pointing out to the invisible audience out there reading all your posts that there ARE ACTUALLY YECs out there doing the scientific work in God's world with a conscise and beautifully painted young earth worldview without quams (ie: zoology, botany, genetics, astrophysics, astronomy, mathematics, philosophy etc. etc.) - yes these YECs are people from my Church at Melbourne University.

Like Andrew Snelling who publishes articles in the geological press sounding like an old earth geologist, but then publishes in the YEC literature sounding like a YEC. There is no backbone in this kind of lifestyle.

I know of only one or two YEC authored science papers which had anything to do with YEC. Tell me this amazing list of publications made by these YEC authors you speak of.

 

[Vance]

I tend to believe that the rest of the world was much like the Garden. Perhaps not a well 'kept'.

But then why a Garden, really? After they were kicked out, the place was guarded like Fort Knox. Sounds like something very different and special. Maybe a place without death, unlike the rest of the earth?

He would have been outside of the Garden before being placed there? I think I'm missing the point of your question.

My point here is that Adam lived outside the Garden first, then was placed inside the Garden. If you want to read the Garden as a literal place on the earth, then this confirms that it was a distinct place, separate from the rest of the earth. A special place. A place that once they were to suffer death (whether physical or spiritual) they could not stay. They had to go out into the wide world, instead. Maybe a place where that physical death existed all along?

 

[grmorton]

i've noticed that's one of the favorite verses of atheists

I love the implied logic here. If atheists like it, it can't be divinely inspired. Thus it shouldn't be in the Bible, and thus we can ignore it. What kind of liberal logic is that? Are you picking and choosing what parts of the Bible you want to believe? I thought that was the charge y'all made against TEs and everyone else with whom YECs disagree. Aren't you being a bit inconsistent here?

other interesting things to note:
1) from your list, 'evil' has been translated 'calamity' and also 'disaster', which wasn't listed (see also Isaiah 31:2; 47:11 and Amos 3:6 for other examples) so the evil spoken of is not a moral evil and can be done by a Holy and Righteous God, the same one I worship.
2) this was said after the Fall, was calamity mentioned in Scripture before the Fall?

If you look at the definition lists, it does include moral evil. Now you are relying upon the translator's choice of words to try to determine what the verse means. That is always a bit iffy. The translator himself might be biased and pick a word that suites his theological position. Face it, you are ignoring the definitions I presented like this one from BDB

1j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically)

Why is it that YEC can't stand unless they ignore data?

 

[grmorton]

Well, it is definitely mentioned that plants died, since they were given the plants to eat. More importantly, you are asking someone to prove a negative. The point is that given the possible definitions of "death" it can be argued that there is no indication that there WASN'T death before the Fall. In the absence of the negative, we have the possibility of the positive, ie that there was physical death before the Fall.

There also was animal cell death before the fall. During embryo development, cells kill themselves as part of the process of forming the animal. For instance, in humans there is a webbing between the fingers early in embryonic life. The cells in this webbing undergo cellular suicide freeing up the fingers. Thus, animal cells were capable of dying before the Fall as well. And if cells were capable of death, then why not the entire organism?