There must have been death in Paradise even before mans fall...

[gluadys]

no death
but no reproduction either

No reproduction? Wouldn't that be disobedience to the command: Be fruitful and multiply?

 

[withreason]

Well, now you are just compounding the problem, throwing another passage into the mix without showing any reason to do so.

I cant believe you said this? Mat 5:17 is core to understanding the source root of the information that has been authored and preserved by God as a multi-dimensional illustration of Gods work & plan in Christ.

Which basically comes down to opinion and interpretation. I still don't fathom the basic ground rules you are using for interpreting scripture in this way.

all of life is opinion and interpretation! .. ground rules??
finding the reason and answer as to why 1 Cor 15:20 "seemingly" appears to identify Christ as the first fruit, when the law, (that Christ identified his fulfillment of) speaks otherwise! the rule is truth! scriptural harmony!

No, he doesn't. He doesn't refer to either Leviticus or Matthew, and assuming that he interpreted Leviticus in the same way you suggest is just that: an assumption.

it is not assumption! it is predictable conclusion that paul's strict obssesive obediance to scriptural integrity would not allow him to alter the identity of the first fruit, from the identity described in lev...

Well, the separation of "Christ" from "first fruits" in 1 Cor. 15:23 is solely a matter of interpretation. Remember, the original writing had no punctuation to guide the reader to one possibility rather than another. Furthermore, even if a comma is inserted after "Christ" so that it reads "Christ, the first fruits, ..." that still doesn't mean they are separated, as a comma can designate a description in apposition to the name as well as a separate item in a list.

you have solid reasoning here...but, Cor 15:20, leads the reader.....if the word..Ginomai,in 15:20 had been translated as fulfilled,or made instead of "became" then we would not be having this debate!

I have nothing against deep study and going beyond a superficial meaning, but I want to see some rhyme and reason in the methodology.

All I see is a kind of plucking of proof texts from anywhere and everywhere to prop up a just-so story, with no regard to authorship or dating, the purpose for which it was written, the integrity of each text, the historical and theological context of each text on its own, and no substantiating that they are supposed to be considered together at all, much less in the way you are proposing.

I can only use what is available, and where it is available..Lev descrbes and identifies the first fruit, Rev 14. tells us what the loaves are, males from the tribes of israel, which harmonizes with all the inferance to firstborn firstfruit throughout the bible.
Paul in 1 Cor 15:20 makes a contradicting statement that does not support, or harmonize with lev, or rev.

so why are you connecting what Matthew says to first fruits at all?

it was clearly a resurrection event of many people,(possibly many thousands)taking place before the promised event at his coming! (and I do dare to speculate that they were all male, and firstborn!)
a partial harvest, before the main harvest! that is presicely what the firstfruits of the harvest signifies.

Paul is speaking of Christ. He makes no reference to Matthew's gospel. Probably because Matthew hadn't written it yet, so there was nothing to refer to.

the entire 15th chapter is about the resurrection, with Christ being the resurrection they are synonymous, and paul expounds on that very point.
The resurrected saints in Mat, I'm sure was a very popular subject of discussion being witnessed by many who observed the bodies.
Mat, is the only reference point! thats not My fault!

 

[gluadys]

it is not assumption! it is predictable conclusion that paul's strict obssesive obediance to scriptural integrity would not allow him to alter the identity of the first fruit, from the identity described in lev...

Paul would have used the rabbinical interpretation of the 1st century. If you can show that your interpretation agrees with that, you might be going somewhere.

you have solid reasoning here...but, Cor 15:20, leads the reader.....if the word..Ginomai,in 15:20 had been translated as fulfilled,or made instead of "became" then we would not be having this debate!

With four out of five definitions given including the concept "became" you need a solid reason to use the less common translation. The most used Bible translations are made by teams of expert scholars. I need more than one person's biased opinion to challenge their choice.

I can only use what is available, and where it is available..

It is not what is available that I question, but how you use it. To me what you are doing is like a person taking the complete works of Shakespeare, finding a line in Hamlet, another in Love's Labour Lost, another in Henry V, and another in a sonnet and stringing them all together to support the idea that there is some sort of code running through Shakespeare's work that tells a story only he has discovered.

I don't think either Shakespeare or the Bible were written in this way or should be interpreted in this way.

Paul in 1 Cor 15:20 makes a contradicting statement that does not support, or harmonize with lev, or rev.

Even if I agreed with you, (and I don't), so what? Why is it necessary for Paul's statement to harmonize with the others? Why can't he have an independent idea?

 

[withreason]

Paul would have used the rabbinical interpretation of the 1st century. If you can show that your interpretation agrees with that, you might be going somewhere.

To the contrary; Paul would not have used rabbinical interpretation, Paul consistently displays his education to contradict rabbinical misconceptions of Torah.

To find any 1st century rabbinical interpretation of the wave loaves seems impossible, lengthy searching only produces commentary from post Diaspora rabbi’s with the common conclusion..IE..the lack of explanation links it to the giving of the law from Sinai >

The problems of Shavuot are not new; they have a long history. In the Torah, Shavuot is the only one of the festivals that is lacking a historical explanation. The connection that the Pharisees made between Shavuot and the events at Sinai gave Shavuot new importance during the Second Temple period.
For the Pharisees, on the other hand, living long after the event at a time when the Torah - the eventual product that had developed from the Sinai revelation - was at the very center of Jewish life and belief, it seemed impossible that this important event should not be celebrated and commemorated each year. They drew the logical conclusion that Shavuot, a holiday with no connection to an event, and Sinai, an event with no connection to a holiday, must belong together.
This seems to indicate that there was no defined meaning of the wave loaves (Shavuot) with the age of the Pharisee? I find this difficult! since they had an oppinion for everything..

With four out of five definitions given including the concept "became" you need a solid reason to use the less common translation. The most used Bible translations are made by teams of expert scholars. I need more than one person's biased opinion to challenge their choice.

I understand this, it has taken me years to get over this, along with the common theological interpretation. Yet the more I researched and studied, the more the scriptural discrepancy became more clear to me, infringing upon the integrity of the word of God! My resolution to this was close to 11 years in discovery. One small seemingly insignificant translation, yet, within that lies the power to change the entire conceptual understanding of the resurrection, pre-trib/post-trib rapture arguments, while maintaining scriptural integrity imposed by God that No Man shall change/alter without suffering the consequences, this includes Paul!

I reason that for Paul to redefine the identity of the first fruit, he is violating Mat 5:18 one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven

It is not what is available that I question, but how you use it. To me what you are doing is like a person taking the complete works of Shakespeare, finding a line in Hamlet, another in Love's Labour Lost, another in Henry V, and another in a sonnet and stringing them all together to support the idea that there is some sort of code running through Shakespeare's work that tells a story only he has discovered.

I don't think either Shakespeare or the Bible were written in this way or should be interpreted in this way.

This is silly! I am purposing the intent, meaning, and goal from one author, with the manual being metaphorically and time encrypted. I am only providing reasonable doubt , that only implies human error

Even if I agreed with you, (and I don't), so what? Why is it necessary for Paul's statement to harmonize with the others? Why can't he have an independent idea?

This also is silly! Paul cannot have an independent idea, he is serving God for the edifying of the world! In the instruction of truth! …independent idea ?? you are surly playing with me?? I hope?

 

[gluadys]

To the contrary; Paul would not have used rabbinical interpretation, Paul consistently displays his education to contradict rabbinical misconceptions of Torah.

Just because Paul came to understand that Jesus was the Messiah doesn't mean he tossed out everything he had ever learned. There is no reason to suppose he had any other interpretation of Leviticus than the standard rabbinical interpretation of the time, except where he saw a Messianic reference. And that appears to be what is behind 1 Cor. 15:20

This seems to indicate that there was no defined meaning of the wave loaves (Shavuot) with the age of the Pharisee? I find this difficult! since they had an oppinion for everything..

Why does there need to be a symbolic meaning? And if a symbolic meaning is attributed within rabbinical norms, the connection of Shavuot to the giving of the Law would probably connect it to the two tables of the Ten Commandments. If the rabbis did not make such a connection, it seems likely they simply saw the reference to the loaves as a reference to loaves and nothing else.

Paul makes no mention of the loaves and the fact there were two of them. If it were a matter of importance, I expect he would have done so.

I understand this, it has taken me years to get over this, along with the common theological interpretation. Yet the more I researched and studied, the more the scriptural discrepancy became more clear to me, infringing upon the integrity of the word of God! My resolution to this was close to 11 years in discovery. One small seemingly insignificant translation, yet, within that lies the power to change the entire conceptual understanding of the resurrection, pre-trib/post-trib rapture arguments, while maintaining scriptural integrity imposed by God that No Man shall change/alter without suffering the consequences, this includes Paul!

OK. Now convince other biblical scholars of the correctness of this interpretation. That is the way scholarly opinion changes.

I reason that for Paul to redefine the identity of the first fruit, he is violating Mat 5:18 one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven

I don't think Paul is trying to redefine anything here. He is merely making an analogy.

This is silly! I am purposing the intent, meaning, and goal from one author, with the manual being metaphorically and time encrypted. I am only providing reasonable doubt , that only implies human error

"Encrypted" means written in code. I don't think anything in the bible is written in code.

This also is silly! Paul cannot have an independent idea, he is serving God for the edifying of the world! In the instruction of truth! …independent idea ?? you are surly playing with me?? I hope?

Not playing at all. You are making assumptions about what can and cannot be in scripture based on your interpretation of what inspiration is. I don't agree that inspiration takes away the independent thinking of the human authors or requires that their statements always harmonize with one another.

As far as I am concerned, the author of Leviticus can say the first fruit offering is two loaves of bread and not intend any deeper meaning, John in Revelation can call the 144,000 first fruits to God and the Lamb, and Paul in the context of asserting the resurrection of Christ can refer to him as the first fruits from the dead. And they can all be correct and all their work can be inspired of God. There is no need to dream up complicated hermeneutical scenarios to force them into an artificial harmonization.

 

[CyberCrimeFighter]

Whitestar,

There is nothing wrong with asking the questions that you're asking because that's how we all learn.

I personally believe that there was no death before the fall, before Sin...meaning no bloodshed.

Paradise was Paradise and Adam and Eve walked with GOD (Who by the way was a PreIncarnate Appearance of GOD the Son).

Think of those verses in Isaiah about the relationship of the animals with each other and a little child leading them. (Isaiah 11:6-9 and Isaiah 65:25)

Death, bloodshed, disease and suffering are all the consequence of Sin.

These injustices are here because mankind's Sin has invaded GOD's Creation.

The Lord allows them but He has not caused them.

The Evolution Worldview says that there was death before man was created; GOD says otherwise.

Keep in mind that dinosaurs existed in the Garden with Adam and Eve.

That's why the Evolutionist has to have billions of years in their equation to back up their theory. Have you ever asked an evolutionist "Were you there" I like to also add that I know Someone Who Was.

Evolution is the most dangerous religion on the planet today because it denies the Existence of a Creator. (Read Romans 1:16-32)

When you don't worship the True and Living GOD, you WILL worship something else, "and professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (King David also had something to say about that in Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1)

I challenge you to do a study on SIN sometime. It is Sin that JESUS laid down His Life for and it is His Blood that cleanses us from all Sin.

"Without the Shedding of Blood there is no Forgiveness" and
"The Life of the Flesh is in the Blood" (Read through Hebrews, chapters 6-9)

The whole Old Testament Sacrificial System was based on this Concept that GOD instituted and gave to Moses.

So getting back to your original point, when you begin to understand the significance of the Blood and of Sin, He will begin to show you that His Thoughts are not our thoughts and His Ways are not our ways...For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are His Ways higher than our ways and His Thoughts higher than our thoughts.

He is Eternal Infinite GOD and we are mere finite mortal men and women. Let every man be made a liar but GOD is not a man that He should lie.

Search the Scriptures daily to see if these things are true.

It all started in a Garden and it is all going to end in a Garden.

"For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of GOD, for the creation was subjected to futility (SIN), not willingly, but because of Him Who subjected it in Hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of GOD" (Romans 8:19-21)

Here is a good resource for you should you so desire:

www.icr.org It is the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego and has many good resources for you to understand these things.
Dr. Henry Morris, who has gone home to be with the Lord, wrote an excellent book on this and many more questions you might have.

May He show you many great and mighty things that you do not know yet. When you seek Him with all your heart to know the Truth of His Word, know that He will meet you right where you are! I am one who speaks from experience.

Here is another challenge for you:

"We are being plunged into a period of time about which the Bible says more than it does about any other period of time in history...including the time that JESUS walked the shores of Galilee or climbed the mountains of Judea."

Be a noble minded Berean and search the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things are true.
(Acts 17:11)

 

[gluadys]

Evolution is the most dangerous religion on the planet today because it denies the Existence of a Creator. (Read Romans 1:16-32)

Evolution is not a religion. It is a scientific theory and a very good one. No scientific theory denies the existence of a Creator, including the theory of evolution.

Dr. Henry Morris, who has gone home to be with the Lord, wrote an excellent book on this and many more questions you might have.

Virtually nothing that Morris has written has stood up to scientific scrutiny.

Do you believe God made a real world? One that witnesses to him? If so, what possible reason is there to set aside what creation tells us about itself?

 

[Assyrian]

The Evolution Worldview says that there was death before man was created; GOD says otherwise.

No he doesn't, at least not in the bible anyway.

Keep in mind that dinosaurs existed in the Garden with Adam and Eve.

That's not in there either.

"For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of GOD, for the creation was subjected to futility (SIN), not willingly, but because of Him Who subjected it in Hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of GOD" (Romans 8:19-21)

It does not say 'sin'.

Be a noble minded Berean and search the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things are true.
(Acts 17:11)

I seriously recommend you take some of your own advice and search the scriptures for yourself to see what they actually say instead of relying on what creationist writers tell you is supposed to be there.

 

[lamblion]

yes, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God and thats why those in whom which it is prepared for are not of flesh and blood. The kingdom of heaven is one thing, but scripture tells us that a whole new earth and new heaven will be created. Why? God created humanity as a special race, and because of the great work of God uniting humanity through Christ, mankind will always be a unqiue creation.

Adam's body was not subject to death, for when God created it He himself said " It is good". Everything from the hand of God is life and is not ment to die, but because of sin the body became subject to that in dying it would surly die. Yes God did know that this consiquence would accur, and that mankind would face this penalty, but He also knew that Jesus Christ would come and defeat that very thing that is caused by the error in mans freewill.

.

 

[Assyrian]

But God created mankind flesh and blood.

 

[Xaero]

nothing died until man sinned.

The whole surface of the land mass is about 150mio km².
There are 1200 genera of mammals. Let's assume genus=kind; at the beginning were only 2 of every kind and one need just 100m² space for living...

The earth would be overcrowded in 30 years...

When including reptiles and all other creeping things the earth would be unhabitable in just a few years.

For what reason did god create sexual reproduction in the first place? He could have created a bunch of immortal humans/animals all over the world without the need for multiplying.

 

[JohnR7]

I personally believe that there was no death before the fall, before Sin...meaning no bloodshed.

The evidence does not support what you believe. There are far to many skeltons that are older then 6,000 years that have arrow heads in them.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--

Paul said that SIN entered the world though Adam and death through sin. That does not mean there was no death before Adam, it just means that there was no sin in the world before Adam.

There is nothing complicated about this.

 

[withreason]

Reading these arguments about death before the fall of Adam gives me the urge to post, though I am adamant about supporting My creationist belief, it is my literal interpretation of the bible that tells me death did exist before sin.
For starters… the creation explains this, the high protein needs for land, and aquatic animal life that can not be obtained from any other source except meat, the oceans teaming with life can not be supported by plankton! God did not curse the oceans, or did he re-create all of biological life in the animal kingdom to accommodate certain species with the needed tools to support their place in the food chain, as a result of Adams Sin.
Additionally; God stated to Adam that ..”thow shalt surely die” if Adam eats of the tree, the word “surely” suggests a prior knowledge of death, and if there was no death, than why was there a tree of life in the garden that was removed? The very creation itself God said would wear out like a worn out wheel, the heavens and the earth! All of this creation is temporal, and it is moving along as it was planned from the creation! The Sin is the transgression resulting in separation, spiritual death. The work of Christ is to save the spirit! Not the flesh.
The flesh was created from the beginning to hang on a tree, because God created the end when he created the beginning! He did not place the “Crown of his creation” in the presence of his enemy with one command to just sit back and roll the dice with Adam.
God’s thoughts and plans are eternally higher than our conceptual ideas of what we think he means when he said this creation is good! The goal is eternal, but the method for obtaining perfection , even for Christ, required suffering!

 

[UBERROGO]

I just thought out the fly example myself, but I could have picked any living thing. I just picked the fly because it is so small, imagine if I picked something like rhinos!!

Anyway I also do not think you understand me because you are starting to talk about dead bodies... but there will be no dead bodies because all the flies will live to be 500 years old and still be going strong ... (or run out of space...) But I could have picked any living creature ...

OOOOOOOHHHH Ic.

 

[Scotishfury09]

First, I'd like to impose on this analogy of the flies. I think it needs to be understood that animals need nourishment and sustenance to grow. This comes from the earth. When we gain weight, it comes from food that comes from the earth, so to a degree no matter how many flies you have they would never accumulate to that much weight PLUS the earth's weight. It would balance out. Also to comment of a few things withreason said. "For starters… the creation explains this, the high protein needs for land, and aquatic animal life that can not be obtained from any other source except meat, the oceans teaming with life can not be supported by plankton!" Look back to the story of Daniel. He doesn't eat any meat for 10 days and through the glory of God he is much healthier than the rest of the young boys. Now, I understand that this is only 10 days, but my point is that if God could take care of Daniel, he can take care of the animals. Now, back to creation. When God creates woman it says in Genesis 2:25 - Now the man and his wife were both naked, but they felt no shame. This brings me to my last point. You reference the Tree of Life. I'd like to clarify that it's the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Eating the fruit brought upon the world the knowledge of Good and Evil. This is why they understood that they were naked.

 

[gluadys]

First, I'd like to impose on this analogy of the flies. I think it needs to be understood that animals need nourishment and sustenance to grow. This comes from the earth. When we gain weight, it comes from food that comes from the earth, so to a degree no matter how many flies you have they would never accumulate to that much weight PLUS the earth's weight. It would balance out.

Are you saying that as the population (and total weight) of the flies increased the earth would lose weight and become smaller?

Wouldn't that be kind of self-defeating?

 

[ArmyMatt]

The problem with a lot of this, is a lot of people here are assuming that the laws of physics worked the same way before the fall, as they did after the fall. If the fall radically changed not just man, not just earth, but all of Creation, then things may have worked very differently back then as they do now. Earth may not have been bound by space or time in the same way during Adam's time. Remember he could also see the Garden from outside of it, but we can't. We don't know the extent of the fall because we have only ever lived on one side of it.

 

[gluadys]

The problem with a lot of this, is a lot of people here are assuming that the laws of physics worked the same way before the fall, as they did after the fall. If the fall radically changed not just man, not just earth, but all of Creation, then things may have worked very differently back then as they do now. Earth may not have been bound by space or time in the same way during Adam's time. Remember he could also see the Garden from outside of it, but we can't. We don't know the extent of the fall because we have only ever lived on one side of it.

Well that is sheer speculation. Nothing in scripture suggests such a radical change. All that is mentioned is that agriculture would become more difficult with thorns and thistles growing in the fields and women would experience pain in childbirth.

I don't think it appropriate to add extravagantly to scripture in order to discount what is found in God's creation. Should we not rather respect the work of God's hands?

 

[StevenMerten]

Either there must have been physical death in paradise, or God wanted us to eat the fruit just so that within 7 month His whole creation will not be squished by those overweight female flies!!!

I am putting a humoristic view on this, but I am actually asking very earnestly what your opinion is...

(Sorry, the title had to be "Paradise" and not Paradys as in my native tongue ... )

Hello White St*r,

I am not really sure how this separation of young earth, old earth separation in forums works but can I invite you to my thread in Creationism? God exists outside of time; infinite past + future created thousands of years ago.

I believe God exists outside of physical time which He created thousands of years ago. I believe that God can look at infinite past and infinite future physical time, which He created thousands of years ago, as a human looks at a three inch piece of yarn. I believe that God has the Power to change or alter infinite past and infinite future physical paramiters, which He created thousand of years ago.

I believe that physical paramiters of infinite past changed right allong with the physical paramiters of infinite future, upon the fall of man. The garden of Eden exists in another timeline.

Does this help you with your question?

Please visit the thread I started in Creationism and let me know what you think?

God exists outside of time; infinite past + future created thousands of years ago.

 

[ArmyMatt]

See, but the laws of physics state that there is decay in the modern world, yet in Paradise there was no decay. Nothing died, rotted, grew sick, etc. This would enclude the decay that occurs anywhere in the universe. This is not speculation, this is the teaching of the church.