Were humans created immortal?

[juvenissun]

And the Scriptural indication for that is ... where? People eat for survival. Food gives the body energy. There is nothing to suggest that Adam only ate just because he felt like it. It is said that God gave Adam food to eat. Nowhere does it say God gave Adam food to eat when he felt like it.

Believe it or not, I do can find one for you:

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

Does that suggest a necessity?

Here is another one for a contrast:

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

By the way, give you a question to think about: Why doesn't God give Adam herbs to eat in the Garden, but only fruit?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Believe it or not, I do can find one for you:

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

Does that suggest a necessity?

Does saying "you may help yourself" at buffet imply that we don't have to eat to survive? No, it doesn't. God is giving permission to Adam to eat certain things. That doesn't mean he doesn't have to eat to survive.

Here is another one for a contrast:

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

By the way, give you a question to think about: Why doesn't God give Adam herbs to eat in the Garden, but only fruit?

Does it matter? Fruit = food = survival. Beyond that, it is simply another consequence of a literal interpretation of Genesis being incorrect. One can delve into a theological symbolism, I suppose.

 

[theFijian]

You forgot the first two verses:

22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

According to that, there are many trees of life.

I know that English isn't your first language juvie so I'll help you out, there is only one tree mentioned in those verses, ONE. It's the use of the definite article 'the' which gives it away. this ONE tree bares 12 different types of fruit, which is only an exigetical problem for literalists.

Of course, I would agree with you that we may think the tree "represents" the Christ. But we don't have to.

The tree is an image of Christ, just like it is in Genesis. Literalism leads you to concocting all kinds of nonsense from these passages as you have amply demonstrated.

 

[Assyrian]

I mean relationship. Our relationship to God.

It is not stretching to assume that when God creates, He has a purpose, which is to create something which will have the closest relationship to Him. With this purpose, He creates everything around the purpose. This also explains why is Eve )) the last one to create. The last one showed up is usually the most important.

This is not easy. Simply think how could you create a wife or a son or a daughter who will love you so much and so faithfully with all the temptations in this world.

It's not easy, but he is God However I don't think it is simply about creating some one to love you, it is about creating people who will share your self sacrificial love, that you can love laying down you life for them and see them love each other the same way, loving you too yes certainly, but also loving you by sharing the love you have for others.

Of course I don't know how that would work in a world free from suffering and death.

 

[lucaspa]

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

Does that suggest a necessity?

A necessity for life? Yes. Remember, this is in contrast to one fruit that Adam is forbidden to eat. You took the verse out of context:
"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

You cut the sentence in two and thereby misinterpreted it.

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

By the way, give you a question to think about: Why doesn't God give Adam herbs to eat in the Garden, but only fruit?

I don't see where God forbids herbs. Instead, 2:17-18 is talking about fruit and what Adam should not eat. Apparently there is no herb he can't eat.

Of course, since you don't think there are 2 creation stories, we can go back to Genesis 1:29, God has already given humans herbs to eat:
"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."

Again, why would God have to give humans food? Because, if you don't eat, you starve ... to death. So physical death was already present.

 

[juvenissun]

It's not easy, but he is God However I don't think it is simply about creating some one to love you, it is about creating people who will share your self sacrificial love, that you can love laying down you life for them and see them love each other the same way, loving you too yes certainly, but also loving you by sharing the love you have for others.

Of course I don't know how that would work in a world free from suffering and death.

It won't. So we can easily see that Adam and Eve do not love God. They are like kids who know not what love is.

And all that is just a beginning. And we know what the whole story is.

Back to the OP, ...... so Adam and Eve are immortal in the Garden.

 

[Assyrian]

It won't. So we can easily see that Adam and Eve do not love God. They are like kids who know not what love is.

And all that is just a beginning. And we know what the whole story is.

Back to the OP, ...... so Adam and Eve are immortal in the Garden.

I agree they were like immature kids, but how would they ever have learned to love if Eden was free from pain suffering and death? Unless you are saying God needed them to sin and get thrown out of the garden to learn self sacrificial love, I mean, what is the point in immortality in that case?

 

[juvenissun]

I agree they were like immature kids, but how would they ever have learned to love if Eden was free from pain suffering and death? Unless you are saying God needed them to sin and get thrown out of the garden to learn self sacrificial love, I mean, what is the point in immortality in that case?

That is why I suggest that God is "waiting" for them to sin. And in this case, an immortal body is only a temporary tool or status. It is expected to expire sometime. This is a more logic view than saying that their bodies are mortal. Another hidden question here is: Why would God "expect" them to disobey? And why would God want to use the fruit of knowledge to be their stumbling block?

Another way to look at this: Adam lived 900+ years. When should we start to count his age? It would be reasonable to count his age as 0 when he was kicked out of the Garden. Otherwise, he could be thousands of years old.

 

[adamross]

NO! Immortality is a gift from God thru belief (ie worship) of Jesus as the Christ; the sincere belief and committment to God in the flesh. If God had created all humans immortal there would be no need for a Savior. I can't quote specific Scripture, but it's all thru the Bible. Jesus died & rose so that all can become immortal thru Him.
Jan Liebegott

 

[Mallon]

So yeah... Adam was created mortal.

 

[Assyrian]

That is why I suggest that God is "waiting" for them to sin. And in this case, an immortal body is only a temporary tool or status. It is expected to expire sometime. This is a more logic view than saying that their bodies are mortal.

The immortal body was only temporary? Seriously?

So not only is the idea of Adam and Eve being created immortal without any foundation in scripture, it is also completely pointless. And that is a logical view?

Another hidden question here is: Why would God "expect" them to disobey? And why would God want to use the fruit of knowledge to be their stumbling block?

Apart from knowing the end from the beginning? God expected them to fail because he knew flesh and blood with its needs and desires was simply not capable of consistently fulfilling Gods commands.
Why did God use the tree of knowledge? Same reason he gave Israel the Law, so they could begin to lean God's standards and at the same time learn their complete dependence on God's grace.

Another way to look at this: Adam lived 900+ years. When should we start to count his age? It would be reasonable to count his age as 0 when he was kicked out of the Garden. Otherwise, he could be thousands of years old.

I would have thought it was more reasonable to count his age by how long he lived. Sounds like your rational is that you need Adam to have lived thousands of years in the garden before he sinned, because you need a reason for him to be created immortal. But it is just made up to justify a doctrine that has no basis in scripture.

You know, not eating the fruit wasn't the only commandment God gave Adam and Eve. Gen 1:27 God created man in his own image. In God's image he created him; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them. God said to them, "Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Their first kid was born after they were kicked out of the garden. If they waited thousands or even millions off years in the garden no eating the fruit, they spent the same thousands or millions of years not obeying God's command to be fruitful and multiply.

 

[Assyrian]

NO! Immortality is a gift from God thru belief (ie worship) of Jesus as the Christ; the sincere belief and committment to God in the flesh. If God had created all humans immortal there would be no need for a Savior. I can't quote specific Scripture, but it's all thru the Bible. Jesus died & rose so that all can become immortal thru Him.
Jan Liebegott

Great post Jan and welcome to the forum

You know there is some great free bible software you can download to search out relevant passages, e-sword is the one I have been using. Recently I have downloaded The Word which has even better search options and can be loaded on a USB flash drive.

 

[Greg1234]

NO! Immortality is a gift from God thru belief (ie worship) of Jesus as the Christ; the sincere belief and committment to God in the flesh. If God had created all humans immortal there would be no need for a Savior. I can't quote specific Scripture, but it's all thru the Bible. Jesus died & rose so that all can become immortal thru Him.
Jan Liebegott

Right to the tree of life gives it away. Further, it's because man was immortal why there is a need for a savior (from sin through conquering death). Not tasked with being fruitful and filling the earth but with heavenly generation. Through one man sin entered and the price of sin is death. See also the warning in Genesis.

 

[juvenissun]

The immortal body was only temporary? Seriously?

So not only is the idea of Adam and Eve being created immortal without any foundation in scripture, it is also completely pointless. And that is a logical view?

Apart from knowing the end from the beginning? God expected them to fail because he knew flesh and blood with its needs and desires was simply not capable of consistently fulfilling Gods commands.
Why did God use the tree of knowledge? Same reason he gave Israel the Law, so they could begin to lean God's standards and at the same time learn their complete dependence on God's grace.

I would have thought it was more reasonable to count his age by how long he lived. Sounds like your rational is that you need Adam to have lived thousands of years in the garden before he sinned, because you need a reason for him to be created immortal. But it is just made up to justify a doctrine that has no basis in scripture.

You know, not eating the fruit wasn't the only commandment God gave Adam and Eve. Gen 1:27 God created man in his own image. In God's image he created him; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them. God said to them, "Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Their first kid was born after they were kicked out of the garden. If they waited thousands or even millions off years in the garden no eating the fruit, they spent the same thousands or millions of years not obeying God's command to be fruitful and multiply.

No. That will not be fair. If the flesh is the reason of sin, then God predestines them to sin rather than gives them free will to choose sin.

Yes, having flesh is probably weaker than having no flesh (like angels). That is why the pre-sinned Adam should not be burdened with flesh. It includes features related to flesh such as hungry or death.

The tree of knowledge. Think. If God used other thing to test Adam, then when Adam failed, he would be kicked off the Garden "with no knowledge of good and evil". Then we will not be able to tell good from evil. Imagine what would be the situation if you can not tell good from evil? You will become an easy prey of evil (like Adam and Eve) and know not that you should run away from it.

 

[juvenissun]

NO! Immortality is a gift from God thru belief (ie worship) of Jesus as the Christ; the sincere belief and committment to God in the flesh. If God had created all humans immortal there would be no need for a Savior. I can't quote specific Scripture, but it's all thru the Bible. Jesus died & rose so that all can become immortal thru Him.
Jan Liebegott

Adam does not need any savior when he lived in the Garden. If he behaved, he could live in there forever.

 

[theFijian]

Adam does not need any savior when he lived in the Garden. If he behaved, he could live in there forever.

If any post demonstrated the kind of serious error literalism leads to, this it's it.

 

[juvenissun]

If any post demonstrated the kind of serious error literalism leads to, this it's it.

What is the serious error?

 

[shernren]

If any post demonstrated the kind of serious error literalism leads to, this it's it.

Ehh, it's not too different from the Reformed idea of a prelapsarian covenant of works.

 

[Assyrian]

No. That will not be fair. If the flesh is the reason of sin, then God predestines them to sin rather than gives them free will to choose sin.

If the cross was foreordained from before the foundation of the world, then mankind was going to sin. That doesn't mean sin isn't our own free choice. Every sin is a choice. What we can't manage given our flesh and blood and human desires is consistency. But look at the command they had to obey, this wasn't the Mosaic Law with all its precepts and regulations. This was a simply leave this one tree alone, and they couldn't even do that. It is not that maybe they could have kept that command and lived in paradise, the tree of knowledge shows they could not keep the simplest rule. Of course we needed the cross.

Yes, having flesh is probably weaker than having no flesh (like angels). That is why the pre-sinned Adam should not be burdened with flesh. It includes features related to flesh such as hungry or death.

In spite of the bible describing Adam and Eve being made from flesh?

Eve was tripped up by the very same appetites and desires that make us fall. Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.
Compare that with James description of how our own desires trip us up.
James 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

The tree of knowledge. Think. If God used other thing to test Adam, then when Adam failed, he would be kicked off the Garden "with no knowledge of good and evil". Then we will not be able to tell good from evil. Imagine what would be the situation if you can not tell good from evil? You will become an easy prey of evil (like Adam and Eve) and know not that you should run away from it.

Don't we all learn first hand the difference between good and evil when we do what we know is wrong? It doesn't need a magical tree for that and the bible doesn't say the tree was magical. The bible says their eyes were opened when they sinned, why? Because they sinned and broke their relationship with God and went from life to spiritual death. The power of the tree of knowledge was not in the fruit, it was in their sin.

 

[theFijian]

Ehh, it's not too different from the Reformed idea of a prelapsarian covenant of works.

Ok maybe not serious error, but I'm following Juvie's (apologies to you) thought processes here. Does the Covenant of Works would mean that there would never be the need of a Saviour? Discussing the point is like two pilots flying a plane 30,000 feet up and debating since they've taken off already do they really need that landing gear stuff? The Covenant of Works demanded perfect obedience, would Adam have ever been able to provide that perfect obedience? What are we to think if Christ was "the Lamb slain before the creation of the World"? As a consequence Lapsarianism deals with the logical order of God's decree, not a chronological order.