I’ve never said animals and humans didn’t evolve. Humans evolved from other humans. Animals from other animals in the same family. Plants from other plants. It’s crazy if you look at picture of some ancient plants even a few millennia ago. They look completely different, especially if humans were involved in their evolution to produce more tasty and productive crops
Of course, he doesn’t abolish death for everyone. BUT he does for his children! This is the victory over sin and death.
Notice
John 3
The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
The wrath of God being on those who are disobedient means they REMAIN in the wrath of God and they do not see life. That doesn’t make sense unless death is the result of sin. It doesn’t say the wrath of God WILL BE on him, because he will go to hell. The wrath of God REMAINS on him as the physical death he is dying right then will continue to the second death.
Notice Genesis 2:17 - I’ve read elsewhere our translations don’t do a good job. It means “dying you shall die” Genesis 2:17 Interlinear: and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'
Notice it’s repetitive.
This word means physical death. Strong's Hebrew: 4191. מוּת (muth) -- to die
And the next one has the same root.
This statement is either that the tree of life as a symbol or seal would only bring judgment on a man who took of it (like an unbelieving person eating communion).
Or it means that literally he would exist in an eternal fallen state making redemption impossible. I’m not the only one who thinks that the latter could be the meaning. What does Genesis 3:24 mean? | BibleRef.com
@swamidass was possibly claiming that the history of the church is such that they did not believe Genesis 2:17 meant spiritual death and that the pronouncements were not physical death. So I started with the church fathers. They’re not all on the same page (you can see the rest of the quotes on the links), but these support my view.
CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA. We must inquire how it is that our first father Adam transmitted to us the punishment laid on him for his transgression. He heard the words, “Earth thou art, and into earth shalt, thou return” (Gn 3:19), and the incorruptible became corruptible and bound with the chains of death. But because he begot children after falling to death’s estate, we his progeny have become corruptible, since we are born of a corruptible father. So it is that we too are heirs of the curse in Adam; for surely we have not been visited with punishment as though we dis obeyed with him the divine command which he received, but because . . . be come mortal he transmitted the curse to the seed he fathered. We are mortal because mortal-sprung. [Cyril of Alexandria, De dogmatum solutione 6]
JOHN CHRYSOSTOM OF CONSTANTINOPLE. Since Adam also died on the day that he ate of the tree; for so ran the decree, “In the day that you eat of the tree, you shall die”; yet he lived. How then “died” he? By the decree; by the very nature of the thing; for he who has rendered himself liable to punishment, is under its penalty, and if for a while not actually so, yet he is by the sentence. [John Chrysostom, Homily 28 on the Gospel of John NPNF s.1 v.14]