Death Before the Fall

[Michael_Okoko]

@thoughtful

Decay is not necessarily death. An immune response need not arise until disease because of death and sin was actually present.

No Valerie. Organismal decay is a consequence of death. To defend your interpretation of scripture, you are ignoring the knowledge we have now of cell biology and biochemistry. There must have been cellular death in the garden. There is no escaping this.

[structureoftruth (Matthew Dickau)]

@thoughtful

Probably the clearest passage is Romans 5:12

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned

@structureoftruth how does Garvey answer how death spread is it was already spread?

Is that really the clearest passage? If I read the thread correctly what we were discussing was whether evolutionary theory is contradicted by Scripture, because evolutionary theory has millions of years of animal death and Scripture (supposedly) has no death before the Fall.

But Romans 5:12 says nothing about the death of animals. In fact it’s quite easy to reconcile it to a GAE style scenario with evolutionary history and biological humans outside the Garden. E.g. the human beings in the view of Scripture are Adam and Eve and their descendants, and indeed sin and death spread to all of us because of their sin just as the verse says. (Those outside the Garden, not descended from Adam, are simply not mentioned, because by the time the Apostle Paul wrote Romans, they didn’t exist anymore.)

As for what Jon says about it in his book, I’d have to go look it up. Or you could.

@thoughtful

And God’s pronouncement:

The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat[d] of it you shall surely die.”

“The Day” and “Surely” - you need to show evidence God took this back.

I don’t know what you mean by that. Can you clarify?

@thoughtful

This misses the point that he was clearly making an argument for marriage using both Genesis 1 and 2 and stating “at the beginning” - there aren’t two beginnings.

Why does Genesis 1 and 2 being part of the same beginning invalidate an ancient earth or evolutionary theory? The whole history of the universe prior to the Garden could just be part of the beginning from the perspective of the story of Scripture without making a word of it false.

[John_Harshman]

@thoughtful

Their untruthfulness is what makes them evil, so your question doesn’t make sense.

You didn’t mention untruthfulness before. What makes you think it’s untruthful?

@thoughtful

I am thinking about the implications. That was my point.

But you don’t want to think about them, do you? Of course, you’re confused about the implications anyway.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@cwhenderson

It seems clear to me that Paul is comparing death to life through Jesus Christ, brought to an apex in verse 17. Since the life that we have in Jesus is spiritual life,

It’s REAL physical life too! That’s why we have the resurrection!

@cwhenderson

Since Adam did not physically die that day, I believe that again speaks of spiritual death, rather than physical death.

See what Michael wrote. Maybe he’s making more sense than me.

@Michael_Okoko

No Valerie. Organismal decay is a consequence of death. To defend your interpretation of scripture, you are ignoring the knowledge we have now of cell biology and biochemistry. There must have been cellular death in the garden. There is no escaping this.

@structureoftruth

the human beings in the view of Scripture are Adam and Eve and their descendants, and indeed sin and death spread to all of us because of their sin just as the verse says. (Those outside the Garden, not descended from Adam, are simply not mentioned, because by the time the Apostle Paul wrote Romans, they didn’t exist anymore.)

You’re OK with lots of “people” existing alongside Adam and Eve’s descendants viewed as “animals”?

@structureoftruth

I don’t know what you mean by that. Can you clarify?

If God made a promise, and took it back, then we should have clear evidence in scripture that He decided to exile them rather than them dying because of sin.

@structureoftruth

Why does Genesis 1 and 2 being part of the same beginning invalidate an ancient earth or evolutionary theory?

It perhaps doesn’t. It invalidates GAE though.

@John_Harshman

What makes you think it’s untruthful?

The Bible, the science, the ridiculous debates. The fact this theory has been around and the science for it has gotten worse not better. If it had any merit, the church would’ve already been fully on board.

[Michael_Okoko]

@thoughtful

See what Michael wrote. Maybe he’s making more sense than me.

What he said has nothing to do with what I said. He is arguing for spiritual death as a better interpretation instead of physical death.

@thoughtful

the science for it has gotten worse not better

Tumors and antibiotic resistant bacteria: you say what??

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

@thoughtful

It’s REAL physical life too! That’s why we have the resurrection!

The resurrection shows us that physical death is not the end. It does not imply anything about the origin of physical death.

@thoughtful

See what Michael wrote. Maybe he’s making more sense than me.

I agree with @Michael_Okoko that he is making a completely different argument.

@thoughtful

You’re OK with lots of “people” existing alongside Adam and Eve’s descendants viewed as “animals”?

You are arguing against something @structureoftruth never said.

@thoughtful

It perhaps doesn’t. It invalidates GAE though.

Not at all, I can’t tell why you would even think so.

@thoughtful

The Bible, the science, the ridiculous debates. The fact this theory has been around and the science for it has gotten worse not better. If it had any merit, the church would’ve already been fully on board.

Oh goodness, @thoughtful, let’s examine this argument in more detail.

1. The Bible - there are millions of us Christ-followers that accept the Bible as the Word of God and accept the scientific evidence for evolution and believe that God created through the process. Are you ready to take the stance that anyone that believes differently from you is wrong by default? If so, I admire your confidence in your own understanding, but would encourage humility.

2. The science - The science has only become more certain in the last 150 years that current life on the planet is a result of evolutionary processes.

3. The ridiculous debates - There are ridiculous debates that 5G is causing the coronavirus pandemic. Does that somehow invalidate scientific evidence that 5G is irrelevant?

4. If it had any merit, the church would’ve already been on board - Well, if you are using the opinion of the church as a whole as the arbiter of truth, you should probably acknowledge that a majority of the church worldwide is already on board. Second, I am reasonably confident we can agree that church opinion is an inadequate tool for the measurement of scientific validity.

[r_speir]

@cwhenderson

The resurrection shows us that physical death is not the end. It does not imply anything about the origin of physical death.

All of you here who are arguing in this fashion can only be wrong. How would we even know what death was except that they ate of the fruit. It would have been a totally foreign concept to Adam and Eve had they never rebelled. A foreign concept, that is, because it never existed until then.

[John_Harshman]

@thoughtful

The Bible, the science, the ridiculous debates. The fact this theory has been around and the science for it has gotten worse not better. If it had any merit, the church would’ve already been fully on board.

The bible has nothing useful to say about evolution. The science does, and it supports current theories. Not sure what ridiculous debates you’re talking about or why you think the science has gotten worse. Nor do I understand why you think the church is decisively influenced by the scientific merit of a theory.

None of that seems like a reasonable response to my question.

[r_speir]

@cwhenderson

The science - The science has only become more certain in the last 150 years that current life on the planet is a result of evolutionary processes.

You could have said “science consensus” and you would have been right. But we have all read, including you, that the advent of genetics is actually helping to unravel that evolutionary consensus.

@cwhenderson

Well, if you are using the opinion of the church as a whole as the arbiter of truth, you should probably acknowledge that a majority of the church worldwide is already on board.

You almost certainly would be found to be incorrect here if you were able to pull the numbers. Can you prove that the WW church is already onboard?

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

@r_speir

All of you here who are arguing in this fashion can only be wrong.

Unless we are right, of course! I’m not sure why you are so confident in your own opinion.

@r_speir

How would we even know what death was except that they ate of the fruit.

How would a warning of death work if Adam and Eve had no concept of it? It seems to me that “you will surely die” would only be an effective deterrent if they actually knew what death was.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@thoughtful

The fact this theory has been around and the science for it has gotten worse not better.

You have no basis for claiming that, as you steadfastly avoid evidence in favor of hearsay.

@thoughtful

If it had any merit, the church would’ve already been fully on board.

The church? Really? Most Christian churches already are.

[structureoftruth (Matthew Dickau)]

@thoughtful

You’re OK with lots of “people” existing alongside Adam and Eve’s descendants viewed as “animals”?

@thoughtful

If God made a promise, and took it back, then we should have clear evidence in scripture that He decided to exile them rather than them dying because of sin.

Precisely as Curtis noted:

@cwhenderson

You are arguing against something @structureoftruth never said.

Particularly for the second - if you’re suggesting there is a problem with the fact that God said “in the day you eat of the fruit you will surely die” followed by their exile from the Garden rather than immediate death, then it is a problem shared by YECs as well as OECs.

In regards to the first, I never said that the biological humans outside the Garden are viewed by Scripture as animals. I suggested they are not in view at all.

Another possibility is that they are implicitly in view: it is not a great strain on the text to read Genesis 1 and 2 sequentially, so that all biological humans (who are all made in the image of God) are in view in Genesis 1, and Adam and Eve specifically are in view in Genesis 2. Adam and Eve are created in a special relationship with God and intended to bring all those outside the Garden in: then there are very strong parallels between Adam and Israel and Christ (making sense of some other themes in Scripture, such as the parallels between the Garden of Eden and the Temple).

So there’s multiple ways this could go without difficulty for the GAE view.

[r_speir]

@cwhenderson

It seems to me that “you will surely die” would only be an effective deterrent if they actually knew what death was.

And how specifically was death modeled in front of Adam and Eve?

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

@r_speir

And how specifically was death modeled in front of Adam and Eve?

I suspect it was by watching living organisms die.

[r_speir]

@cwhenderson

I suspect it was by watching living organisms die.

Your suspicions are not enough to rewrite the Genesis history to include evolution and death of Human Kind before the Fall. How again are you claiming that humans were already dying? Or were you claiming that at all?

[Mark10.45 (Mark McGowan)]

@cwhenderson

It seems to me that “you will surely die” would only be an effective deterrent if they actually knew what death was.

This is a really great argument, thank you. God doesn’t say unimportant or superfluous things and would not have addressed the penalty of sin with something they did not understand, so they must have known and death must have existed in some form. Makes perfect sense to me and to the Spirit of truth in me. Logical hermeneutics makes me happy.

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

@r_speir

Your suspicions are not enough to rewrite the Genesis history to include evolution and death of Human Kind before the Fall. How again are you claiming that humans were already dying? Or were you claiming that at all?

I’ve explained previously why I think the standard Biblical passages that are often used to support the “no death before the Fall” idea are wrong - in Genesis, Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. The sin of Adam and Eve brought spiritual death, not physical death. I don’t think any of it needs rewriting.

[r_speir]

@cwhenderson

I’ve explained previously why I think the standard Biblical passages that are often used to support the “no death before the Fall” idea are wrong - in Genesis, Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. The sin of Adam and Eve brought spiritual death, not physical death. I don’t think any of it needs rewriting.

So God was saying “You will surely die spiritually”. Is this your view? But you told me that physical death had already been modeled before them. Reconcile this for us.