The Universal Moral Law & Devolution since the Fall

19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."Sure seems to be a death sentence.Other passages confirm it:Romans 5:12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” 13You can believe the Bible or not; but don't tell Faith she's saying something the bible's not..The Bible not making sense to you is not the same thing as the Bible not saying what it's saying.You claim that God says just the opposite. Where?God only barred Adam and Eve from the tree of life after they had sinned. Now that they were no longer perfect moral agents they could not be allowed to live forever. The fact that they had not eaten of the tree of life in all the time prior to their rebellion implies that they were not expecting to die.Imagine your scenario:There's death in the world already. Adam and Eve must be aware of it (yes?). There's a source of immortality in their own backyard. All they have to do is eat some fruit. And they don't do it? Are they too lazy? What craziness prevents them from eating the fruit once and for all?

You can't have it both ways; if, as you say, death was a threat to them, they obviously knew that death is bad.

Then what does Paul mean that by one man sin entered the world? How could death already be part of the world if death clearly came through one man through sin (do you deny that Paul is refering to Adam here?) ... Adam and Eve didn't sin here? So their disobedience to God meant what? And God kicked them out of the garden why? You're last sentence makes no sense. Obviously they were capable of being moral or immoral - they chose the latter.By definition a moral agent has the ability to choose - Adam and Eve chose. End of story.
If they were incapable of being immoral or moral - I can't even conceive of what that would mean....

But you specifically said that death was a threat to them. What does this mean, since you are now implying that they were not threatened by death, but were merely aware of it (in other beings?)

OK, You critizize the plain reading of the text. Then you insert you're own (theory - I can't call it an interpretation of the text) as if it were in the text.I've said it before and I'll say it again. You can believe what you want. What you can't do is randomly speculate and then claim that the text supports it...

Where do you come up with this stuff? Paul was "well known for playing fast and loose with the facts"? Totally empty assertion.Let's assume that you're right about God kicking Adam and Eve out to bar them from the tree of life. What about the rest of the punishment? The serpent is cursed above all livestock and cursed to crawl on its bellyThe woman is given increased pain in childbirth and given to the rule of her husbandThe man is cursed to sweat for his food amid thorns, thistles, and painful toil.And man is guaranteed to return to dust (to die)If they were incapable of sin, Why was God punishing them? Since it's God punishing them, the clear inference is that they sinned. Edited by mjfloresta, : No reason given.

On the contrary, that there was no death pre-fall is indicated by the fact that death was a result OF the fall.It is the assertion that there was death pre-fall that is scripturally un-supported

All right, I'll be gone for a while but late tonight or tomorrow I'll start that thread..

No, the Bible states that pain was INCREASED in childbirth as a result of Eve's disobedience. The implication is that there was pain before but much less..Similarly for Adam, Adam' toil became painful as a result of the Fall
Working the ground became hard, painful. It is not explicitly mentioned that there was no death before the fall. It is explicitly mentioned that death entered the world through one man (the implication being Adam)If death entered the world through Adam, then there logically was no death before Adam.Otherwise how could death have entered the world through Adam? It would've already been there...

First off, let me say that I don't claim to know all the answers; That's important to realize and I think it's the major cause of the disagreement between "literalists" and those who aren't.What I mean is this. People forget that the Bible is a book that should be read as a book. (i'm not denying or affirming Christian doctrine of divine inspiration, by the way)
What I mean is that, like any other book, the Bible was written in a human language, subject to confines of grammar and context.Therefore, when the Bible says that there was a tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden with Adam, That's what the Bible says; It doesn't make it true, or false. It's merely what the Bible says, and to claim otherwise is to deny reality.I have been fascinated by the fact that many people play loose and free with the Bible in a manner they never would with any other book. When Homer relates his history of Troy, we do not speculate that Troy was a metaphorical city or some other mystical interpretation. We read Homer's story as he wrote it.The same applies to the Bible. I don't claim to understand everything about the Genesis account. And i'm not sure I can answer you in regard to why there was a tree of knowledge of good and evil. But the Bible says there was. It's dishonest to claim that the Bible says otherwise. You don't have to believe the Bible. You may think the Bible is incorrect. But not understanding the reason for something does not give you carte blanche to disregard the clear message of the text.To answer your question, I do believe that God put the Tree (of knowledge of good and evil) in Eden to test Adam and Eve's obedience. Many people here have raised the issue of moral agency. If God desired to create moral agents (those who have the ability to choose moral right or wrong) why then could he not test their loyalty via the tree? Scripture is plain that God allows us to be tempted. As far as the serpent, having fallen himself, his loyalty was anywhere but to God; consequently, he desires that others reject God as he did. Being in direct rebellion to God, he was justly punished, not rewarded...

It's been quoted a few times already but here it is:

If had a penny for everytime I've been asked to quote or support my biblical claims....I'd be richAnd if had a penny for everytime I've been asked to quote or support my biblical claims when I'd already quoted or supported my biblical claims....I'd be richer yetNow why is it that others don't subscribe to the same standard?You claim that Paul's statement is not based on Scripture (where do you get that from) OR that he may be speaking metaphorically. Now, if he is speaking metaphorically, would that be speaking metaphorically of the Genesis account?

By denying the Fall, what exactly are you denying?Here's what we know:God creates Adam and Eve.God orders Adam and Eve to eat from any tree in the garden but NOT to eat from the tree of knowledge.Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledge.Do you deny this is disobedience to God's direct command?If you agree that they disobeyed God, then perhaps you merely believe that they were not punished for their disobedience.?Why then did God not want them to eat from the tree of knowledge? What changed? If not the "fall" whatever that means to you, then what happened?Lastly, Why did God punish the Serpent, Eve, and Adam, increasing Eve's pain in childbearing, placing Eve under her Husband, Cursing the Serpent, Cursing the ground, Fating Adam to tend the ground amid toil, sweat, thorns and thistles, and promising Adam that he would indeed die.A. how do you construe all this as not being punishment?B. If not punishment, then what is it? This is how God spends his recreation time? cursing the serpent, the ground, etc...

HMM...let's see...Showing incredible power and majesty, God creates the universe including Eve. God tells Eve not to eat the fruit. The Serpent (also created by God) tells Eve to eat the fruit. The Serpent has no innate power or glory. It did not create anything God. It did not create Eve. It did not create anything. The only qualities the Serpent possesses are those reflections of God's creation. WHO SHOULD EVE LISTEN TO?Suppose I'm defusing a bomb; The maker of the bomb is telling me how to disarm the bomb but so is a little child. Who do I listen to? The maker of the bomb, who knows it intimately? or the ignorant child? Who should Eve listen to? The creator of the universe, including morality? Or a fellow creature, and one who has disobeyed God already?The same applies for Adam, substituing Eve for the Serpent, of course.

You're equating inclination with temptation; The two aren't synonyms.
Not at all.Inclination: A characteristic disposition to do, prefer, or favor one thing rather than another; a propensitySynonyms: tendency, trend, current, drift, tenor, inclinationBeing tempted says nothing about your inclination to respond, one way or the other