Is Genesis to be taken literally Part II

There are so many unanswered questions from thread one that I think another thread should be open to allow Terry to respond.Terry makes so many sweeping unsupported statements about the reliability of the Book of Genesis that I feel he should really begin to support these assertions with some tangible evidence instaed of what amount to nothing more than his opinion.Terry made two claims in the first thread (post 297)that I believe are erroneous and are either not found in the biblical text, nor are they even suggested. First of all, he suggests that the world was created ‘to be perfect’, however, nowhere in the Book of Genesis does God actually say that his creation was perfect. He does claim that it was very good, but very good and perfect is not the same thing. If you were to hand in an essay to be assessed, you would know that if you scored a very good then you do not have a perfect score, a ‘very good’ means that it was just that ‘very good’ it is, however, not perfect.So, the claim that God’s creation was perfect is one that is simply invented by fundies who ignore the biblical texts. This is another claim by Terry that is incorrect, the claim that nothing died before the Fall of mankind, is not a biblical one. This is another fundy claim that has no basis in anything biblical.Fundies seem to ignore the fact that plants are alive and when eaten by animals or humans it is difficult to imagine how they survive.This claim that nothing died before the Fall is entirely unbiblical.Genesis 1:29-30And 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.

​

And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.So, you can see that all that Adam and Eve had to eat was really just a vegetarian diet, I mean they had to eat something in order to survive didn't they?Also, all the animals ate plants and herbs (1:30)So, as plants are alive, this idea that nothing died before the Fall is simply untrue.I often wonder what whales ate under this unbiblical fundamentalist scenario.Brian.

Thread moved here from the Topic Proposals Archive forum.

Vegekrill, obviously. Not to put words in Terry's mouth, but the fundamentalist reply I've seen most often for "no death before the Fall" involves a "Biblical" definition of what can "die" - only that which has the breath of life in its nostrils. Stomata on tomato leaves presumably don't count as nostrils. The further logical consequences of this approach, though, need a little exploration - if Terry or anyone else here supports it.

While there is nothing in Genesis that specifically says there was no death before the "Fall", it does strongly imply that there WAS death before the "Fall". In fact, the reason that GOD chased Adam and (St)Eve out of the Garden of Eden was not because they disobeyed him and ate from the Tree of Knowledge, but from the fear that they would eat from the Tree of Life.Terry's claim simply does not stand up to even a cursory examination of Genesis. If there was no death then there would be no need for the Tree of Life nor would GOD have feared them eating from it.Genesis 3:22-24

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

where do you get that GOD feared them eating from it? i thought they hid themselves.some people say Adam and Eve would have already eaten from the Tree of Life. which would be one of the reasons why they lived long lives. special enzymes in the fruit or something.what about thorns? didn't thorns not come out until after the fall? aren't thorns just dead leaves?

Because that god in the Bible says so. I included the passage in my post.Genesis 3:22-24 So it was nothing to do with hiding, or eating from the Tree of Knowledge or disobeying GOD that got Adam chased out of the Garden of Eden but rather the fear that they would eat from the Tree of Life and live forever.It's interesting but there is no mention that Eve got tossed out as well, nor is there any indication that any of the animals or other critters got tossed out. There's not even any indication that there was not continual coming and going into the Garden of Eden continuing right down to today.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

sorry for some reason i thought you said adam and eve were chased inside the garden.you use the word "feared."but they had babies outside of the garden?This message has been edited by moolmogo, 02-12-2005 17:57 AM

No, I said that GOD feared that they would eat from the Tree of Life. It was GOD's fear that got Adam chased out of the Garden initially.TTBOMK there is nothing that shows or implies that they didn't go back into the Garden of Eden or even have the kids while in the Garden.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So the Garden of Eden is still there somewhere in the Middle East? Funny that no one noticed cherubims and flaming swords?

Well, kinda. The Garden of Eden is the land bounded by four great rivers. We know about two, the Tigres and Euphrates but the other two are somewhat vague and currently undetermined. But if we look at the land bound by the two known rivers it gives us two definite places to look. We could start along the Tigris and look east to the Euphrates or we could say it was meant to start along the Tigris and look west towards the Euphrates. I'm pretty sure that the Garden of Eden would be found in one of those two locations.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

How come Ron Wyatt never found it?

As Adam and Eve were given the command to 'fill the earth and subdue it,' I'd imagine that work would be required in order to maintain the garden of eden. Left neglected, we could expect it to become just some wilderness and unrecognizable by future generations.

I think Ronnie was only looking West from the Tigris. He never explored all of the direction going East.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Taken literally, Genesis doesn't support a nothing-died-before-the-fall theory.If there was no death before the fall, then God's threat of death would hold no meaning for Adam. According to this verse, the death threat was for man, not the rest of creation.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

While there is nothing in Genesis that specifically says there was

quote:

---

no death before the "Fall", it does strongly imply that there WAS death before the "Fall". In fact, the reason that GOD chased Adam and (St)Eve out of the Garden of Eden was not because they disobeyed him and ate from the Tree of Knowledge, but from the fear that they would eat from the Tree of Life.
Terry's claim simply does not stand up to even a cursory examination of Genesis. If there was no death then there would be no need for the Tree of Life nor would GOD have feared them eating from it.

---

Ok lets think about this. I've heard this claim several times about this verse, Gen 3-22-24, that b/c God feared them becoming immortal at this point there must have been death before the fall. Well no this is not at all the caseLet's examine real quickly. Originally, Adam and Eve could eat of every plant except the tree of knowledge and good and evil. If God feared, at that time, that they might eat of the tree of life he would have put the same restriction on it. Interesting that is not until after the fall that he is then fearful that they would eat of the tree of life and live forever. Hmmm, why would that be so? Maybe b/c since they fell death now entered the world and God can now fear Adam eating of the tree of life. Before the fall there was no death so there was no fear of the tree of life. After the fall, there is death and hence a fear of eating from the tree of life.