Death before the 'Fall'?

Remember the LGB? It's the reply button on the right, the one that you can use to link to a particular message so folk have a clue what you are responding to.But back to the topic. If you read the Bible it says that there was death from the moment life was created, certainly from the moment the Garden of Eden was created, and in fact, nowhere in the Bible is there a Fall. It's just not there.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar,The phrase "the Fall" is nowhere in the Bible. But the fact is there. Solomon informs that what man has become is not how God originally created him:"See, this alone have I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes." (Ecc. 7:29)Aside from the facts as we see in Genesis of man "falling away" from God we have this verse. It shows that God made man in one way. But in spite of the way he was created man through his seeking has become something else. This can be considered a falling away from the manner in which man was created by God.I would argue that at least four "falls" are seen in Genesis. Some readers suggest that the falling away of man from God is continuous. I think the idea has merit.This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-04-2006 12:41 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-04-2006 12:42 PM

Sorry, I don't see where that supports any change in the nature of mankind at all.And it's just a collection of sayings, many of which are just plain stupid when viewed from a perspective where people have value. For example, consider the really stupid saying that comes just before the one you quoted. And the one before that? Please.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If God made man upright why didn't man stay upright?Remember, your statement was that a Fall cannot be seen anywhere in the Bible. It is not a matter of whether you believe the Bible or not. The issue is, is there or is there not a matter of the created man falling away from God?If you can lift yourself temporarily above your skepticism concerning belief, I ask you:According to the Bible, if man was made upright by God, then why did man not remain upright? Do you have any biblical ideas on that?This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-04-2006 01:25 PM

Well, when you look at the source, there is nothing to show that mankind was created upright. If you actually read the accounts in Genesis, mankind was created with all the flaws already there.The topic is whether or not death existed before the supposed Fall. According to the account in Genesis death existed from the very beginning, certainly from the creation of the Garden of Eden.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If you want to launch a kind of philosophical arguement that man was flawed even before he disobeyed God, that is one matter. But if you come from the biblical viewpoint that it is God and not you or I who pronounces man's innocence or guilt, then you have to recognize that man fell.There should be no problem with the reader who is objective, to see that after man partook of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil his relationship with God was drastically changed, according to God's standard of a normal relationship.You can say that, according to your standard of a normal relationship with God, you see indications of a flawed man before he disobeyed. But if you look rather at it from God's perspective, there certainly was a fall according to His standard of normality for man.Therefore, I would say that in the Bible there is a fall of man. I believe that there was death prior to Adam's death. So I have nothing much to add to that. In the pre-Adamic world, I believe that the creatures of that age died, whatever they were.This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-04-2006 02:18 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-04-2006 02:19 PM

jar,Be honest.Is your reading and interpretation of the Bible driven by a desire to see in how many ways you can contradict mainline traditional interpretations of it by evangelical Christians?This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-04-2006 02:23 PM

No, not at all. In fact, it is exactly the opposite and points to why so many of the Evangelicals get it wrong.I don't start with the conclusion. What I do is actually look at the evidence and let that determine the conclusion.Too many Evangelicals start with the conclusion and then select only that evidence that supports their desired conclusion. That is called willfull ignorance.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm a little skeptical of you. I think you start with a familiarity of what evangelical Christians believe and look for rationals in the Bible to present the opposite. That's the impression I get from your posts.I find your interpretations reactionary and provocative on general principle.

There is nothing wrong with your being skeptical. Good for you. Any belief that is not challenged is weak and worthless. Even better. Perhaps they will encourage you to put aside your preconcieved conclusions and actually look at the evidence. It is only by becoming as a child, by tossing aside those fables and fantasies that were fed to you in your indoctrination, and actually looking with wonder at this universe that you will ever get to know GOD.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar, Do you see any indication of a change in the nature of man in this verse?"And Jehovah saw the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And Jehovah repented that He had made man in the earth, and it grieved Him in His heart .... And Jehovah said, I will blot out the man whom I have created from the surface of the ground ... for I repent that I have made them." (See Gen. 6:5-7)When you compare that to God seeing that the man made in His image was "very good" (Gen. 1:26,27, 31) do you still not notice any change in the nature of man? Do you still see no Fall away from God of man in the Bible?This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-04-2006 04:19 PM

jar, So I don't have a sense of wonder at the universe like you?

You now want to move on to one of the other fairytales. This has nothing to do with the creation myths and certainly nothing to do with the issue of whether there was death before some alleged Fall.The only changes are shown in Gods perceptions, once again the God of the stories is show to be incompetent, to realize that he made a mistake, that maybe his original opinion wasn't correct.Further in Genesis 1 the comment related to very good was related to the whole system. Mankind was only one of the components.The story of the Garden of Eden comes in the older, more primitive version of the creation story found in Genesis 2 & 3. There is nothing in Genesis 1 that could imply any Fall at all.So what we see reading the Bible is that in the older version, that found in Genesis 2 & 3, God creates a Tree of Life. If death did not exist in the beginning, then there was no point of creating a Tree of Life.Later, another peoples in a slightly different era and culture, had a different creation story. The Garden of Eden was gone. The cloning was gone. The Tree of Good and Evil was gone. The man and woman are created from the dust, just like all the other animals. And it is this later tale, the one without the Garden of Eden, without the disobedience, without the serpent, that God finds very good.Moving on to the Flood myths.The flood myths are quite different from the Creation Myths and were treated differently by the redactors and editors that compiled the Old Testament.In the creation myths, the editors and redactors included both tales, they ran them serially, and they placed the younger, the newer tale first. But the two flood myths are mingled together, mixed up into one disjointed tale. There is also the strange tale thrown in of the Nephilim.So why did the editors treat these tales, these myths, so differently?On possible reason is that the creation myths carry different messages while the two flood myths told basically the same.To quote from the Catechism of Creation The two creation myths deal with different aspects of God's relations with man, and man's relations with God.But throughout, and even into the flood myths, there is no signs of changes in man's behavior. In the oldest of them, the creation myth forund in Genesis 2 & 3, mankind disobeys GOD even before eating of the Tree of Good and Evil. Willfullness and disobedience are intrinsic to mankind. The big difference is that after eating of the fruit of teh Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil we had the capability of choice, a gain, not a fall. Mankind continues to behave just as created.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar,All I really hear you saying from your last post is "I don't believe it. It is a fairy tale."Your comprehension of the intent of the writer is clouded by your skepticism of the validity of the what is written. It is not a matter of there being no fall in the Bible to see. It is that your understanding even on a literary basis is so subjectively colored by your unbelief that you can't see the obvious.You are so ruled by skepticism you can't even grasp the main facts even if it was a fairy tale.This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-04-2006 09:16 PM

If you use the LGB, located at the lower right side of a message, it will notify the poster (if they have notify on) you have replied and also let the readers now which message you are replying to. I don't doubt that is all that you hear.The rest of your post is but more assertion.However, the record is here for all who read the thread.I have tried to include examples and reasoning for any positions expressed as well as outside quotes for illustration.Let the readers make there own decisions on whether or not there was death before the fall or even if a fall occured.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion