Death before the 'Fall'?

I agree Garrett. I think Rrhain is missing this point in adhering so adamantly to (albeit understandably) "the day you eat of...you will surely die". One might as easily say to the child in a womb. "On the day you are conceived you will surely die"Adam conceived something in himself that day. He conceived sin within himself. He contracted the cancer of sin. And death was assured because that is what sin does. Kill. Always.

quote:

---

3. The False Dilemma - Two choices are given when in actuality there are more choices possible.

---

In fact you gave only one. But there are other reasons possible to "increase in number" other than to replace. Most people I know don't have more than one child with a view to replacing numbers - they do it cos the love kids.There is a touch of...

quote:

---

2. Begging the Question - ”this fallacy occurs when a disputant uses his conclusion as one of the premises employed to establish [his] conclusion.’ [5]

---

...tooThis threads purpose is to examine whether death before the fall was indeed possible. Not to asssert itThis message has been edited by iano, 14-Feb-2006 12:07 AM

You'd have to ask Him, but suffice to say there can be other reasons than simply to replace those that die. He might like animals - who knows. And lets not worry about overpopulating the earth - God knew what would happen in advance. We cannot assume the solution based on lack of insight into why he did what he did. It could give immortality to one capable of dying it would seem. But what it would do for someone not capable of dying is a different issue. We can't suppose no death before the fall based on the cake baked by ingredients after the fall. Was Jesus in an immortal state when he ate with the disciples after his resurrection. Why he ate I don't know but dying from lack of food couldn't be one of them.

Your interpreting "on the day...surely will" here in a way that implies God was lying (or issuing empty threats or simply wrong) - as Adam didn't die that day. If this is possible then.... ...on what basis do you think God wasn't lying here, getting it wrong etc? It seems as soon as you include possibilities of God lying,being wrong, etc., then discussion becomes impossibleIn order to discuss we must assume that God doesn't lie or get things wrong or issue empty threats. If that is agreed then "on the day" + Adam living as long as he did = the abililty to die entered.Meaning immortality before. And if such dramatic changes could take place such as an immortal being changing to become mortal then a lot of other things are relative childs play to accept as being able to occur The function of the tree of life is open to debate. We know that it could give eternal life to a mortal person (assuming God was telling the truth here) but what other functions it might fulfill are open to question. Whether we know what they are or not does not indicate that the function described was the only one possible

Bump for Purpledawn. In your 3 minute soapbox you gave me as an example of a "logical error hit and runner" - but haven't responded to my post arguing that you have made a logical error eg: False dilema

The discussion revolves around whether there was death before the fall or not. We are not told directly that there was or that there wasn't so we try to garner from evidence as to what was the case. Whether we are talking of people, animals or plants is neither here nor there. We are in the dark (directly) on all fronts as to what went on before the fall regarding death. You offer evidence as to why death existed before the fall by way of this post-fall example - which presumes death existed. That, in my view, begs the question.It also presents us with a single choice as to why animals reproduced when there are reasonable alternatives. It is not necessary that we know why God may have wanted the earth to be populated other than to account for death. We can, for example, suppose that God created man in the first place, not because he had to but simply because he wanted to. God wanting to do something simply because he wants to is a valid alternative even if we don't know why he might have done so.If this latter point is acceptable then you would have been engaging in presenting a false dilemna - offering an example (reproduce to replace dying creatures) as if it were the only choice when in fact, it isn't.

That's a bit too hopeful (with respect) a position. We are told some of the conseqences of the fall regarding eg: pain in childbirth/sweat of brow in providing for oneself. We have as much difficulty imagining no death as we do no pain in childbirth / no sweat in surviving. but these other things weren't around at the time before the fall - it would seem.I haven't thought about it in depth but I see nothing yet pointing definitively at either death/life prior to the fall. The evidence I think lies more in the overall story and it points towards "no death" The story of the bible is about mans fall and Gods plan to enable restoration back to that which was lost. Included in that is eternal life - a restoration of that intended from the beginning