Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can Death be "Very Good"?
asciikerr
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 45 (158982)
11-13-2004 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Jazzns
11-10-2004 10:26 AM


Psalm 116:15
Precious in the sight of the LORD Is the death of His saints.
The word "yaqar" is used for the translation of "precious." Other possible translations (valuable, prized, weighty, rare, splendid, precious, costly, highly valued, precious stones or jewels, rare, glorious, splendid, weighty, influential). Let me add some more scripture to support where I am going with this.
Revelation 14:13
Then I heard a voice from heaven say, "Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on." "Yes," says the Spirit, "they will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them."
So in this context, precious indeed are the death of His saints.
"Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord..."
By contrast how dreadful the death of an unbeliever out of the Lord!
Death by itself is not a precious thing, its awful. God takes no pleasure in seeing creation being torn to pieces, killed, seeing them become defiled, decayed and suffering. Death by itself when it comes to unbelievers is not something God rejoices over...but the Death of one of His Saints or believers is another matter entirely.
In God's eyes, we are the apple of his eye. He has watched us grow up, seen all our labors, sorrows, seen us mourning, broken down with grief, trials and tribulations, physical pains, sufferings, and no doubt has also also been there through the good times. He has long awaited us to come to Him, in our death we finally get to be with Him for all eternity. He is the Father who has prepared his child's room waiting for their return home, and in our death we finally get to go home to Him.
So, if the death of one of our beloved friends or family occurs and they knew the Lord, then God sees this as precious as should we. However, how grievious it is to see a loved one pass away not ever having come to know the Lord. I hope that helps explain things
The Death of a believer is Precious.
The Death of an unbeliever is Awful.
quote:
Are you a creationist? If so, is the need of death for evolution to take place one of the reasons you feel evolution could not have happened?
I'm a Bible believing Christian, I don't believe evolution in any way shape or form. It goes against what Scripture teaches, and scripture hasn't changed much in over 3000yrs, the theory of evolution on the otherhand has gets a facelift pretty frequently! Most may see that as a narrow view, but its a lot better than believing we all came from cosmic soup or even worse...from nothing.
Cheers...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Jazzns, posted 11-10-2004 10:26 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Jazzns, posted 11-15-2004 12:00 AM asciikerr has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 32 of 45 (159507)
11-15-2004 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by asciikerr
11-13-2004 12:48 AM


Almost There...
ascikerr writes:
jazzns writes:
If so, is the need of death for evolution to take place one of the reasons you feel evolution could not have happened?
I'm a Bible believing Christian, I don't believe evolution in any way shape or form. It goes against what Scripture teaches, and scripture hasn't changed much in over 3000yrs
Great! Thank you for the reply. Do you feel that a major component of what goes against scripture is the fact that evolution requires death before the sin and the fall of man? If so, what part of scripture do you feel identifies that there was no physical death before the fall of man. Specifically, please help me understand the scripture that I quoted in my opening post that makes it seem like Adam was mortal before he sinned. Thanks.

-Nasser

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by asciikerr, posted 11-13-2004 12:48 AM asciikerr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by asciikerr, posted 11-15-2004 9:53 AM Jazzns has replied

  
asciikerr
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 45 (159666)
11-15-2004 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Jazzns
11-15-2004 12:00 AM


Gen 3:22Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"
From the scripture text above, I also would assume that they were mortal and were prone to death, which was not a bad thing if you had fellowship with the Lord. There was also no suffering in the world, no diseases, plagues, viruses etc., All of that came after the fall.
quote:
Do you feel that a major component of what goes against scripture is the fact that evolution requires death before the sin and the fall of man?
Nope, that component doesn't even seem to scratch the surface...I've heard many people try to draw parallels between God and Evolution. We even have the Pope & those of the LDS religion that are starting to embrace evolution and say it goes exactly with what God suggested. I think they do this because they are moving further & further away from Biblical Teaching. If anything, I believe the "Missing LINK" Evolutionists have been looking for to put things together is "GOD." But they don't like that piece of the puzzle, they won't even check to see if it fits because they simply don't like it, so they will keep turning up stones and trying to make other pieces fit forcibly if need be. I always thought that Evolution required life before death...and they evolve somewhere in between this cycle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Jazzns, posted 11-15-2004 12:00 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Jazzns, posted 11-15-2004 10:48 AM asciikerr has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 34 of 45 (159685)
11-15-2004 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by asciikerr
11-15-2004 9:53 AM


Death + Relationship W/ God = Good ?
Excellent. So if I understand correctly, you feel that man and creatures were capable of dying pre-fall just not by disease and with no suffering. Death was good or "okay" pre-fall because you were guarenteed to be with God upon death. Is that a correct assessment?
Do you then believe there was predation pre-fall?
Do you subscribe to the belief that man didn't eat meat till the flood? If so why?
Also, what scripture tells you that there was no disease or suffering pre-fall?
Thanks,

-Nasser

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by asciikerr, posted 11-15-2004 9:53 AM asciikerr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by asciikerr, posted 11-15-2004 8:55 PM Jazzns has replied

  
asciikerr
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 45 (159944)
11-15-2004 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Jazzns
11-15-2004 10:48 AM


Re: Death + Relationship W/ God = Good ?
quote:
Do you subscribe to the belief that man didn't eat meat till the flood? If so why?
I'm sure Noah & his clan didn't eat meat, now as far as the rest of the world (unbelievers)...they did anger God something fierce, they could have but nothing in the Bible stating so. They eventually caused God's wrath to fall on them w/the flood. But as far as being directed by God or Biblically, we don't see any eating of animals until after the fall as per Genesis 9.
Genesis 9:1-3
So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.
quote:
Also, what scripture tells you that there was no disease or suffering pre-fall?
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man (Adam) sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned...
So I do believe that the Fall of man and the Flood brought all sorts of pain & suffering. The breaking of the Canopy in the Flood probably brought as much of this mess as say the greenhouse effect due to our ozone depletion. We get all sorts of mutations and odd birth defects when something natural is destroyed, and our frog buddies are the first to know since their mutations are absorbed directly from the skin.
Hope that helps understand my position...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Jazzns, posted 11-15-2004 10:48 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Jazzns, posted 11-15-2004 9:59 PM asciikerr has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 36 of 45 (159962)
11-15-2004 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by asciikerr
11-15-2004 8:55 PM


Re: Death + Relationship W/ God = Good ?
I'm sure Noah & his clan didn't eat meat, now as far as the rest of the world (unbelievers)...they did anger God something fierce, they could have but nothing in the Bible stating so. They eventually caused God's wrath to fall on them w/the flood. But as far as being directed by God or Biblically, we don't see any eating of animals until after the fall as per Genesis 9.
Genesis 9 definitly gives active permission to eat meat but I am not so sure that God frowned upon meat eating by man prior to the flood. Able's sacrafice of the best and fattest of his flock was superior to Cain. Why was the first family raising sheep and why was the fattest the best one? Given that the first family were raising sheep and probably eating them, do you believe that meat eating is strictly a post-fall thing or did God have it in the cards upon creation?
I have been heard and read that Romans verse before. It seem standard fare when I ask my fellow Christians about this issue of death. When I read it though I do not necessarily percieve that disease or suffering are necessarily part of that statement. Also, given that death for either a believer or pre-fall man is precious to God, the death Paul is talking about here seems certainly to be spiritual death by not knowing God due to sin. How do you exactly find evidence on lack of pre-fall disease or suffering in this verse?
Tying this back into the origins discussion, is it the necessary presence of suffering pre-fall that you feel contradicts evolution from a biblical light?
Thanks,

-Nasser

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by asciikerr, posted 11-15-2004 8:55 PM asciikerr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by asciikerr, posted 11-15-2004 11:27 PM Jazzns has replied

  
asciikerr
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 45 (159990)
11-15-2004 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Jazzns
11-15-2004 9:59 PM


quote:
Given that the first family were raising sheep and probably eating them, do you believe that meat eating is strictly a post-fall thing or did God have it in the cards upon creation?
Unfortunately, there is no Biblical Support to know if they were or weren't eating meat, especially from their sacrifices. I can only go by what I do know from scripture...there were a lot of animals considered unclean which they did not eat, but they could still use them as sacrificial animals. To this day, many Jews and Semintic cultures still do not eat these unclean animals. Reminds me of when I was a non-believer, we were stationed in Kuwait and were feeding the locals there our Pork MRE's (Meal Ready to Eat), and they seemed to like them. I look back at that now and think...Doh! I was such a jerk!
Leviticus 11:4
Nevertheless these you shall not eat among those that chew the cud or those that have cloven hooves: the camel, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you...
quote:
How do you exactly find evidence on lack of pre-fall disease or suffering in this verse?
From scripture we know that God doesn't like laziness, all through the Bible the laziness of a purpose is cursed or rebuked. Even in the Garden of Eden, Adam had to tend to it (work). I'm sure because he had fellowship with God and everything was ideal...working & doing what needed to be done was to some extent blissful. It was after the fall that things everything changed, including the flood. I'll do some research on the disease portion, so I'll try to post tomorrow on that.
Genesis 2:15
Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.
Genesis 3:17-19
Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, "You shall not eat of it':
"Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return."
quote:
Tying this back into the origins discussion, is it the necessary presence of suffering pre-fall that you feel contradicts evolution from a biblical light?
There is a lot that contradicts the Biblical view, suffering is probably a minor argument in that matter. I don't believe there was suffering before the Fall, if anything all that came after the fall, the pain of death, suffering, etc., is the result of a fallen world. So just one more place where The Bible and Evolution divide..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Jazzns, posted 11-15-2004 9:59 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by asciikerr, posted 11-17-2004 11:50 PM asciikerr has not replied
 Message 39 by Jazzns, posted 11-18-2004 2:29 PM asciikerr has not replied

  
asciikerr
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 45 (160818)
11-17-2004 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by asciikerr
11-15-2004 11:27 PM


Sorry I'm late w/more info...just got Half-Life2 and haven't had time for much else. I'll do some reading later on this evening and see what I can find on Disease and the Fall of Man..
Cheers!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by asciikerr, posted 11-15-2004 11:27 PM asciikerr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Jazzns, posted 11-18-2004 2:31 PM asciikerr has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 39 of 45 (161126)
11-18-2004 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by asciikerr
11-15-2004 11:27 PM


Meat eating, disease, and death
It might be hard to continue in a debate fashion over my original op since it seems like you agree that Adam was not immortal pre-fall even though you never answered my question if my assessment was correct. Your position seems to be that death was just fine pre-fall due to the necessary relationship with God in a pre-fall world. Is this correct?
I am suprised not to find a creationist in this forum that feels that death was impossible pre-fall because all of the creationists I know IRL use that as their primary reason for not trusting evolution.
About meat eating. I don't know why but some that I talk to like to relate eating meat with the whole pre-fall death argument which is the only reason I even brought it up.
asciikerr writes:
...there were a lot of animals considered unclean which they did not eat, but they could still use them as sacrificial animals.
I am confused about this a little. I thought that the purpose of a sacrafice was that you were sacraficing something that was usefull, necessary, or desireable to yourself. If I raise animals that I can't eat just for the purposes of sacrafice then isn't that a waste and therefore a non-sacrafice by definition? Where in the Bible do they do this and how is this condoned by God as a valid sacrafice?
It seems to me that if they were sacraficing the fattest of their flock that the sacrafice in and of itself meant that the fattest of the flock was somehow very usefull to them. It would not be a "sacrafice" otherwise. Since the fattest made the best sacrafice it seems like this is pretty good positive evidence that the first family ate meat and moreover by the approval of God. What does this then tell us about after the flood when God explicitly gives permission to eat meat? If you were really picky and holding someone to strict literalism this would seem like a biblical contradiction.
I am not sure what laziness has to do with disease.
Specifically, I guess you will have to help me understand how disease came about after God was done creating since many diseases ARE life. God would have had created them during the creation week it seems.
Trying to keep this on the topic, are you able to take any part of Genesis in a non-literal way? If you were to take parts of it as metaphor could you see how some might get things like the gap theory, progressive creationism, and theistic evolution once they get rid of the nonsense that Adam and Eve and all animals were immortal beings?

-Nasser

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by asciikerr, posted 11-15-2004 11:27 PM asciikerr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-08-2004 4:06 AM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 40 of 45 (161127)
11-18-2004 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by asciikerr
11-17-2004 11:50 PM


Half-Life2
Yea. I promised myself I would not buy it until I was done with classes this semester. I don't think I have any more fingernails left to chew. Don't spoil it for me now but is it as awesome as it should be?
{Fixed some spelling mistooks}
This message has been edited by Jazzns, 11-18-2004 02:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by asciikerr, posted 11-17-2004 11:50 PM asciikerr has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 45 (166127)
12-08-2004 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Jazzns
11-18-2004 2:29 PM


I might be what you're looking for
Hi Jazzns,
Do you believe the Bible? Are you trying to make the Bible and evolution fit together? Just curious.
I believe the Bible, and I take Genesis literally ~ i.e., God created the universe and everything in it in 6 literal days about 6000 years ago.
There are many reasons why I don't accept evolution. However, in regards to your actual question, I do believe man was created to be immortal ~ that the immortality might have depended on their eating a particular fruit doesn't matter because they had free access to that fruit. The fact that the necessary fruit was denied to them after they sinned is consistent with the idea that they LOST access to immortality AFTER they sinned.
Consider this verse, which was quoted earlier on this thread:
Romans 5:12

Therefore, just as through one man (Adam) sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned...
This verse shows that death entered the world through sin, which didn't occur until Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit.
Also, consider the words of Jesus:
Mark 10:6

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Jesus is referring to the creation event and is saying that God created man in the beginning. According to evolution, man does not arrive until essentially the "end" of the 20 billion scheme of things.
Also, if you will carefully consider the days of creation, there is no way these correlate with evolutionary epochs.
Nor do I believe in a gap of gazillions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.
Hope this helps. I will be glad to clarify to any extent I can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Jazzns, posted 11-18-2004 2:29 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 12-08-2004 7:04 AM TheLiteralist has not replied
 Message 43 by Jazzns, posted 12-08-2004 10:30 AM TheLiteralist has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 42 of 45 (166158)
12-08-2004 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by TheLiteralist
12-08-2004 4:06 AM


Re: I might be what you're looking for
Literalist said:
quote:
Consider this verse, which was quoted earlier on this thread:
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man (Adam) sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned...
quote:
This verse shows that death entered the world through sin, which didn't occur until Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit.
which is fine, except, according to Genesis, that is simply not true and yet another reason that the Bible cannot be taken literally.
There is nothing that indicates that Adam and Eve or any other creature were immortal. In Genesis 2:9 you find the first mention of a Tree Of Life...
And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground-trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
and in fact, Genesis 3:22 shows that God's big fear is that man would eat from both trees and so God kicked their butts out of the lunchroom.
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
This clearly shows that Adam and Eve were not immortal.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-08-2004 4:06 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 43 of 45 (166204)
12-08-2004 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by TheLiteralist
12-08-2004 4:06 AM


Re: I might be what you're looking for
Hello TheLiteralist,
Do you believe the Bible? Are you trying to make the Bible and evolution fit together?
No, I am not trying to make them fit together. I am not a literalist. I am just trying to get some understanding about this whole death thing that some of my friends and other bring up.
The 2 cookie cutter responses I get when this issue is brought up is
1. They COULD have eaten the fruit and as such had potential immortality by proxy.
2. The quote from Romans about death through sin.
My cookie cutter response is usually
1. That still means they were created mortal and had immortality to add to themselves by their own action instead of God's.
2. Death in this instance is spiritual death. Jesus does not save us from physical death by believing in Him. If this were not true then there have been exactly 0 Christians in the world because no one so far is physically immortal.
Then we usually get into a discussion as to if it REALLY is spiritual or physical death being talked about. In a cordial conversation we usually just agree to disagree on this due to the fact that it can reasonable be interpreted both ways.
My argument is, if the only places in the Bible that claim the fall brought along physical death are ambiguous, why is the whole death before sin issue the proverbial line in the sand for most creationists?
I am either
A) Wrong and there is more the bible says to clarify this and I am ignorant of this portion of scripture.
B) Sorta right and this is a part of the Bible left to interpretation to which YECs choose one side of the ambiguity.
C) Right and there really is no Biblical precident for immortality upon creation and the whole death before sin issue is a non-issue.
Not to say that even if I was right the literalists don't have other reasons not to agree with evolution. I am just trying to diagnose this one issue in particular.
My conversations with asciiker seemed to lean toward option C with the caveat that he thinks the whole death before sin is a trivial issue with regards to the EvC debate (I gather, read for yourself our previous exchanges). Of course if I am wrong about his position I am sure he will let us know. There was some times where it didn't seem all that clear.
My questions for you then would be
Is the death before sin your primary issue in the EVC debate?
Do you recognize the ambiguity?
If not can you show us how it is not ambiguous?
If yes what is your second most important issue in the EVC debate? Lets not get into it too much since it would be off topic but a brief mention would be ok just to see where we all stand.
Just so you know where I stand. I am a theistic evolutionist. I recognize that my God is not a book. I also recognize that the Bible is not inerrant due to the fact that it can be changed and has been changed throughout history. If you want to talk about any of these issues then I will join you in a new thread of your creation.
Thank you for your reply,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-08-2004 4:06 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-08-2004 3:58 PM Jazzns has replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 45 (166287)
12-08-2004 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Jazzns
12-08-2004 10:30 AM


Re: I might be what you're looking for
Hi Jazzns,
In most issues regarding the Bible I tend to see interpretations as either correct or incorrect, on occasion I can sometimes see more than one interpretation for the same scriptures. In some cases, I leave open the possibility that *my* interpretation or interpretations are wrong, in which case the correct interpretation or interpretations are still available, I just don't have it yet. I consider the Bible to be correct in all cases, even when myself or others misinterpret it.
Is the death before sin your primary issue in the EVC debate?
I have not assigned priority levels to the issues in the EvC debate. However, this is not an issue that demonstrates that evolution is false; this demonstrates that the Bible does not agree with evolution. It is usually used by us literalists when talking to other Christians who say they believe the Bible is God's inerrant word but who try to make it fit the long time span presented by modern "science." If a person does not believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, I usually see no point in mentioning this because this means they already recognize the discordance between evolution and Genesis but have sided with evolution.
If yes what is your second most important issue in the EVC debate? Lets not get into it too much since it would be off topic but a brief mention would be ok just to see where we all stand.
As far as things that demonstrate that the Bible does not agree with evolution, I have mentioned a second idea already, but it is not second in importance as I consider them equally important. That is the fact that Jesus refers back to Genesis and says that God made man in the *beginning* of creation, but evolution has man being "made" at a point in time that is more like the *end* of creation. By this I mean that the Big Bang (the beginning of creation for modern "science") was 20 billion years ago and man supposedly didn't arrive on the scene until about 100,000 years ago (I may have that time wrong, but even if its a 1,000,000 years ago it's still the *end* of the evolutionary time scale).
A third thing that shows that the Bible disagrees with evolution is the *order* of the creation events. For instance, evolution has the stars being made before the earth, but Genesis says the stars are made on day four after God made PLANTS on the EARTH.
So, these are just two other reasons why the Bible cannot agree with evolution. Remember, these things have nothing to do with disproving evolution.
Death in this instance is spiritual death. Jesus does not save us from physical death by believing in Him. If this were not true then there have been exactly 0 Christians in the world because no one so far is physically immortal.
Well, I think you are right and wrong on this. Wrong about "this instance" because you are talking about death in Genesis but trying to apply a New Testament principle to it. But you are correct that Jesus does not save us from a physical death (as far as I understand things).
You, perhaps, are thinking of the SECOND death mentioned in Revelation:
Revelation 20:14

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Jesus saves the believer from THIS death. But has this death entered the world? Yet the death that Adam brought upon our race has entered the world, according to Jesus.
Do you recognize the ambiguity?
No, but I do see why *you* consider it ambiguous. The fact is Jesus said death entered the world by sin and sin (among man) didn't occur until the forbidden fruit was eaten.
The point is, whether you are inherently immortal or whether you can gain immortality through eating a fruit, you are, for all practical purposes, immortal, but in the second case you are only immortal as long as the fruit is available to you. I tend to think the fruit needed to be eaten from time to time (but that is only my opinion). Mankind was cut off from the source of immortality (death) on the day they ate the fruit.
To me it seems simple, but I think I do see how you struggle with it. Hope this helps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Jazzns, posted 12-08-2004 10:30 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Jazzns, posted 12-08-2004 5:51 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 45 of 45 (166333)
12-08-2004 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by TheLiteralist
12-08-2004 3:58 PM


What is Bible and What is Interpretation?
Revelation 20:14
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Jesus saves the believer from THIS death. But has this death entered the world? Yet the death that Adam brought upon our race has entered the world, according to Jesus.
This is very confusing.
You say that Jesus saves the believe from THIS (the second) death and with your question seem to suggest that THIS death has not yet entered the world. So therefore the death that Adam brought is ALREADY here that by your distinction Jesus does not save us from. So therefore Adam brought this "first" death which you consider physical death while Jesus saves us from THIS "second" death which is spirtual death? But then THIS "second" death has not entered the world yet so....ugh.
I just don't undersand at all what you are meaning. You are going to have to rephrase your statement about this.
From what I understand, the sin introduced by Adam that produces the need for Christ in the first place is manifest in a spiritual separation from God. Among other things, the greater part of the curse was this separation from God not actual death that God warned them would happen if they ate the fruit. When Adam ate the fruit he didn't drop dead he became spirtually dead. A straight forward reading of Genesis makes this clear to me. The Romans verse, which you repeated, makes more sense in the context that Jesus saves your soul from death and not your body. Jesus removes the seperation from God but does not prevent you from dying. How do you read into this verse that it is referring to the physical act of dying and not the spiritual death corresponding to the separation from God?
The point is, whether you are inherently immortal or whether you can gain immortality through eating a fruit, you are, for all practical purposes, immortal, but in the second case you are only immortal as long as the fruit is available to you. I tend to think the fruit needed to be eaten from time to time (but that is only my opinion).
That is a great opinion to have and you share it with many I have spoken to about this issue. What I want to know is how is that opinion in any way Biblical? Where does it say that Adam was created immortal? Where does it say that Adam and Eve (and all the animals for that matter) all continually ate of The Tree Of Life to keep the immortality that the Bible never says they do or do not have?
The main thing to me is that it seems like when literalists take this position that they are doing exactly the same thing they critisize the progressive creationists, gap theorists, etc of doing which is reading into the Bible something that really dosen't exist.
I think it is easier to read the words of Genesis 2 when God removes man from the garden and see that he was mortal rather than read into it this complex system of all living things having to continually patron the Tree Of Life.
In the end, God said "lest they become like us immortal" which seems very clear to me that they never were immortal.
As long as we are being literalists, which way of thinking is more literally true to the Bible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-08-2004 3:58 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024