Death before the 'Fall'?

My own thoughts are that death was indeed possible for man before the fall. I'm also fairly sure that Adam knew wha death was based on plant life and animals dying.I also think that humanity certainly had the capacity to die, but that they were being preserved from this so long as they remained within his grace. When they fell from grace God appears to withdraw them from the "tree of life", which, as far as I'm able to determine, was the agent that God was going to use to perpetuate their life.The fall for me does not mean "spiritual death" for humanity -- although "spiritually wounded" might be applicable. It seems to me that the fall means "physical death" for humanity -- and being "mortal" means "death dealing".

At least he didn't have to cut off his own ambilical cord. I suspect that Adam never sat around contemplating his naval. In keeping with the spirit of this thread I will note that there are some who seem to think that there was no death at all prior to "the fall". However, and I've pointed this out before to those who hold this view, the very command by God to "subdue the earth" seems to contradict this belief (in my opinion).For example, when I read the original account found in Genesis I read: Some say that this subdual only applies to "tilling the ground". However, when I've examined the Scriptures to see how the word subdue is used elsewhere I've seen nothing to indicate that this context is the way it should be used.For example, you can check out this link here if you wish (so that I do not load up this post with extra verbiage): Usage of the Word SUBDUE within the ScripturesAs just a few examples one could examine Numbers 32:29 which plainly states: There's also this passage found in Deuteronomy 9:3: I will note that it seems to me that many of these passage also talk about the land that the Lord has given to them -- implying a brutal land war far more than a peaceful agricultural occupation. It's also pretty sad when a mother addicted to crack cocaine give birth to the mythological "crack baby" that is born going through withdrawals -- but it's a reality even if the initial reports of permanent effects were blown out of proportion.According to Fetal nicotine or cocaine exposure: which one is worse? there are still some very real dangers associated with the usage of cocaine on the fetus of a pregnant woman. Despite recent studies that failed to show catastrophic effects of prenatal cocaine exposure, popular attitudes and public policies still reflect the belief that cocaine is a uniquely dangerous teratogen.In contrast to the effects of nicotine, animal models of crack cocaine use in pregnancy indicate a more restricted spectrum of effects, a reflection of differences both in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the two drugs. Notably, although cocaine, like nicotine, also targets cell replication, its effects are short-lived, permitting recovery to occur in between doses, so that the eventual consequences are much less severe. To some extent, the effects of cocaine on brain development resemble those of nicotine because the two share cardiovascular actions (vasoconstriction) that, under some circumstances, elicit fetal hypoxia-ischemia.Another article discusses the effects of cocaine on the development of the fetus as follows: Research Shows Effects of Prenatal Cocaine Exposure Are Subtle But SignificantComing back to the effects of partaking in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, one could reasobaly argue that eating this "fruit" had caused neurological damage -- some kind of long-term genetic damage to Adam and Eve, genetic damage that carried on from ancestor to ancestor (just like what happens in real life).Here's some real world examples of neurological and genetic damage {among other things} that can result from eating certain chemicals: Commonly Abused DrugsOr, if this doesn't cover enough of a longer term answer, do a search for genetic toxicology studies. Who said Adam and Eve was put into prison?Seems to me that they were condemned to be free becuase they didn't want to follow God's instructions. This is such a basic part of being a responsible parent that it smacks of common sense.Are you a parent?If so, you do realize how much the choices you make can effect the future of your children?One of the main themese of the story of the Garden seems to be one of "responsibility" -- and the proper taking of responsibility for one's actions. When God asked what was going on, no one took responsibility for their own actions -- Adam blamed Eve and Eve blamed the serpent. Even though temptation occured, each could have stopped the blame process by simply saying something like, "It's my fault ... and I cannot fairly blame anyone else for my own actions." Even in the case of the adversary, it seems to me that he can't make you do anything that you don't alreadyt want to do in the first place. As far as I can tell, for failing to take responsibility they left in shame.On the other hand, coming back to the damage that can be done genetically, just as a child is born with certain ailments or genetic damage due to a parent's abuse of drugs, lifestyle, poor diet, -- the descendents of Adam and Eve have apparnetly reeped the harvest of their own parent's mistakes. You mean the Judeo-Hellenistic concept of original sin which was adopted by Christianity, correct? Unless, of course, these stories do reflect the truth after all, even if they are expressed in a pre-modern Hebraic style.I had mentioned before the following possibility to you -- that the serpent was symbolic of other pagan religions and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was symbolic of some kind of hallucinagenic drug which had spiritual implications among these pagan nations.You've never replied to this possibility if I recall correctly.Anyway, I think I'll keep reading them for a while yet. I also suspect that many others will continue reading them for the centuries to come.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 01-01-2006 02:24 PM

There are more than a few passages of Scripture which indicate that the "soul that sins will die" -- so I can see why others would conclude that Adam and Eve spiritually died according to the Genesis account.However, me personally, I do not think that Adam and Eve were left spiritually dead after their fall from grace -- especially since they were still talking directly with God "after" they sinned. However, I do believe that they were spiritually wounded after their fall.I don't think that anyone should argue that the state they were in after partaking in the tree of knowledge was better than the state they were in before partaking -- but I'm sure someone here will surprise with some obnoxiously bizarre reason why they were more better off after than before.

There does seem to be good indications that there was violence and death before the fall. Do a search for "subdue" within the Scriptures and see what you come up with -- it's not a pretty picture. Then, after reviewing how the word subdue is used all throughout the Scripture, remember that God asked Adam and Eve to have dominion over the world -- to subdue it. Usage of the word "subdue" within the ScripturesThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 01-01-2006 06:02 PM

In my opinion? No.However, it seems as though there would be no grief if not for their partaking in the tree.In addition to this, it's fairly common sense that knowing too much before you're ready for it can certainly lead to tremendous grief.

And, just for the record, I also fully admit that I could be wrong in my observation. It just seems to me that Adam and Eve were being preserved from the effects of nature's bondage to decay so long as they remained within God's grace.Other passages in the Scriptures seem to indicate otherwise though. For example, one passage which could very well go against my own thoughts on this is read as follows: So, as far as I can determine, either a) man's purpose was to bring nature's bondage to decay to an end -- and he failed at this task, or b) man's sins lead nature into its bondage to decay due the fall.I'll admit that I'm honestly not exactly sure what's being said in this Roman's passage.Do you have any thoughts regarding it?

Although I don't subscribe to this view, apparently many Christians feel that Adam being both a) made in the image of God and b) having his soul breathed into being by God's Spirit -- necessarilly received "immortality" by token of his ancestry from the "immortal God" who made him. And to be honest I can think of no other creature in the Genesis account which is depicted as having such a close filial relationship with God.Although I personally don't subscribe to this view, I am willing to admit that this "immortal" link from God to Adam can be inferred based on such reasoning. For example, although this possibility is not explicitly stated in the Genesis account, many Christians do feel that passages such as Luke 3:38 do indicate this link: In order for Christ to be the Second Adam, Adam seems to have been the first "Son of God" so to speak. But after the fall, Adam apparently looses his heirship to Abba the Father -- therefore implying a loss of his "immortality".Like I said before, I don't subscribe to this view. But I can see where others would come to this conclusion. I don't think Brian is just reading something that isn't implied in the text. And as a non-Christian I don't think he rising to the occasion to defend a conservative evangelical interpretation of Scriptures. He seems to be simply fairly presenting other possible interpetations.The question becomes more of what would be the most accurate way to inrerpret the data available. To me it seems more logical that, even despite his close relationship with God, Adam was nonetheless made mortal and was dependent upon God for his sustenance via the tree of life.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 01-02-2006 12:07 AM

Adam: Eden is a long way off. We're getting further away from K-Mart.God: You don't have to go to Eden to get a pair of skins at K-Mart.Adam: Have to go to K-Mart, Eden.God: What did I tell you, Adam? We're not going back to Eden and that's final.Adam: Gotta get my skins at K-Mart.God: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE WHERE YOU BUY SKINS?! SKIN IS SKIN!! IT'S SKIN WHEREEVER YOU BUY IT!! IN EDEN OR WHEREVER!!Adam: K-Mart!God: You know what I think, Adam? I think this not knowing good from evil is a bunch of $h!t! Because you can't tell me that you're not in there somewhere!Adam: Skins. K-Mart!