Death before the 'Fall'?

Well, I will say this. Adam immediately spiritually died as was indicated by his awareness of his sin (nakedness), but he took a long time to die naturally. So it sure seems the text indicates spiritual death preceded natural death.

Brian, you are completely wrong because "death" for this discussion is defined biblically, not scientifically, and so plants have no breath of life and thus do not die in the same sense.Now I suspect Faith and most others including myself that believe the Bible to be true would argue that plant-life was changed, and death affectst the plant-world as well, but strictly speaking concerning "the breath of life" or spirit, it is not clear the biblical text supports plants having spirit.Be that as it may, eating fruit and parts of plants does not mean they would "die" necessarily. So maybe plants did not die before the Fall.

"Must have"??? Please substantiate that. What biblical evidence do you have that animals ate each other prior to the Fall, or ate insects?

Knowledge does not, but Adam did not merely increase in knowledge, he had a sense of sin, as was shown by feeling being naked was sinful. His conscience was affected.Obviously, being naked by itself was not sinful.Another point is that many think Adam and Eve were clothed in the Shekinah glory of the Lord, as Moses was when his face shone. As they sinned, they would have less of that glory, perhaps most departed, and so they would have a palpable sense of nakedness that was not there before, even though visually they were just as naked in some respects before and after.The fig trees, though literal, is also indicative of man-made religion.

Good point. I have wondered about that, and used to hold that subdue meant the earth was already out of whack. It's somewhat unresolved with me at present. The death entering into the world as a result of Adam does not fit well with the subdue comments.

You insist that the text says they are carnivores. The text does not. The fact that lions are carnivores today means nothing.We were also herbivores turned to carnivores. So your logic does not fit the text. Observed conditions today cannot be considered to be what conditions were like before the Fall.

Since you rule out certain possibilities a priori, there is nothing to discuss with you. Your ramblings on imaginations are mere barely disguised insults devoid of any factual or substantive argument.If you want to troll, do so with someone else.This message has been edited by randman, 01-03-2006 10:17 AM

lfen's post is so derogatory, so completely devoid of any real argument, and completely and wholly dodging the issues on this thread, he should probably be avoided for just being a troll, jaywill.

jaywill, welcome to the world of jar. He will absolutely refuse to admit the obvious. You can show it to him a million times. The text obviously and clearly indicates a Fall, but not to jar. He gives no reasoning either, but just says no it doesn't regardless.It's a huge waste of time trying to reason with him.

I don't know about the sea holding the demons. I think maybe it's because I love the ocean so much, but also it's not the strongest argument.But there is something there....On the general idea, I like the way you refer to "the world" as the world under Adam. That may be correct. After all, we do have translators referring to replenishing the earth. I also think your scenario is more admirable due to not calling the hypothetical race of beings "men." That's always been a beef with me; referring to preAdamic men when Adam is the first man in the scriptures.Gotta think about this "sea" thing....note btw that the sea is also used as a reference to the world.