Why Are There Fossils?

[Van]

Phillip: Van, first of all let me apologize to you. I was not questioning your faith, though I can appreciate why you took my comments that way, and I am sorry that I was not more careful with the what I posted. I am asking for your forgiveness. I don't know you and I certainly am in no position to question your faith. As I have said elsewhere in this forum I have known a man for some 50 years who is an aerospace engineer and a believer, who will not even speak to me about Creation and evolution, but I have no doubt about his faith. As a believer I once also believed in evolution. My point in that post is simply that ignoring the clear statements of Scripture opens the door for all kinds of interpretations that are unwarranted and potentially destructive to faith as a whole. Some years ago a study was done by the Southern Baptist Convention that concluded that at least half of young believers who go to Liberal Arts colleges will walk away from their faith within the first year, so it is crucial that we teach our young people that science is biased against God and His Creation, preferring naturalism which has strong atheistic leanings. So, again, my apologies.

Now, to your post. First, I did not say that the animals that Adam and Eve ate didn't die. I said that God does not view the "death" of plants as the same as the death of animals and people, since the Scripture says that the life is in the blood and plants don't have blood. An Genesis does not record that any animal died before God made coverings of skins after they sinned. And after the fall, Adam raised his children to believe in God and to sacrifice to Him. Abel's sacrifice was accepted because it involved the shedding of blood - the innocent for the guilty. Second, I find no warrant for your claim that death preceded the fall. That would mean that God's "very good" Creation included people He made for worship and for fellowship who were already dying. I don't see how this is in any way compatible with either Genesis or Romans. Can you explain further?

Phillip

Hi Phillip,
1. I did not say Adam and Eve ate animals. I said animals ate plants so death occurred before the fall.

2. You redefined physical death to only refer to animals including humans. But then your claim there was no physical death before the fall fails, and you provide a basis for fossils of plants, such as a petrified tree.

3. You correctly pointed out scripture does not describe the death of any animal before the fall, but the absence of evidence does not provide evidence of absence.

4. The possibility of animal death before the fall does not say Adam and Eve would die too. But Adam did know the word "die" before the fall, so the concept was part of his reality.

5. And once again I point out creation was very good for God's purpose, to choose for Himself a people for His own possession. If people are able to choose to bring glory to God, they are also able to choose not to bring glory to God. And the consequence of that second choice involves the wages of sin.

 

[Phillip Diller]

Phillip: Good morning, Van. I have a few minutes before I have to get ready for work, so I will try to address a couple of points from your last post.
1. Yes, Adam, Eve and animals did eat plants before the fall, but that was different from animals falling over dead. God viewed the death of animals and people on a completely different level, and He was perfectly capable of explaining that to Adam and Eve without them having to see it happen. Now, I did say that Adam and Eve ate animals, which is not a unreasonable assumption since Abel raised livestock, but that would have been after the fall.

2. We agree that the Scriptures do not describe the death of any animal before the fall, however you objected that the lack of textual affirmation doesn't prove that point. So let me remind you of your own words about the lack of evidence. Just because the text doesn't say that there was animal death before the fall isn't evidence that there was.

3. Finally, I completely disagree with the idea that animal death was a part of God's "very good" creation. I Corinthians 15:26 says : "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death". For death to have existed before the fall suggests that God created an "enemy" as part of His "very good" Creation. Have a great day, Van.

Phillip

 

[Van]

Hi Phillip,
1) You repeat the claim of a distinction between the physical death of animals and the physical death of plants. But you also continue to fail to support your convenient claim from scripture.

2) The road runs both ways, no evidence for death does not prove death occurred or did not occur.

3) And again, you claim a meaning of "very good" that excludes the basis for choosing to bring glory to God, i.e. the alternative.

 

[timtofly]

Plants do not die to produce seed.

The seed dies to produce a plant.

The goal was for all animals and for all the sons of God to eat the fruit and seeds to prevent them from dying and overrunning the earth with more plants and trees.

Remember that plants, vines, and trees were created first. They did not need humans to tend to them. They need humans and animals to stop them from taking over the planet.

 

[Phillip Diller]

Plants do not die to produce seed.

The seed dies to produce a plant.

The goal was for all animals and for all the sons of God to eat the fruit and seeds to prevent them from dying and overrunning the earth with more plants and trees.

Remember that plants, vines, and trees were created first. They did not need humans to tend to them. They need humans and animals to stop them from taking over the planet.

Phillip: I was OK with the first two sentences, but the rest of your post is complete nonsense. You say that plants do not need humans to tend them, yet God placed Adam in the garden and told him to "dress it and keep it" (2:15). That sounds to me like God instructing him to "tend" the garden. And where in Scripture are we told that the "goal" in man and animals eating fruit and seeds was to prevent them from taking over the planet? Have you actually read the Bible? Genesis says more than once that man was to have dominion over sea creatures, birds and all land animals, but no mention is made of man having dominion over plants. Chapter and verse, please.

Phillip

 

[Phillip Diller]

Hi Phillip,
1) You repeat the claim of a distinction between the physical death of animals and the physical death of plants. But you also continue to fail to support your convenient claim from scripture.

2) The road runs both ways, no evidence for death does not prove death occurred or did not occur.

3) And again, you claim a meaning of "very good" that excludes the basis for choosing to bring glory to God, i.e. the alternative.

Phillip: As to the distinction between the physical death of plants and animals, let's start with the prohibition from God to the children of Israel regarding the eating of blood (Lev. 17:14, Deut. 12:16 and Deut. 15:23). The Leviticus passage goes on to say "...for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof...". Yet nowhere that I am aware of does Scripture warn that plants have blood that was to be avoided. Granted, Deut. 32:14 does make a reference to "the pure blood of the grape" in a song that Moses was told to teach the children of Israel before they crossed into the Promised Land, but it was an expression of the blessing of the land that they were about to inherit, not a reference to blood in the literal sense, and certainly not a prohibition to eating grapes. Also, the Scripture says that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin (Hebrews 9:22). The Israelites were required to bring offerings of their harvests as a tithe, an expression of gratitude for Gods' provision for their lives, but the atonement for their sins required the blood of animals until the shed blood of Christ became the their permanent covering.

With respect to point number 2 the road doesn't run both ways. Romans 5:12 does not make a distinction between spiritual death and physical death, it simply says that sin brought death. The burden of proof is yours to show that Paul meant only spiritual death, and lacking that proof it can only mean that all death followed Adam's sin. In consideration of your point you might want to address the fact that Adam was placed in a garden with both the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but he was only prohibited from eating of the latter. Why?

Finally, to your last point, I merely point out that God Himself describes His Creation at the end of the sixth day as "Very good", hardly a term that would be used for a world filled with animals violently killing and eating other animals, especially in light of point number 2. I look forward to your response.

Phillip

 

[timtofly]

Phillip: I was OK with the first two sentences, but the rest of your post is complete nonsense. You say that plants do not need humans to tend them, yet God placed Adam in the garden and told him to "dress it and keep it" (2:15). That sounds to me like God instructing him to "tend" the garden. And where in Scripture are we told that the "goal" in man and animals eating fruit and seeds was to prevent them from taking over the planet? Have you actually read the Bible? Genesis says more than once that man was to have dominion over sea creatures, birds and all land animals, but no mention is made of man having dominion over plants. Chapter and verse, please.

Phillip

I take it you do not cut your own grass, or rake leaves in the fall. You must not pull any weeds, growing all over the place. You must not have to cut back bushes, or trees that keep growing up all through the year.

People are paid to do that. If not the plants and trees would take over. Yes, that is Adam tending the garden. Eating the fruit and seeds was not only nourishment for all animals and humans, it helped keep those plants and trees balanced and not taking over. What Adam and all the other sons of God, did not have to do, is till the ground and prepare it for all those trees and plants. Even vegetables came up naturally, without work. Not sure why this is a big deal. Keeping balance in nature is not a goal? It seems to me that in 1000 years, humanity had barely spread out and kept a balance. If they are like today, and even Cain, they probably just kept to cities, and forgot about the rest of the planet.

 

[Van]

Phillip: As to the distinction between the physical death of plants and animals, let's start with the prohibition from God to the children of Israel regarding the eating of blood (Lev. 17:14, Deut. 12:16 and Deut. 15:23). The Leviticus passage goes on to say "...for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof...". Yet nowhere that I am aware of does Scripture warn that plants have blood that was to be avoided. Granted, Deut. 32:14 does make a reference to "the pure blood of the grape" in a song that Moses was told to teach the children of Israel before they crossed into the Promised Land, but it was an expression of the blessing of the land that they were about to inherit, not a reference to blood in the literal sense, and certainly not a prohibition to eating grapes. Also, the Scripture says that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin (Hebrews 9:22). The Israelites were required to bring offerings of their harvests as a tithe, an expression of gratitude for Gods' provision for their lives, but the atonement for their sins required the blood of animals until the shed blood of Christ became the their permanent covering.

With respect to point number 2 the road doesn't run both ways. Romans 5:12 does not make a distinction between spiritual death and physical death, it simply says that sin brought death. The burden of proof is yours to show that Paul meant only spiritual death, and lacking that proof it can only mean that all death followed Adam's sin. In consideration of your point you might want to address the fact that Adam was placed in a garden with both the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but he was only prohibited from eating of the latter. Why?

Finally, to your last point, I merely point out that God Himself describes His Creation at the end of the sixth day as "Very good", hardly a term that would be used for a world filled with animals violently killing and eating other animals, especially in light of point number 2. I look forward to your response.

Phillip

1) Yes, the life of "flesh" (people and animals) is in the blood, but that does not mean plants are not alive.
Eze 31:14
so that all the trees by the waters may not be exalted in their stature, nor set their top among the clouds, nor their]well-watered mighty ones stand erect in their height. For they have all been given over to death, to the earth beneath, among the sons of men, with those who go down to the pit.”

2) People who are physically alive are said to be dead in their sins and trespasses. See Ephesians 2:1, Ephesians 2:5 and Colossians 2:13. Same earthly writer (Paul) so to claim spiritual death rather than physical death was not in view is to make an argument from conjecture. Since scripture supports the concept that death (physical death of at least plants) existed before the fall, spiritual death in Romans 5:12 fits better in my opinion.

3) And once again you do not address that "very good" refers to very good for God's purpose, which is to choose a people for His own possession.

 

[Phillip Diller]

I take it you do not cut your own grass, or rake leaves in the fall. You must not pull any weeds, growing all over the place. You must not have to cut back bushes, or trees that keep growing up all through the year.

People are paid to do that. If not the plants and trees would take over. Yes, that is Adam tending the garden. Eating the fruit and seeds was not only nourishment for all animals and humans, it helped keep those plants and trees balanced and not taking over. What Adam and all the other sons of God, did not have to do, is till the ground and prepare it for all those trees and plants. Even vegetables came up naturally, without work. Not sure why this is a big deal. Keeping balance in nature is not a goal? It seems to me that in 1000 years, humanity had barely spread out and kept a balance. If they are like today, and even Cain, they probably just kept to cities, and forgot about the rest of the planet.

Phillip: You are the one who said that the goal was for animals and man to eat fruit and seeds to prevent plants from taking over the world. So, since I don't find any warrant in the Scriptures for this "goal", I'll ask again: chapter and verse, please. Given that you are prone to repeat claims you can't defend (the 1,000 years you throw around as if it is actually taught in Scripture, the claim that Cain and Abel were sinless after the fall, that Adam and Eve had only three children - Genesis 5:3) I'll be very surprised if you come back with a rational answer. Actually, I hope you do, but time will tell.

Phillip

 

[Phillip Diller]

1) Yes, the life of "flesh" (people and animals) is in the blood, but that does not mean plants are not alive.
Eze 31:14
so that all the trees by the waters may not be exalted in their stature, nor set their top among the clouds, nor their]well-watered mighty ones stand erect in their height. For they have all been given over to death, to the earth beneath, among the sons of men, with those who go down to the pit.”

2) People who are physically alive are said to be dead in their sins and trespasses. See Ephesians 2:1, Ephesians 2:5 and Colossians 2:13. Same earthly writer (Paul) so to claim spiritual death rather than physical death was not in view is to make an argument from conjecture. Since scripture supports the concept that death (physical death of at least plants) existed before the fall, spiritual death in Romans 5:12 fits better in my opinion.

3) And once again you do not address that "very good" refers to very good for God's purpose, which is to choose a people for His own possession.

Phillip: Ok, let's try this one more time, then I need to get back to the point of the thread. If your point is that a piece of fruit "dies" when you eat it, maybe we must first decide whether the fruit is a living thing. If the tree that it was taken from didn't die when the fruit was picked then maybe nothing actually died. Since all animals were originally plant eaters, then its entirely possible that until the fall Adam and Eve never saw anything die. That doesn't mean that God could not have made them to understand what death would mean without their having to see it.

With regard to Romans 5:12, you end your comment with an admission that Paul's comments refer to spiritual death in your opinion. That makes your position a matter of conjecture. And since the passage does not make a distinction between spiritual death and physical death, and the Creation account does not allow for either before the fall, then we should not be making that distinction either. I really don't understand why you want to put death before sin. Are you trying to build time into the Biblical account to avoid a conflict with evolution?

Finally (I hope) I didn't address God's "very good" with regard to "God's purpose, which is to choose a people for His own possession" because the text does not say that that was what He was referring to. You have been very clear that you believe that was what He meant, but the passage doesn't say that. So my take on it is simply that God was expressing His pleasure with what He had made, not with what He would use it for. We may simply have to agree to disagree and go on to other things.

Phillip

 

[timtofly]

Phillip: You are the one who said that the goal was for animals and man to eat fruit and seeds to prevent plants from taking over the world. So, since I don't find any warrant in the Scriptures for this "goal", I'll ask again: chapter and verse, please. Given that you are prone to repeat claims you can't defend (the 1,000 years you throw around as if it is actually taught in Scripture, the claim that Cain and Abel were sinless after the fall, that Adam and Eve had only three children - Genesis 5:3) I'll be very surprised if you come back with a rational answer. Actually, I hope you do, but time will tell.

Phillip

I have posted scriptures in many threads on the topic, as these truths are unraveled over many different topics. Why there is a reading issue with the same verses, I read, and the way other people read them, I have asked God many times. The only thought I get, is only by faith and trust in God can these things be revealed.

The verses are there, the words are there. People just hit a spiritual road block as far as I can tell. For one thing rightly dividing the Word of truth, can be found as a verse. The first 4 chapters of Genesis have to be split apart, and viewed as totally separate stories only loosely related and overlapping in certain areas only. You cannot apply what one says and use it to replace ideas in any of the other chapters.

Adam is in chapter 1, but not as Adam. Eve is not in chapter 1 at all. Cain and Abel were born in the Garden before the fall. They are not mentioned in the first 3 chapters. Chapter 4 does start out After, but after what? It does not say what. Jump to too many conclusions and you will miss the story point.

There are a lot more twist that need to be avoided, but just telling you what is what will not work.

Don't use the word goal if that confuses you. I don't like the word balance because it is a New Age term, and over used by cults, pagans, and environmentalists. If I said economy, that may not go over well either. The fact is seeds do die, because that is a fact of life, even from day 3. It was not the loss of life, it was the first mention of being planted in the ground, dead and springing back to life. Genesis 2:5
"And every plant of the field, before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field, before it grew,"

11 Then God said, Let the earth bud forth the bud of the herb, that seedeth seed, the fruitful tree, which beareth fruit according to his kind, which hath his seed in itself upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth the bud of the herb, that seedeth seed according to his kind, also the tree that beareth fruit, which hath his seed in itself according to his kind: and God saw that it was good.

9 For out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree pleasant to the sight, and good for meat:

29 And God said, Behold, I have given unto you every herb bearing seed, which is upon all the earth, and every tree, wherein is the fruit of a tree bearing that shall be to you for meat.

See how confusing it can get if you start cross referencing verses between chapters?

The economy was that all living life can eat the seeds and fruit as meat. However eating them all would be the end of plant and tree life. Not eating them, all living life would die. Since there was no death, the goal, God said there was no death, so that had to be a goal, even if it would not kill one. Would they even have starvation pains? The goal was a perfect economy, because humans, at least, could choose to eat or not. Since humans were perfect the perfect choice would just be to eat, and be part of the economy. That is the rational view.

Now if it was a perfect world and no need of new plants or herbs, and human biological anatomy changed at the fall, I would go a step further. What did chapter 2 verse 5 say again?
"And every plant of the field, before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field, before it grew,"
Yes, it said no seeds or fruit ever went into the ground. The only seeds God planted immediately (or over night) did not die, but were what they were without dying. Nothing died, zilch, nada.

Humans did not have intestines. Nor did the animals, until the fall. All that was eaten was burned up and turned into calories. No seed or fruit entered the ground. But take it or leave it. A perfect economy.

 

[Van]

Phillip: Ok, let's try this one more time, then I need to get back to the point of the thread. If your point is that a piece of fruit "dies" when you eat it, maybe we must first decide whether the fruit is a living thing. If the tree that it was taken from didn't die when the fruit was picked then maybe nothing actually died. Since all animals were originally plant eaters, then its entirely possible that until the fall Adam and Eve never saw anything die. That doesn't mean that God could not have made them to understand what death would mean without their having to see it.

With regard to Romans 5:12, you end your comment with an admission that Paul's comments refer to spiritual death in your opinion. That makes your position a matter of conjecture. And since the passage does not make a distinction between spiritual death and physical death, and the Creation account does not allow for either before the fall, then we should not be making that distinction either. I really don't understand why you want to put death before sin. Are you trying to build time into the Biblical account to avoid a conflict with evolution?

Finally (I hope) I didn't address God's "very good" with regard to "God's purpose, which is to choose a people for His own possession" because the text does not say that that was what He was referring to. You have been very clear that you believe that was what He meant, but the passage doesn't say that. So my take on it is simply that God was expressing His pleasure with what He had made, not with what He would use it for. We may simply have to agree to disagree and go on to other things.

Phillip

I am not going to try one more time. You did not address the fact that scripture refers to "spiritual death." You did not address that scripture refers to a tree "dying." You explained Adam could understand "die" not by seeing it when he might have pulled up and eaten a root, but by conjecture. Lastly scripture refers to physically living people as being spiritually dead, so that In my view, your mind is made up, and nothing I point to in scripture will alter your view.

 

[Phillip Diller]

I have posted scriptures in many threads on the topic, as these truths are unraveled over many different topics. Why there is a reading issue with the same verses, I read, and the way other people read them, I have asked God many times. The only thought I get, is only by faith and trust in God can these things be revealed.

The verses are there, the words are there. People just hit a spiritual road block as far as I can tell. For one thing rightly dividing the Word of truth, can be found as a verse. The first 4 chapters of Genesis have to be split apart, and viewed as totally separate stories only loosely related and overlapping in certain areas only. You cannot apply what one says and use it to replace ideas in any of the other chapters.

Adam is in chapter 1, but not as Adam. Eve is not in chapter 1 at all. Cain and Abel were born in the Garden before the fall. They are not mentioned in the first 3 chapters. Chapter 4 does start out After, but after what? It does not say what. Jump to too many conclusions and you will miss the story point.

There are a lot more twist that need to be avoided, but just telling you what is what will not work.

Don't use the word goal if that confuses you. I don't like the word balance because it is a New Age term, and over used by cults, pagans, and environmentalists. If I said economy, that may not go over well either. The fact is seeds do die, because that is a fact of life, even from day 3. It was not the loss of life, it was the first mention of being planted in the ground, dead and springing back to life. Genesis 2:5
"And every plant of the field, before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field, before it grew,"

11 Then God said, Let the earth bud forth the bud of the herb, that seedeth seed, the fruitful tree, which beareth fruit according to his kind, which hath his seed in itself upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth the bud of the herb, that seedeth seed according to his kind, also the tree that beareth fruit, which hath his seed in itself according to his kind: and God saw that it was good.

9 For out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree pleasant to the sight, and good for meat:

29 And God said, Behold, I have given unto you every herb bearing seed, which is upon all the earth, and every tree, wherein is the fruit of a tree bearing that shall be to you for meat.

See how confusing it can get if you start cross referencing verses between chapters?

The economy was that all living life can eat the seeds and fruit as meat. However eating them all would be the end of plant and tree life. Not eating them, all living life would die. Since there was no death, the goal, God said there was no death, so that had to be a goal, even if it would not kill one. Would they even have starvation pains? The goal was a perfect economy, because humans, at least, could choose to eat or not. Since humans were perfect the perfect choice would just be to eat, and be part of the economy. That is the rational view.

Now if it was a perfect world and no need of new plants or herbs, and human biological anatomy changed at the fall, I would go a step further. What did chapter 2 verse 5 say again?
"And every plant of the field, before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field, before it grew,"
Yes, it said no seeds or fruit ever went into the ground. The only seeds God planted immediately (or over night) did not die, but were what they were without dying. Nothing died, zilch, nada.

Humans did not have intestines. Nor did the animals, until the fall. All that was eaten was burned up and turned into calories. No seed or fruit entered the ground. But take it or leave it. A perfect economy.

Phillip: I might be able to take you seriously if you didn't contradict yourself and deny the clear teachings of the Bible. You said that Adam was in the garden for 30 years, but I don't find any verse that says that. You said that Adam and Eve had 3 sons and no other children, which directly contradicts chapter 5 and verse 4. You said yourself that "It is wrong to add anything to the narrative that is not there". I agree, but it is also wrong to take away things that are in the narrative. Further, you claim that Cain and Abel were born in the garden, and that they were sinless even after the fall - again, chapter and verse. You claim that the seventh day was a thousand years long: chapter and verse. And now you come up with "Humans did not have intestines...until the fall". Now you're making up "facts" out of thin air. You make it almost impossible for me to consider anything you say as being credible.

Phillip

 

[timtofly]

Phillip: I might be able to take you seriously if you didn't contradict yourself and deny the clear teachings of the Bible. You said that Adam was in the garden for 30 years, but I don't find any verse that says that. You said that Adam and Eve had 3 sons and no other children, which directly contradicts chapter 5 and verse 4. You said yourself that "It is wrong to add anything to the narrative that is not there". I agree, but it is also wrong to take away things that are in the narrative. Further, you claim that Cain and Abel were born in the garden, and that they were sinless even after the fall - again, chapter and verse. You claim that the seventh day was a thousand years long: chapter and verse. And now you come up with "Humans did not have intestines...until the fall". Now you're making up "facts" out of thin air. You make it almost impossible for me to consider anything you say as being credible.

Phillip

I said Seth was the third son, not the last child. Some claim children were born way before Cain.

Where do I contradict myself?

Some say Adam was in the Garden for less than 24 hours. Why is 30 years unbiblical? The Bible says Seth was born when Adam was 130. What is wrong with saying the first 30 was in the Garden? Would you prefer 20 hours or less?

The Bible says the Seventh day was a Lord's day. What is a Lord's Day?

No, I said, "Don't take a narrative from one of the first 4 chapters and state it was explicit in any of the other 3.

And no, probably not in those exact words. I do not think that taking other verses throughout the rest of the Bible as context is wrong. Context is needed, but you cannot interpret the first 4 chapters with each other. You cannot declare that Cain was born after the fall, because the chapter comes in that order. Nor does the chapter declare in the chapter it happened in conjunction to any fall time frame. For instance, yes Cain tilled the ground. That does not mean it had to be outside of the Garden. Nor does the narrative say it was not in the Garden because of having to till the ground. It was in the Garden because Cain had a normal conversation with God, just like his father Adam had. Then God told Cain to leave His presence.

14 "You are banning me today from the land and from your presence. I will be a fugitive wandering the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

An exchange of ideas is preferred. Unless you like "others just telling you, you are wrong all the time", perhaps some exchange is not that difficult? But I understand. I have been told I am wrong about most everything, my whole life, and do not expect it to stop, until the day I die.

 

[Phillip Diller]

I said Seth was the third son, not the last child. Some claim children were born way before Cain.

Where do I contradict myself?

Some say Adam was in the Garden for less than 24 hours. Why is 30 years unbiblical? The Bible says Seth was born when Adam was 130. What is wrong with saying the first 30 was in the Garden? Would you prefer 20 hours or less?

The Bible says the Seventh day was a Lord's day. What is a Lord's Day?

No, I said, "Don't take a narrative from one of the first 4 chapters and state it was explicit in any of the other 3.

And no, probably not in those exact words. I do not think that taking other verses throughout the rest of the Bible as context is wrong. Context is needed, but you cannot interpret the first 4 chapters with each other. You cannot declare that Cain was born after the fall, because the chapter comes in that order. Nor does the chapter declare in the chapter it happened in conjunction to any fall time frame. For instance, yes Cain tilled the ground. That does not mean it had to be outside of the Garden. Nor does the narrative say it was not in the Garden because of having to till the ground. It was in the Garden because Cain had a normal conversation with God, just like his father Adam had. Then God told Cain to leave His presence.

14 "You are banning me today from the land and from your presence. I will be a fugitive wandering the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

An exchange of ideas is preferred. Unless you like "others just telling you, you are wrong all the time", perhaps some exchange is not that difficult? But I understand. I have been told I am wrong about most everything, my whole life, and do not expect it to stop, until the day I die.

Phillip: I agree that a reasoned exchange of ideas is the whole point of a forum like this, and I would like to do that. I was probably a little too abrupt with you in my last post. I'm sorry. I can appreciate not being understood - you're not alone in that department. I've been married to the same woman for almost 50 years, and sometimes see looks at me as if I'm from another planet (or species).

So, to avoid confusion and frustration, let's deal with one point at a time. In your last post you said, "I said Seth was the third son, not the last child". But in post #40 of this thread you said, "Seth was born 100 years after the Garden, and was the third child. Adam and Eve did not have any more than those 3. After those 3 sons, they had more children". Perhaps you can see my confusion as you seem to be saying in one sentence that Adam and Eve had only three children (sons), and in the next sentence you say that they had more. So what am I missing?

Phillip

 

[timtofly]

I said that Adam did not have any more than 3, in reference to a post that said Adam and Eve had lots of children, either in the Garden, or after, but before Seth. The reason would be in Isaiah 65.

About Adam's age.
Genesis 5:4

4 After Seth was born, Adam lived another 800 years and had both sons and daughters.

Cain and Abel were born in the Garden, before Adam was 30. Around 30 years old, Adam disobeyed and was banned from the Garden. Isaiah 65:20
"for he that shall be an hundred years old, shall die as a young man: but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed."
Adam was the first sinner. He was cursed. When he turned 130, 100 years after leaving the Garden, God granted him a blessing. The birth of Seth. I do not know if Seth was told about God, but Genesis 4:26 says it was not until after Seth's son Enosh
was born did Adam's descendants once again seek God.
26 And to the same Seth also there was born a son, and he called his name Enosh. Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.

These 4 chapters are about Adam and his 3 sons. They do not say much about the sons of God created on day 6. From the time Adam had to leave, and his descendants once again called out to God was 205 years.

So even Seth had to live 100 years before his first child. If you notice in chapter 5, The times of the firstborn kept getting shorter. At least up until Enoch. Something about Methuselah changed again. The next time it was almost 200 years. Were the named sons firstborns, or did Methusala start having only daughters? Was it not until after having daughters, they finally had a son? Noah did not have his 3 boys until he was 500. By that time we have the sons of God marrying all those daughters. I think Noah was single for almost 500 years.

 

[robycop3]

Roby, do you realize how big the Ark would have to be to have 2 of every species on board as well as the supplies to keep them alive? This is where I'm baffled by it. We're talking about a vessel bigger than a modern day nuclear aircraft carrier.

Not if the animals were "babies" & were in suspended animation. I believe that was the case, as the ark couldn'y have held enough food for all of them, had they been awake, not to mention the "bilge".

And God brought most of them to the ark. No one, not even today, could travel the world & collect a pair of every critter there is.

 

[Phillip Diller]

I am not going to try one more time. You did not address the fact that scripture refers to "spiritual death." You did not address that scripture refers to a tree "dying." You explained Adam could understand "die" not by seeing it when he might have pulled up and eaten a root, but by conjecture. Lastly scripture refers to physically living people as being spiritually dead, so that In my view, your mind is made up, and nothing I point to in scripture will alter your view.

Phillip: Actually I did address the fact of spiritual death in post #23 of this thread where I said that Adam and Eve died spiritually the moment that they sinned, and they began to die physically at the same time. I also made reference to the fact that Adam and Eve were not prohibited from eating of the tree of life until after they sinned. And, by the way, I looked at the passage in Ezekiel 31 which doesn't seem to be speaking of the death of trees before the fall but was a prophetic allusion to the demise of Pharaoh.

So, I'll say it again, and then move on. God created the Earth and the rest of the universe in six, regular, consecutive 24 hour days. There was no death in any Biblically significant sense before Adam and Eve sinned. If you want to split hairs over the eating of a piece of fruit that is your right, but to me it is a distraction from more important issues. In my view, your mind is made up, and nothing I point to in Scripture will alter your view. We may simply have to agree to disagree on this point and look for things we do agree on. I wish you well.

Phillip

 

[Van]

1) Yes, the life of "flesh" (people and animals) is in the blood, but that does not mean plants are not alive.
Eze 31:14
so that all the trees by the waters may not be exalted in their stature, nor set their top among the clouds, nor their well-watered mighty ones stand erect in their height. For they have all been given over to death, to the earth beneath, among the sons of men, with those who go down to the pit.”

Trees, no matter how well watered or how tall in stature have all been given over to death. It is not spiting hairs to stand up and defend scriptural truth. I do not claim to know the duration of the creation week, which is to stand firm in the truth of Job 38.

Adam physically lived many years after he ate the forbidden fruit, so spiritual death, separation from God is in view.
The death of plants appears to have occurred before the fall, due to Adam, Eve and animals eating plants before the fall.

 

[Centrist]

Not if the animals were "babies" & were in suspended animation.

Suspended animation. Now it's starting to sound a bit too sci-fi.