Did anything die before sin?

[webdog]

How can decay and death be anything but a curse for every life form? I'm sad when flowers curl up and die and don't retain their beauty. Death is not natural at all - it is only natural in a fallen world. We're so used to accepting it as "part of life," but that is not a biblical view.

Would a plucked flower have wilted in the Garden? What about the "natural" digestive process...would feces have decayed or just continued to pile up?

 

[Darrenss1]

First off what did God breath life into? Did He breath life into animals?

God breathed into man more than just life, what's your point anyway? Are you saying only MAN is alive? What for?

One might ask if there was no death of man or animals before sin entered the world and death through sin, then what did man and animals eat? Before sin animal and man were vegetarians..... When I pick a vegetable off the vine or plant it doesn't kill the plant or vine or tree.

Even if your argument holds true, not all life eats plants, what about fish for example? Growing up on farms I saw 1000's of times cows eat out a paddock in a couple of hours, what you are suggesting about plants not dying is foolish. Picture the uncontrolled breeding of rabbits for example, or frogs, or locust, what you are suggesting lacks any common sense. For those that believe flies and the nasty pests of the earth were AFTER the fall, you would be introducing a creation event AFTER Genesis ch 1 just to uphold an interpretation of Rom 5 that doesn't fit anyway.

Darren

We are taught that Death is the great enemy, the last to be destroyed when Christ returns. 1 Corinthians 15:26. I believe death entered after the Creation was finished, because God said,"it was very good." Gen. 1:31

Of course death is the great enemy for mankind no one is doubting that.

Darren

 

[Bob Alkire]

God breathed into man more than just life, what's your point anyway? Are you saying only MAN is alive? What for?

Back when I was a kid, some were going around saying God only breathes life into man so there could have been death before the fall. I don't buy that, but it is an old teaching.

Even if your argument holds true, not all life eats plants, what about fish for example? Growing up on farms I saw 1000's of times cows eat out a paddock in a couple of hours, what you are suggesting about plants not dying is foolish. Picture the uncontrolled breeding of rabbits for example, or frogs, or locust, what you are suggesting lacks any common sense. For those that believe flies and the nasty pests of the earth were AFTER the fall, you would be introducing a creation event AFTER Genesis ch 1 just to uphold an interpretation of Rom 5 that doesn't fit anyway.

I too was brought up on a farm. However I don't believe your farm or mind was anything like how the earth was like in Eden.

I believe there was nothing bad in the created world as of Gen. 1:26,28,31, there wasn't any hunger, or struggle to make it till the next day, or suffering and no death of animal or human kind.

 

[Marcia]

Would a plucked flower have wilted in the Garden?

I am not sure. But if it had, it would not have been a natural death, so to speak. Iow, flowers left untouched would not die. And maybe Adam and Eve had no desire to pluck flowers.

What about the "natural" digestive process...would feces have decayed or just continued to pile up?

By "decay," I would mean along with age for a person or animal life.

 

[Marcia]

One thing I do notice is how dogmatic some people are with things you can't really be dogmatic over, some people like to throw around their claim of the "biblical view" with the idea that other interpretations other than their own aren't or could not be supported in scripture, regardless of the content or strength of their argument. Its quite a funny thing to watch. :tongue3:

Darren

So glad you are entertained.:tongue3:

 

[Amy.G]

Would a plucked flower have wilted in the Garden?

I'm not sure they were in the garden long enough to have plucked a flower. It appears they weren't there very long before they sinned.

 

[zrs6v4]

Are you saying it is only spiritual death and not physical death that came through sin?

I am trying to be humble about this, . I am not trying to take either side, but in this point I was saying that Romans 5 is possibly only speaking of spiritual death.

If so, I heartily disagree and actually find this rather shocking.

I have found out a lot of shocking things, but this is because I searched my original beliefs I learned from tradition. Not that they are bad, but I have found that I have changed my views a few times. I still don't know if it is easy to say that Paul is not just speaking of Spiritual death with great confidence.

The first instances of physical death that we see came after the fall.

I agree, except for the fact that plants died, not that that matters for man.

First Cor. 15 speaks of the perishable taking on the imperishable; this includes the physical body. The perishable is part of the result of sin: physical death, that is redeemed and overcome with a bodily resurrection free from age, illness, and death.

I was wondering if you believe that man was created in flesh at the beginning or in the spirit? It seems like your trying to say that man originally didn't come equipped with physical bodies..

If aging, illness, and physical death are not the result of sin, then a large implication of Christ's bodily resurrection is meaningless, and much of 1 Cor. 15 makes no sense.

So if Adam and Eve had a child before sin, then..
(1) he would be a newborn forever
(2) she would have a 30 year old son
(3) there was no reproduction

I really don't understand why Christ's bodily resurrection is meaningless if physical death was part of the garden before sin? I do somewhat see what you are saying, but Paul doesn't really distinguish between spiritual and physical death. If he were to say the sins sting of physical death then this would be a lot easier. He does clearly speak of the need of rebirth or spiritual life to not be stung by death.

The promise of a bodily resurrection to a glorified body is part of the triumph we have in Christ over physical death.

We still physically die. Its just that death doesn't have the spiritual victory as it once did. Everyone dies, but in Christ we only die once then are perfected in glorification. Because of Christ, death isnt eternal and no longer means paying for sin. Im sure you would agree, but I state this understanding so you might show where you disagree.

 

[Bob Alkire]

What about a potato or carrot? I always knew they were a result of the fall!!

Could be, they are a root, no root no plant.

 

[Marcia]

I am trying to be humble about this, . I am not trying to take either side, but in this point I was saying that Romans 5 is possibly only speaking of spiritual death.


I have found out a lot of shocking things, but this is because I searched my original beliefs I learned from tradition. Not that they are bad, but I have found that I have changed my views a few times. I still don't know if it is easy to say that Paul is not just speaking of Spiritual death with great confidence.

Well, I didn't learn this from tradition. I think the Bible supports physical death as part of the result of the fall, and I think it's clear, but I've already spent quite a bit of time on that in this thread and another one. So I'm pretty much done with that. Thanks for being honest.

I was wondering if you believe that man was created in flesh at the beginning or in the spirit? It seems like your trying to say that man originally didn't come equipped with physical bodies..

Oh my goodness! How did I sound like that? Perish the thought! I was already a partial Gnostic for most of my adult life. No thank you to that! How in the world did you get the notion that I might think that men were not created with bodies??? Yikes! I have to argue this point with some New Agers, so I hardly believe it.

So if Adam and Eve had a child before sin, then..
(1) he would be a newborn forever
(2) she would have a 30 year old son
(3) there was no reproduction

I don't know the answers to that, except yes, there would be reproduction since God told them to be fruitful and multiply. You will have to ask God this one day. I do think it's possible that one could go from infant to adult without any decay, illness, or blight before sin. That would be growth, not decay or death. It is a similar question we have about heaven: babies who die - are they babies forever in heaven? When you can answer that, you can probably answer your own question.

I really don't understand why Christ's bodily resurrection is meaningless if physical death was part of the garden before sin? I do somewhat see what you are saying, but Paul doesn't really distinguish between spiritual and physical death. If he were to say the sins sting of physical death then this would be a lot easier. He does clearly speak of the need of rebirth or spiritual life to not be stung by death.

I think the victory of the bodily resurrection is over death and decay in the body brought on by sin. I think that's clear in 1 Cor. 15 and elsewhere but apparently, not all here agree. I think maybe Paul didn't specifically state physical death because it was understood; death was both physical and spiritual.

We still physically die. Its just that death doesn't have the spiritual victory as it once did. Everyone dies, but in Christ we only die once then are perfected in glorification. Because of Christ, death isnt eternal and no longer means paying for sin. Im sure you would agree, but I state this understanding so you might show where you disagree

But I think the bodily resurrection is a special promise to believers of victory over physical death because it was a bodily resurrection. It's different from any other religion, especially the ones that hark on how we are spiritual beings and bodies are only temporary, or beliefs that the body is not even real.