Jump to content


Photo

Death Before Adam's Sin?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
52 replies to this topic

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 25 September 2011 - 06:57 PM

Some creation beliefs are based in gaps of time where days are not days, and death happened before Adam sinned. But salvation itself is based on who sinned, when they sinned, and what the sin atonement was for that sin and all that followed. The belief that adds more time to the creation time-line for various reasons has no one sin, no one person who started it, and therefore denies why Christ died for it. It is explained even further in this audio.



#2 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 28 September 2011 - 05:42 AM

Some creation beliefs are based in gaps of time where days are not days, and death happened before Adam sinned. But salvation itself is based on who sinned, when they sinned, and what the sin atonement was for that sin and all that followed. The belief that adds more time to the creation time-line for various reasons has no one sin, no one person who started it, and therefore denies why Christ died for it. It is explained even further in this audio.



A number of TEs have explained to me that they do accept a literal Adam and his literal sin.

Their story goes like this. There was a population of nearly-human hominids. God selected one, breathed the first human soul into him, and called him Adam. Unlike his ancestors and cousins, Adam then had knowledge of God and of good and evil, and probably greater wisdom. All humans are descended directly from Adam (but not from any of his hominid kin) and thereby we all inherit the sin of his prideful rebellion against God.

One may disagree with the history and theology of this, but they do appear to accept that Christ died for Adam's literal sin.

Cheers

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 September 2011 - 06:50 AM

A number of TEs have explained to me that they do accept a literal Adam and his literal sin.

Their story goes like this. There was a population of nearly-human hominids. God selected one, breathed the first human soul into him, and called him Adam. Unlike his ancestors and cousins, Adam then had knowledge of God and of good and evil, and probably greater wisdom. All humans are descended directly from Adam (but not from any of his hominid kin) and thereby we all inherit the sin of his prideful rebellion against God.

One may disagree with the history and theology of this, but they do appear to accept that Christ died for Adam's literal sin.

Cheers


Death before sin denies the reason Christ had to die for sin atonement. And it puts into question that God's perfect creation was dying for another reason other than sin. So what process of God's perfect creation caused death before Adam's sin? Did God say: On day ... I create death? And because I create death, in Me all men must now die? You see no matter how you use the logic to try and make it work, the denial that sin caused death and not God will always be the issue.

The reason I ask you is because TE is your claimed world view.

#4 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 28 September 2011 - 04:29 PM

Death before sin denies the reason Christ had to die for sin atonement. And it puts into question that God's perfect creation was dying for another reason other than sin. So what process of God's perfect creation caused death before Adam's sin? Did God say: On day ... I create death? And because I create death, in Me all men must now die? You see no matter how you use the logic to try and make it work, the denial that sin caused death and not God will always be the issue.

The reason I ask you is because TE is your claimed world view.


Well, I'm not sure how to answer this. It's a complicated question.

Perhaps you could give me the scriptural definition of "death" that you're referring to, since scripture seems to refer to various kinds of death. Usually people put an adjective in front to give an indication e.g. "spiritual death", "physical death", "animal death", "plant death" etc.

Paul tells us the sting of death is sin, which implies that physical death is not bad or evil in relation to things that do not sin, like plants. Therefore, plant death likely has nothing to do with Christ's redemptive sacrifice.

By the same logic, the physical death of anything that does not sin, like animals or even near-human hominids, is not connected to the cross.

However, Adam's sin meant -- for the first time -- that human physical death would result in permanent separation from God i.e. spiritual death. This is the consequence of sin that Christ saves us from.

Cheers

#5 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 29 September 2011 - 04:39 PM

ok. so what if eve and adam ere sin had a child sick from the wounderful sickel cell amenia. they would have to know to ask god to heal that child and if that child is the next in line to spread the lineage what would god tell them, sorry tis for the perfection your race. gotta purge them bad genes.

and then theres matthew 5:5 the meek shall inherit the earth and that nice verse that death shall be no more and nore more sorrow in revalation 20. so heaven had death? when we die we stay in heaven forever? why then would jesus have john write that after the judgments? if heaven was to be the place for christians for ever? note the new city descends to the earth and also in isiah (to be taken literally) that the animals eat veggires once again and as stated in genesis all of creation ate fruits first. else why did noah have to be told that he may eat meat and what to eat and the fear of man would be upon the animals if that was already so.

#6 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 02 October 2011 - 03:00 AM

ok. so what if eve and adam ere sin had a child sick from the wounderful sickel cell amenia. they would have to know to ask god to heal that child and if that child is the next in line to spread the lineage what would god tell them, sorry tis for the perfection your race. gotta purge them bad genes.


I don't think anyone believes Adam and Eve had children before they sinned, so in my opinion your hypothetical question is moot.

and then theres matthew 5:5 the meek shall inherit the earth and that nice verse that death shall be no more and nore more sorrow in revalation 20. so heaven had death? when we die we stay in heaven forever? why then would jesus have john write that after the judgments? if heaven was to be the place for christians for ever? note the new city descends to the earth and also in isiah (to be taken literally) that the animals eat veggires once again and as stated in genesis all of creation ate fruits first. else why did noah have to be told that he may eat meat and what to eat and the fear of man would be upon the animals if that was already so.


Well, according to some TEs, there was no human death before Adam sinned, because Adam was the first human.

Revelation 21:4 "...there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." The context of this is the battle and death described previously in Revelation 20, which occurs on Earth. So I don't think Revelation 21 is referring to death in heaven.

I don't believe Isaiah says animals will be vegetarian "once again", but he is painting a picture of creation restored so I grant you that point, although I believe its quite vague.

The Flood of Noah was over a thousand years after the Fall. Are you suggesting all animals remained vegetarian for thousands of years after the Fall?

I don't believe scripture anywhere states absolutely clearly and categorically that there was no animal death before the fall. There are clues that point to animal death -- for example, the "wild animals" created in Gen 1:24 are referred to with a Hebrew word that is used many, many times throughout the Bible to refer clearly to carnivores. Therefore, in my view, its not a doctrinal error to accept such. For example, I think most TEs would accept that dinosaur fossils with small dinosaur bones inside their bellies are a true record of animal death before Adam.

Cheers

#7 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 02 October 2011 - 06:06 PM

yes i do on the animals as man would be eating animals too.

so the persons adam and eve only had kids? and those kids mated with each other despite what science per your evolutionary teachings says? and the whole creation was under the curse when adam and eve sin.

the whole creation groans for redemption the animals do as well. whenever man is judged animals are judged.

it happened with the egyptian cattle when they recieved hail and also whenever isreal sinned and went into captivity the animals were also judged and in revalation the animals are judged.

#8 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 02 October 2011 - 07:26 PM

yes i do on the animals as man would be eating animals too.


Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here.

so the persons adam and eve only had kids? and those kids mated with each other despite what science per your evolutionary teachings says? and the whole creation was under the curse when adam and eve sin.

the whole creation groans for redemption the animals do as well. whenever man is judged animals are judged.


I'm not aware of any evolutionary teaching that brothers and sisters cannot marry. The ancient Egyptian pharaohs used to do it. The Bible teaches it, according to some. This does not seem to be a problem for TEs.

Whether all of creation was under the curse after the Fall, this doesn't appear to be relevant to whether TEs accept Adam's sin as the reason for the cross, which was the subject of the OP. I'm just pointing out that many TEs do accept Adam as our first father and the first sinner.

Cheers

#9 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 04 October 2011 - 12:32 PM

Well, I'm not sure how to answer this. It's a complicated question.


It's complicated because to answer the question would make you question your own belief.

Perhaps you could give me the scriptural definition of "death" that you're referring to, since scripture seems to refer to various kinds of death. Usually people put an adjective in front to give an indication e.g. "spiritual death", "physical death", "animal death", "plant death" etc.


Which death matters? Who did Christ die for? You are nick picking here to continue dodging the question.

Paul tells us the sting of death is sin, which implies that physical death is not bad or evil in relation to things that do not sin, like plants. Therefore, plant death likely has nothing to do with Christ's redemptive sacrifice.

By the same logic, the physical death of anything that does not sin, like animals or even near-human hominids, is not connected to the cross.


So now you deny that Christ died for us?

However, Adam's sin meant -- for the first time -- that human physical death would result in permanent separation from God i.e. spiritual death. This is the consequence of sin that Christ saves us from.

Cheers


I find it ironic that you ask the questions then you answer your own questions. I'm beginning to think that you think this subject is a game. I was right not going to the trouble to answer your questions.

#10 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 04 October 2011 - 03:01 PM

Death before sin denies the reason Christ had to die for sin atonement. And it puts into question that God's perfect creation was dying for another reason other than sin. So what process of God's perfect creation caused death before Adam's sin? Did God say: On day ... I create death? And because I create death, in Me all men must now die? You see no matter how you use the logic to try and make it work, the denial that sin caused death and not God will always be the issue.

The reason I ask you is because TE is your claimed world view.

Well, I'm not sure how to answer this. It's a complicated question.


It's complicated because to answer the question would make you question your own belief.


No, it doesn't make me question my own belief.

Its complicated because you ask "Did God say: On day ... I create death?" As I pointed out, this depends on the scriptural definition of death you are referring to. So whatever answer I give, it may not be an answer to the specific question you were asking.

I did not dodge the question, even though I'm still not sure what scriptural definition of death you're referring to.

Paul tells us the sting of death is sin, which implies that physical death is not bad or evil in relation to things that do not sin, like plants. Therefore, plant death likely has nothing to do with Christ's redemptive sacrifice.

By the same logic, the physical death of anything that does not sin, like animals or even near-human hominids, is not connected to the cross.


So now you deny that Christ died for us?


No. I said the physical death of anything that does not sin is not connected to the cross. We do sin.

However, Adam's sin meant -- for the first time -- that human physical death would result in permanent separation from God i.e. spiritual death. This is the consequence of sin that Christ saves us from.

Cheers


I find it ironic that you ask the questions then you answer your own questions. I'm beginning to think that you think this subject is a game. I was right not going to the trouble to answer your questions.


I'm not playing games.

Your question was not perfectly clear to me so I pointed out an area where clarification may be helpful. Nevertheless, I gave an answer as best I could, making explicit what assumptions I was making.

I'm not under any illusion that anyone is obligated to answer me or provide any clarification.

The answer I gave still stands as a response to the OP, showing that many TEs do not deny a literal Adam and a literal first sin as the reason for Christ's sacrifice.

Cheers

#11 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 04 October 2011 - 07:33 PM

My issue with theistic evolution is that The Bible says that Adam was created from the ground. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7

#12 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 04 October 2011 - 08:41 PM

No, it doesn't make me question my own belief.

Its complicated because you ask "Did God say: On day ... I create death?" As I pointed out, this depends on the scriptural definition of death you are referring to. So whatever answer I give, it may not be an answer to the specific question you were asking.

I did not dodge the question, even though I'm still not sure what scriptural definition of death you're referring to.



No. I said the physical death of anything that does not sin is not connected to the cross. We do sin.



I'm not playing games.

Your question was not perfectly clear to me so I pointed out an area where clarification may be helpful. Nevertheless, I gave an answer as best I could, making explicit what assumptions I was making.

I'm not under any illusion that anyone is obligated to answer me or provide any clarification.

The answer I gave still stands as a response to the OP, showing that many TEs do not deny a literal Adam and a literal first sin as the reason for Christ's sacrifice.

Cheers


In the TE belief, where is Adam and Eve?

#13 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 04 October 2011 - 09:14 PM

My issue with theistic evolution is that The Bible says that Adam was created from the ground. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7


I don't believe TEs have a problem with this. The verb "formed" in Gen 2:7 in Hebrew is yatsar, meaning to mould or shape from pre-existing matter, so it's describing creation ex materia rather than ex nihilo. This is what evolutionists accept: the physical formation of humans from pre-existing material.

What makes us fully human is a soul, which God breathes into Adam at the end of the process of formation.

Cheers

#14 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 04 October 2011 - 09:22 PM

In the TE belief, where is Adam and Eve?


As I said, the story for some TEs goes like this: There was a population of nearly-human hominids. God selected one, breathed the first human soul into him, and called him Adam. Unlike his ancestors and cousins, Adam then had knowledge of God and of good and evil, and probably greater wisdom. All humans are descended directly from Adam (but not from any of his hominid kin) and thereby we all inherit the sin of his prideful rebellion against God.

Adam and Eve were probably in Africa, maybe a few hundred thousand years ago.

Cheers

#15 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 05 October 2011 - 04:20 AM

odd, if i bear children via my sister there will be rammifications genetically so what made seth, cain, abel exempt from modern peer reviewed observations of defects then?

next, we arent going to be in heaven but on the earth when this is all said and done. with new undying bodies. besides the fact that adam and eve would have to be busy and also live long enough to produce kids. remember the myriads of problems with small gene pools. and inbreeding.

#16 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 05 October 2011 - 05:56 AM

odd, if i bear children via my sister there will be rammifications genetically so what made seth, cain, abel exempt from modern peer reviewed observations of defects then?

next, we arent going to be in heaven but on the earth when this is all said and done. with new undying bodies. besides the fact that adam and eve would have to be busy and also live long enough to produce kids. remember the myriads of problems with small gene pools. and inbreeding.


I believe many theistic evolutionists would not have a problem with Adam's children marrying other pre-humans outside their family. According to evolution theory they would be the same species, genetically speaking. And the children of such a marriage would be the direct lineal descendants of Adam, and would thus be fully human and inherit his sin nature.

Furthermore, the risk of genetic disorders is really only significant where the parents both carry the same bad, recessive mutation. Since Adam and Eve were not closely related, they may well have had absolutely no such mutations in common (if they had any at all!). It is very unlikely, therefore, that their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren would marry siblings or cousins with the same independently developed mutations.

Cheers

#17 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 05 October 2011 - 02:50 PM

As I said, the story for some TEs goes like this: There was a population of nearly-human hominids. God selected one, breathed the first human soul into him, and called him Adam. Unlike his ancestors and cousins, Adam then had knowledge of God and of good and evil, and probably greater wisdom. All humans are descended directly from Adam (but not from any of his hominid kin) and thereby we all inherit the sin of his prideful rebellion against God.

Adam and Eve were probably in Africa, maybe a few hundred thousand years ago.

Cheers


So to conform to evolution, the Bible most be re-written? And what shall be the new name of the new re-written first book of the Bible? Hominids? And since it now has to have a different author, shall the new author be Darwin? Maybe even change God's name to Darwin since his theory dictates to God how He did it. After all Darwin in this belief shows God how He lied, So Darwin must be God, right?

I wonder why no TE has ever made the effort to translate a Biblical version of the Bible that conforms to evolution instead of creation? Maybe because it would show that evolution is more of a religion than a theory?

#18 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 05 October 2011 - 03:13 PM

So to conform to evolution, the Bible most be re-written? And what shall be the new name of the new re-written first book of the Bible? Hominids? And since it now has to have a different author, shall the new author be Darwin? Maybe even change God's name to Darwin since his theory dictates to God how He did it. After all Darwin in this belief shows God how He lied, So Darwin must be God, right?


No. I am not aware of any TE who believes the Bible needs to be rewritten, or that God lied. Why would you think they believe that?

I wonder why no TE has ever made the effort to translate a Biblical version of the Bible that conforms to evolution instead of creation? Maybe because it would show that evolution is more of a religion than a theory?


In the view of many theists, evolution already conforms to the Bible, so such a translation would be unnecessary.

Evolution cannot be a religion, in the ordinary meaning of that word. Yes, evolution involves belief systems and worldviews, like a religion. But religion is a belief system about spirituality, moral values and ultimate meaning. The science of evolution -- like all sciences -- is just a belief system about particular observed physical facts; namely, about what living things are made of and how they develop over time.

Some evolutionists draw religious meaning out of evolution science: Richard Dawkins draws an atheistic meaning, whilst Michael Behe draws a theistic meaning. Since the science is the same for both of them, yet they see completely opposite religious meanings, this goes to show that the science of evolution is not a religion per se, and any religious meaning must be "in the eye of the beholder" or established on some other grounds.

Cheers

#19 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 05 October 2011 - 04:41 PM

I believe many theistic evolutionists would not have a problem with Adam's children marrying other pre-humans outside their family. According to evolution theory they would be the same species, genetically speaking. And the children of such a marriage would be the direct lineal descendants of Adam, and would thus be fully human and inherit his sin nature.

Furthermore, the risk of genetic disorders is really only significant where the parents both carry the same bad, recessive mutation. Since Adam and Eve were not closely related, they may well have had absolutely no such mutations in common (if they had any at all!). It is very unlikely, therefore, that their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren would marry siblings or cousins with the same independently developed mutations.

Cheers

see what you are doing. define what is human, the ape like precursors of adam eve who were intellegent enough to know god as they had to have heard from the mates and yet didnt care? so if the seed of seth was to be righteous as it was as seth was the first to call on the name. how would the children of pre-humans know what god is?

remember you are making a big mistake. a soul is more then just invisble thing. it has the personality to it and intellegence.

when moses appeared and elijah in the transfiguration they spoke.


how does one speak if one doesnt have a soul?

for a good study on that

here

http://www.cupofwrat...soul-spirit.php


two words are mentioned from hebrew and all must be for one to be human. interesting so man mates with animal that is lower then him. not in the bible.


to be human one must have the ruach and the nephesh. without such one isnt human at all.

#20 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 05 October 2011 - 07:20 PM

I believe many theistic evolutionists would not have a problem with Adam's children marrying other pre-humans outside their family. According to evolution theory they would be the same species, genetically speaking. And the children of such a marriage would be the direct lineal descendants of Adam, and would thus be fully human and inherit his sin nature.


see what you are doing. define what is human, the ape like precursors of adam eve who were intellegent enough to know god as they had to have heard from the mates and yet didnt care? so if the seed of seth was to be righteous as it was as seth was the first to call on the name. how would the children of pre-humans know what god is?


Only direct descendants of Adam could know God. Only Adam's descendants inherited his sin nature, and only they commit sin.

The ancestors and children of pre-humans would not know God, or have a sin nature, or commit sin -- unless they are descended from Adam.

remember you are making a big mistake. a soul is more then just invisble thing. it has the personality to it and intellegence.

when moses appeared and elijah in the transfiguration they spoke.


how does one speak if one doesnt have a soul?

for a good study on that

here

http://www.cupofwrat...soul-spirit.php


two words are mentioned from hebrew and all must be for one to be human. interesting so man mates with animal that is lower then him. not in the bible.

to be human one must have the ruach and the nephesh. without such one isnt human at all.


Interesting article, thanks.

I'm still not sure many TEs would agree that only humans have intelligence and personality. It's common sense to many people that animals, like pets, have intelligence and personality. Some animals even use language in a rudimentary way (e.g. chimps and dolphins) so that's not really a crystal clear line of demarcation between human and non-human.

What is clear, I think, is that animals do not have the ability to know God and to commit sin.

I don't think anyone is suggesting humans mated with a lower animal in the genetic sense. They married those of their own species, albeit not necessarily those who were descended from Adam. There are hints in the Bible that this is so: after his banishment, Cain went to the Land of Nod, built a city, married and had children (Gen 4:16-17).

In Gen 4:26, we learn that after Seth was born, it was about this time people began to call upon the name of the Lord. It appears from the context this was some time after Cain had children, and perhaps grandchildren to several generations. To TEs, this may indicate that Adam's direct descendants were starting to become numerous and supplanting those who were not descended from Adam -- probably due to superior wisdom. Eventually, Adam's descendants prevailed completely, and there were no people left except for Adam's descendants.

Cheers




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users