If Adam and Eve were immortal in Eden

  • Thread starter Thread starter scameter18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

scameter18

Guest
This is just a curiosity. It is not a doubt; I’m certain there is an answer, and if now, it would not impede my faith. It’s pure curiosity.

If Adam and Eve were immortal and did not die before sin, while they were in Eden pre-Fall, why was there food? Why would they need to eat? The elements obviously couldn’t kill them, since they had no clothing. So why would they need to eat? Was it purely for pleasure?
 
This is just a curiosity. It is not a doubt; I’m certain there is an answer, and if now, it would not impede my faith. It’s pure curiosity.

If Adam and Eve were immortal and did not die before sin, while they were in Eden pre-Fall, why was there food? Why would they need to eat? The elements obviously couldn’t kill them, since they had no clothing. So why would they need to eat? Was it purely for pleasure?
Food does not just “ward off death.” Food keeps us moving. Food is what gives us energy.

God made a design. He designed the body to take in nourishment, process it, and produce waste. The Garden was a perfect cycle of His design. We die because we begin to break down more than we grow. The Garden would have been a continuous regrowth at a cycle just ahead of our breaking down. Had they lived, they would have remained the age they were when they ceased natural maturity. (Physical, emotional, etc.) Tradition has often portrayed that age as 33, the age of Our Lord in his ministry and death.

I think another question for the Garden is, “did *nothing *die in Eden?” I answer that the leaves and flowers did wilt and die. They are not immortal. So if they follow their natural design and purpose it is a logical conclusion that the humans followed their design and purpose.
 
This is just a curiosity. It is not a doubt; I’m certain there is an answer, and if now, it would not impede my faith. It’s pure curiosity.

If Adam and Eve were immortal and did not die before sin, while they were in Eden pre-Fall, why was there food? Why would they need to eat? The elements obviously couldn’t kill them, since they had no clothing. So why would they need to eat? Was it purely for pleasure?
The Adam and Eve story is a Dr.-Seuss-like piece of fiction, teaching infallible theology.

The story is not intended by God the Holy Spirit to be regarded as non-fiction.

The folks here who struggle with questions like yours, to render the story credible non-fiction in their own minds, are completely wrong.

So, your question is like asking where Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse learned to speak English.
 
The folks here who struggle with questions like yours, to render the story credible non-fiction in their own minds, are completely wrong.

So, your question is like asking where Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse learned to speak English.
Woo Hoo!! We have someone who has elected himself the new pope!!

Sorry Mr. Dawson, but you have just gone against Church teaching. We as Catholics are allowed to hold a view of a real Garden. You cannot prove it incorrect. Personally I don’t hold to a literal 6 day creation, and lean more toward an evolution of our first parents. It has been convincingly shown from science that we are descended from one set of first parents. But there are still some massive holes in the theory of evolution.

It is a good question. Exactly *how *did death enter the world? Why are there turtles that live for 150 years? Why is the average life span increasing? Are we going to eventually evolve into immortals?

Your uncharitable remarks do not reflect a superior intelligence, just a short-sighted outlook.
 
The Adam and Eve story is a Dr.-Seuss-like piece of fiction, teaching infallible theology.

The story is not intended by God the Holy Spirit to be regarded as non-fiction.
Oh yeah, I took that class in college too! My professor tried very hard to prove the entire Bible a “fairy tale” based precisely on this presupposition.
 
Food does not just “ward off death.” Food keeps us moving. Food is what gives us energy.

God made a design. He designed the body to take in nourishment, process it, and produce waste. The Garden was a perfect cycle of His design. We die because we begin to break down more than we grow. The Garden would have been a continuous regrowth at a cycle just ahead of our breaking down. Had they lived, they would have remained the age they were when they ceased natural maturity. (Physical, emotional, etc.) Tradition has often portrayed that age as 33, the age of Our Lord in his ministry and death.

I think another question for the Garden is, “did *nothing *die in Eden?” I answer that the leaves and flowers did wilt and die. They are not immortal. So if they follow their natural design and purpose it is a logical conclusion that the humans followed their design and purpose.
Hm, that makes alot of sense to me. It seems that rather than just being stagnantly immortal, as we will be at the resurrection, our bodies still functioned as they do now; we just did not lack anything at all, in any way, and so did not die or regress at all. There were no problems of any kind, like diseases, so that couldn’t kill us either. Because as the Pope has said, sin is a damaging of relationships, before sin there would have been no damaged relationships in existence. This would mean that we didn’t kill and eat animals, and they didn’t kill and/or eat us or each other, logically. We lived naturally, but without any lacking or disorder. And though I think that things like plants and animals didn’t die either, as you said leaves and flowers probably would because they were essentially designed to die and be replenished every year. Quite beautiful. 🙂 Thank you for your enlightenment Deb. 🙂

Something else I’m curious about: would animals and plants have reproduced in Eden? As far as I know, Adam and Eve never had children until after the Fall, but did other living things?
 
Something else I’m curious about: would animals and plants have reproduced in Eden? As far as I know, Adam and Eve never had children until after the Fall, but did other living things?
I have recently been more interested in a “theology of the Garden” so to speak. I live in an area that has a prominent religion that has some interesting concepts. I don’t want to hi-jack your thread into a discussion of them, but they are who piqued my interest in a real Garden. Until learning of their strange beliefs, I was fine with just saying the Garden was a story, a fairy tale, and ignoring it. But their beliefs are tied to exactly what you are asking. Their answers get people to join their religion. They are very, very moral people, but their theology is just full of holes.

So to your question, they believe that while in the Garden, Adam and Eve* couldn’t* procreate. They believe that the Fall was a *necessary *evil in order to "be fruitful and multiply. They believe that as long as death wasn’t in the world, then new life couldn’t be either. (Overpopulation myth maybe?) Read that again. They believe that *disobedience *was *necessary *to follow the command of God. Basically, they were going completely against Catholic theology that one cannot do evil so that good may come.

So then I had to start looking at the situation as “What if the Garden was real?” in order to have counter-arguments to that situation. So without going into my further musings on what the Garden might have been like I will answer your question similarly to how I answer it for people in this religious group.

The Garden is the perfect model of existence. Yes, animals would reproduce because that is their nature. Then, like now, they follow their instincts, but they do not make a choice. Whether Adam and Eve were “put here” as adults or they evolved as the first conscious humans doesn’t really matter. The point is there came a time when they could make the *choice *to become one flesh. It was not instinct alone. Marriage is a decision. Lots of animals are monogamous. So what makes humans unique? Two words. Free will.

We say, “Bad dog!” when he chews through a pillow. But do we say, “Sinful dog!” No. He is just being a dog. He didn’t say, “Look, they are ignoring me and I am really upset about it. I am going to do this because I know it will hurt them.” No. He is just being a dog. They are instinctual and conditioned. But they do not have free will. They don’t actually have an ability to love. They have an instinct to respond in a way that we find to be affectionate. They are *conditioned *to respond in a way that we identify as “love.”

The first sin was a sin of disobedience. If we were just animals, God would have said, “Bad humans! Drop the apple!” But he didn’t. He said our disobedience was sinful. We *can *know better.

So to make a long story short (oops too late.) It wasn’t that Adam and Eve *couldn’t *reproduce. It was that they hadn’t yet. Otherwise there would not have been the command to be fruitful and multiply. Maybe they were too young or whatever if you want to look at it as a literal Garden, but the point was, they had to make the *choice *to be fruitful and multiply. They had to make the *choice *of generosity. Animals don’t make that choice. They just do what they do by the nature that God designed.
 
Hm. Well, once again I think you answered it very well. 😛 I’m thankful to have had your opinions on these questions. To me, I wonder if one possible reason Adam and Eve didn’t choose to reproduce before the Fall was because they were immortal. Other animals reproduce because they die naturally, which with them not having an immortal soul, they would probably even in the Garden. But humans did not die. So perhaps before the Fall, we felt no need to reproduce. This is just one hypothesis of course, but feel free to give your opinion on it. 🙂
 
Even now we do not live for three score years and ten but reach sexual maturity at between 14 - 21.Now if we had the potential to live forever[immortal]when would sexual maturity or activity be reached or commence.Adam was adult on his first birthday and did not live forever as he was designed to do but did in fact live for over 900years.It seems medical science seems to suggest that we are/were designed to live forever when suddenly for some inexplicable reason the body falters - we stop growing when we reach around 21 - is this why Adam and Eve were created as adults? - some lizards and reptiles it seems even now do not stop growing over their entire life span.Could this be why we had giant men and birds and Dinosaurs and other monsters in those days of old - twinc
 
Woo Hoo!! We have someone who has elected himself the new pope!!

Sorry Mr. Dawson, but you have just gone against Church teaching. We as Catholics are allowed to hold a view of a real Garden. You cannot prove it incorrect. Personally I don’t hold to a literal 6 day creation, and lean more toward an evolution of our first parents. It has been convincingly shown from science that we are descended from one set of first parents. But there are still some massive holes in the theory of evolution.

It is a good question. Exactly *how *did death enter the world? Why are there turtles that live for 150 years? Why is the average life span increasing? Are we going to eventually evolve into immortals?

Your uncharitable remarks do not reflect a superior intelligence, just a short-sighted outlook.
Hi, Deb.

I was not being uncharitable – just clear. Note that you understood me dramatically.

You say to me that “you have just gone against Church teaching” but only after you yourself have gone through a “filtering process,” filtering out of your belief structure about the story things which would make other people laugh at your beliefs.

For example, the story teaches that God tried to match Adam up with animals, but failed: “none proved to be the suitable partner for the man.”

Be courageous. Take a stand: Is that fiction? Or is that non-fiction, and God errs?
 
Hi, Deb.

For example, the story teaches that God tried to match Adam up with animals, but failed: “none proved to be the suitable partner for the man.”

Be courageous. Take a stand: Is that fiction? Or is that non-fiction, and God errs?
Anyone who has actually studied the creation account, both versions plus footnotes in a Catholic bible, would recognize the silliness of God making errors. I wonder what is gained by silly interpretations. :eek:
 
Anyone who has actually studied the creation account, both versions plus footnotes in a Catholic bible, would recognize the silliness of God making errors. I wonder what is gained by silly interpretations. :eek:
Hi, Granny. It’s not an interpretation. The language of inspired Scripture clearly portrays failure by God…

18 **The LORD God said: “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him.” **
19 So the LORD God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each of them would be its name.
20 The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; **but none proved to be the suitable partner for the man. ** Thyere it is. Genesis 2:18-20.
 
For example, the story teaches that God tried to match Adam up with animals, but failed: “none proved to be the suitable partner for the man.”
Sorry, but that’s pathetic exegesis. :eek:

[bibledrb] Gen 2:20 [/bibledrb]

Not found a helper like himself does not equal God’s attempting some sort of barnyard blind date and failing in the endeavor. Adam named the animals and didn’t find a suitable helper like himself… that’s all it says.
 
Hi, Granny. It’s not an interpretation. The language of inspired Scripture clearly portrays failure by God…

18 **The LORD God said: “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him.” **
19 So the LORD God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each of them would be its name.
20 The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; **but none proved to be the suitable partner for the man. ** Thyere it is. Genesis 2:18-20.
This clearly shows,that what some state is not true - for man is not an animal but more than an animal and can only reproduce and increase and multiply with his own kind and not with any other animal - clear as mud to me - twinc
 
Sorry, but that’s pathetic exegesis. :eek:

[bibledrb] Gen 2:20 [/bibledrb]

Not found a helper like himself does not equal God’s attempting some sort of barnyard blind date and failing in the endeavor. Adam named the animals and didn’t find a suitable helper like himself… that’s all it says.
The translation I quote from is the current translation published by the Old and New Testament Committees of the American Carholic bishops. It’s not “pathetic exegesis.” It’s a plain language conclusion. It could not be more obvious. The story is a Dr.-Seuss-like account at the literal level, containing clear absurdities.
 
It’s a plain language conclusion. It could not be more obvious. The story is a Dr.-Seuss-like account at the literal level, containing clear absurdities.
:sad_bye:
 
The translation I quote from is the current translation published by the Old and New Testament Committees of the American Carholic bishops. It’s not “pathetic exegesis.” It’s a plain language conclusion. It could not be more obvious. The story is a Dr.-Seuss-like account at the literal level, containing clear absurdities.
The account expresses that the essence of earthly life is summed up in man. To name is to know to know is to be like.

Yet no suitable helpmeet was found. Why? Because Adam could not be bound in oneness to animal life alone. Man is a composit of two living realms animals are not.

The time for perfect life to rise to a more perfect life is announced by God.
Before the fall God announced what was good and evil.

" It is not good that the man is alone." Man seeks a rememdy for this loneliness that God revealed by searching out all possible remedies among his animal likenesses in the world. Untill this search is exhausted man is not prepared to recieve the remedy that was in himself. The oneness of man . So God took woman out of man and gave her to him. . In return Adam gave himself to woman and they were one bone and flesh but no longer alone.

like the days of creation are divided by night and day that makes a whole so too is man divided by male and female that makes a whole.

Peter you enterpretation at some point stopped short ,because at that point, for you, all things were not possible with God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top