Theistic Evolution - Death before the Fall?

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I don’t. And BTW, Genesis does not make it clear what a “day” means in the book.

Gen 1:5 “God called the light day.” Sounds pretty clear to me.

You’re trying to show us that this isn’t allegorical, by assuming it’s literal. Circular reasoning, in other words. The Bible does not make it clear how long the “days” were, or even if there were six periods of time at all.

Barbarian observes:
No. I’m pointing out that the allegory says that when Adam eats from the tree (an allegory about gaining an understanding of good and evil, and therefore becoming a moral being) he will die. But he doesn’t die physically.

Adam most certainly did die physically - just not within 24 hours.

Which contradicts what God said to him, if you think the death He spoke of meant a physical death.

Barbarian observes:
And this, as you see, is consistent with the death that Jesus saves us from, the one His Father sent Him to do for us to save us from the death brought into the world by Adam. It’s a spiritual death, not a physical one.

It is both - death applies to both.

Sorry, God clearly shows it is not. Adam does not die physically the day he eats from the tree, so we know it is not a physical death. Jesus dies and rises again to save us from that death, but He did not save us from a physical death. His Resurrection is meaningless if you assume it means physical. The only way you can get this to work is to assume that God did not tell the truth. And you can avoid this by simply taking it as it is.

Barbarian observes:
If it was a physical death He came to save us from, He failed.

He most certainly did not fail.

If it was to save us from a physical death, He failed. That’s another reason we know it was not a physical death God was talking about. We all die physically.

Why not just take it as it is?

 

[Nita]

Barbarian observes:
I don’t. And BTW, Genesis does not make it clear what a “day” means in the book.

You’re trying to show us that this isn’t allegorical, by assuming it’s literal. Circular reasoning, in other words. The Bible does **not **make it clear how long the “days” were, or even if there were six periods of time at all.

In the creation story, when you don’t want “day” to mean 24 hours, you say either:

1. it is to be understood allegorically (??) or
2. that the Bible does not make it clear how long a day is (I agree with this statement; it’s the position I’ve maintained all along) or
3. now you’ve just implied it might not mean a period of time at all!!!

However, when you want it to mean 24 hours, you ignore all your above assertions, and insist in that one verse (2:17) “day” is to be understood as 24 hours -without giving any evidence to support the sudden change in meaning - other than your say-so.
Guess we’d best just drop the “day” part.

Nita

 

[Nita]

…Jesus dies and rises again to save us from that death, but He did not save us from a physical death. His Resurrection is meaningless if you assume it means physical. The only way you can get this to work is to assume that God did not tell the truth. And you can avoid this by simply taking it as it is.

Barbarian observes:
If it was a physical death He came to save us from, He failed.

If it was to save us from a physical death, He failed. That’s another reason we know it was not a physical death God was talking about. We all die physically.

You seem to be saying that if we experience physical death we have not been saved from it. Is that a correct understanding of your words?

If so, (that is, if being saved from something means being saved from ever having to experience it) then you would have say that we have not been saved from spiritual death either - since we all experience it. We’re born in that state. (Romans 5)

We are saved from spiritual death when we receive the life of grace in our souls.
We are saved from physical death when our bodies are reunited with our souls in the resurrection.

Our Lord’s sacrifice is the source of both spiritual and physical salvation. Adam’s sin had dire consequences for our whole nature - body as well as soul. We need to be saved from it all if we are to spend eternity as the whole and complete humans God intended in His design of human nature.

Nita

 

[steveandersen]

Of course things died before the Fall
Coral atolls and coal beds are made of dead things
As is the very soil of the ground that is needed for life

No death, no life
It is a natural function of Creation

 

[Steadfast_love]

Interesting. Look at the NAB.

17 except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the **moment **you eat from it you are surely doomed to die."

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I have been a little busy to get back on here, but I did find this in the Summa. From what I can see St Thomas taught that Adam was immortal before the fall:
newadvent.org/summa/1097.htm

 

[The_Barbarian]

God never said they would (physically) die immediately.

He said that Adam would die that day. And yet, Genesis also says that Adam lived on for many years after. So we know that the death mentioned in Genesis is not physical, for that reason and also because the death Christ died to save us from was not physical.

Also, death goes on continually in our physical flesh today (cells continually dying). Perhaps that was not originally part of man’s nature.

Not possible if you accept Genesis. Adam was never immortal, a fact God recognizes and expresses concern that he might become so.

Adam and Eve experienced spiritual death immediately.

That very day. They didn’t die physically, however, because that is not what God was referring to.

 

[The_Barbarian]

You seem to be saying that if we experience physical death we have not been saved from it. Is that a correct understanding of your words?

By definition. If we die, we have not been spared from death.

We are saved from spiritual death when we receive the life of grace in our souls. We are saved from physical death when our bodies are reunited with our souls in the resurrection.

That makes no sense. We will all die physically. That is not what matters. Jesus died to save us from a spiritual, not a physical death.

God said Adam would die the day he ate from the tree, and yet Adam lived on for many years after. That is more than sufficient to show that the death was not a physical one.

 

[Nita]

By definition. If we die, we have not been spared from death.
.

Perhaps we have some different beliefs regarding spiritual death.
Do you consider that at the time of birth you (your soul) were spiritually dead?

Also, how would you define “spiritual death”?

Nita

 

[The_Barbarian]

Perhaps we have some different beliefs regarding spiritual death.

And physical death, too. I don’t think it applies to an organism, in which some cells die. This goes on all the time, and always has.

Do you consider that at the time of birth you (your soul) were spiritually dead?

You can answer the question by telling me what happens to unbaptized infants who die.

Also, how would you define “spiritual death”?

Separation from God.

 

[Nita]

You can answer the question by telling me what happens to
unbaptized infants who die…

I know what I believe. I was trying to find out what you believe.

I believe we are spiritually dead until the grace of God’s supernatural life is infused into our soul through Baptism (baptism of water, or desire, or blood). I also believe that having received that life we can lose it again through serious unrepented sin.
And please, I don’t intend to get into Baptism and/or Confession here.

We just don’t seem to be understanding each other and I thought it was probably because we’re speaking about totally different things when we use the term “spiritual death”.

Thanks for your definition - “separation from God”. However, it doesn’t answer my first question:

Do you consider that at the time of birth you (your soul) were spiritually dead?

Nita

 

[Nita]

And physical death, too. I don’t think it applies to an organism, in which some cells die. This goes on all the time, and always has.
.

I guess we do. I do not consider that physical death is something that applies only to the moment when the soul departs the body. As you note, “cells die”. I call this physical death also - I’m not sure what else one would call it. It takes place continually in us - and it’s not just a few cells!! Our biggest point of difference might be at what point this cell death began in Adam and Eve. I believe it’s entirely possible that it began when Adam sinned, and therefore may be included in what God meant when He told Adam he would die, especially since Scripture does not modify the word “die”. (Would have eliminated the need for this thread if it did. ) I do not believe this in a dogmatic sense (since the Church has no official dogma concerning it) - just believe it’s a possibility.

Nita

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

There was another big TE thread going on, but it was so long I couldnt keep up. It is a very interesting theory.

My question concerns the death of animals and humans before the fall. The obvious issue is if no animal death occurred then no evolution was possible.

There was no “evolution” (form change of genetic lines) before the fall because there was no need for it. Every “creature” was a prototype, even if there were numerous instances of an individual prototype.

The “pre-fall” reality was NOT our present reality, in terms of “physical universal” properties and “laws”.

When God made the decision that mankind was to have to learn about the subject that they brought up (the consequences of sin) the “nature” of the universe radically changed instantly, which would be rather easy for The Omnipotent, and our present reality (properties and “laws”) took form.

Here are some things I am considering:

1. Genesis 1:
   29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
   This shows that plants were given for food, but not animals. This suggests animals and humans did not eat each other before the fall, thus animal death couldn’t have come through eating.

That tells ME that all edible things, in fact ALL things, are given to man as his to use, hopefully wisely. “P(eople) E(ating) T(astey) A(nimals)” is what man is.

“30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the **creatures **that move on the ground—**everything that has the breath of life in **it—**I give **every green plant for food.”

“30 And to all … creatures …everything that has the breath of life in it - I give … for food.”

2)Gen 2:
19 Now the LORD God … was its name.
This seems odd that death and extinction would exist if Adam’s job was to name animals.

3)Gen 3:
14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!

16 To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate … your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

The question now is how the fall affected creation as a whole. V18 shows thorns and thistles sprung up. Obviously thorns serve no good purpose, especially when God gave plants as food for animals and man. This is clearly a corruption of the earth/plant-life. The snake became cursed, but did other animal life? Gen 7:8 mentions Noah needing to take “clean and unclean” animals. Certainly an “unclean” animal is not part of God’s original design. A pig which lives in filth and carries multiple diseases was not part of God’s original plan. Gen 6:7 is where God is unhappy with the way creation has gone and wants to wipe out both man and animal.

“Unclean” things are simply things which sin has tainted to the extent where they “intrisically” scandalize men into further sinning. To use the pig as an example, The “prototypical” pre-fall pig was not kept in conditions where it would be filthy, which filth is a SIN imposed on pigs by man’s want of pig-meat to the extent of depriving pigs of their natural habitat and treating them “cruely” which makes them “sick”.

The key point is that the pre-fall universe was NOT operating under the same rules as the post-fall universe, and just as you can’t “pour” ice, you can’t compare the behavior of the pre- with the post- states of being of “critters” as their being in the continuation of the same environment.

There was an abrupt “phase change” in the entire universe.

4)Im working on this as I go and I just now came upon an amazing passage in Gen 9 when God blessed Noah after the flood:
1 Then God blessed … plants, I now give you everything.
This is clear evidence that animals changed and that man just now is given animals to eat.

As soon as God said:

Gen-1:26 - Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground.”

…all bio-kind was given to us to use in our wisdom, such as to eat if that was wise, and at that time man was as wise as man could be.

 

[Jennifer_J]

If there was no (physical) death before the fall, could someone explain the life and extinction of dinosaurs, they didn’t exist at the same time as man.

Jennifer

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

If there was no (physical) death before the fall, could someone explain the life and extinction of dinosaurs, they didn’t exist at the same time as man.

Jennifer

Man was created “out of time”, in the “eternity containing human physicality” which was the “garden”. (As opposed to the "eternity containing angelic “physicality” which was the “place” created for the angels. As opposed to the “eternity only of God” which only God exists in. )

Man was “injected” into “our present time” (our universal physical reality) at some point when “hominids” were capable of “bearing” humanity.

The dinosours were a necessary life-form (why necessary I have no idea!) which existed and became extinct before man was “injected” into “our time” from the “garden” at the “fall”.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Man was created “out of time”, in the “eternity containing human physicality” which was the “garden”. (As opposed to the "eternity containing angelic “physicality” which was the “place” created for the angels. As opposed to the “eternity only of God” which only God exists in. )

Man was “injected” into “our present time” (our universal physical reality) at some point when “hominids” were capable of “bearing” humanity.

The dinosours were a necessary life-form (why necessary I have no idea!) which existed and became extinct before man was “injected” into “our time” from the “garden” at the “fall”.

Got any source for this conjecture? Just curious

Jennifer

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Got any source for this conjecture? Just curious

Jennifer

Nope. Entirely my conjecture en masse.

Prove me wrong.

My point is that we are free to “rationalize” that which doesn’t contradict doctrine, and we can’t insist that others, or even ourselves for that matter, believe our rantings.

My “theory” is simply my (rather superficially) considered “fitting” of what I know about the situation I’ve been asked to comment on into official doctrine of the Church (or, er, vice versa).

 

[The_Barbarian]

I guess we do. I do not consider that physical death is something that applies only to the moment when the soul departs the body.

That is what the Catholic Church says it is.

**When this separation of body and soul occurs, death occurs. **
nbccongress.org/black-catholic-sprituality/death_where-is-thy-sting_spirituality.asp

**Given these considerations, Catholics who desire to be organ donors upon their deaths should have no fear in performing such a charitable and heroic act. Edward Furton, the editor of the National Catholic Bioethics Center publication Ethics and Medics, offers the following conclusion: "Although no definitive judgment has been rendered, one may safely conclude that Catholic physicians may, in good conscience, employ brain death criteria in their determination of death. Similarly, Catholic patients may agree to give or accept organ transplants on the basis of these same criteria. If the Vatican should ever express reservations to the use of these criteria, it will likely be preceded by a widespread rejection of brain death by members of the medical community. There are voices calling for a rejection of these criteria today, but they would appear to be in the minority. (Furton, “Reflections,” 4.)//b]
Catholic teaching on organ donation
By Rev. Larry Hostetter

As you note, “cells die”. I call this physical death also - I’m not sure what else one would call it.

It would be ludicrous to say that because some skin cells died, therefore a person died. As you see, your view is not the Catholic view.

It takes place continually in us - and it’s not just a few cells!! Our biggest point of difference might be at what point this cell death began in Adam and Eve.

No, it’s the point at which Adam physically died. That was many years after God told him he would die the day he ate from the tree. This is why we know that death was spiritual, not physical.

Either it was spiritual, or God did not tell the truth.**

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
You can answer the question by telling me what happens to
unbaptized infants who die…

I know what I believe. I was trying to find out what you believe.

And having told you what I believe, I would like to hear your answer now.

 

[Nita]

That is what the Catholic Church says it is.

**When this separation of body and soul occurs, death occurs. **
nbccongress.org/black-catholic-sprituality/death_where-is-thy-sting_spirituality.asp

Given these considerations, Catholics who desire to be organ donors upon their deaths should have no fear in performing such a charitable and heroic act. Edward Furton, the editor of the National Catholic Bioethics Center publication Ethics and Medics, offers the following conclusion: "Although no definitive judgment has been rendered, one may safely conclude that Catholic physicians may, in good conscience, employ brain death criteria in their determination of death. Similarly, Catholic patients may agree to give or accept organ transplants on the basis of these same criteria. If the Vatican should ever express reservations to the use of these criteria, it will likely be preceded by a widespread rejection of brain death by members of the medical community. There are voices calling for a rejection of these criteria today, but they would appear to be in the minority. (Furton, “Reflections,” 4.)//b]
Catholic teaching on organ donation
By Rev. Larry Hostetter
That is the moment when death is complete in the person’s body - no life at all present. And, I agree that when we say someone has died, we are referring to that moment after the soul has departed. When we say someone is dying, we are speaking of those moments prior to the soul departing.

It would be ludicrous to say that because some skin cells died, therefore a person died. As you see, your view is not the Catholic view.