C
comrade1789
Guest
I ask this question, because hair is made up of dead cells, and Adam was naming animals, many of which I am sure had hair, as I am sure he had hair. So cells were dying, and multiplying,.
- Status
J
JM3
Guest
Why would you assume that conditions that exists now existed before the Fall?
You would have to prove that hair, before the Fall, was made of ‘dying and multiplying’ cells. It is not something you can assume.
A
Alexander_Smith
Guest
Dead hair and skin particles are not “death” as such. There’s no reason why hair and skin could not be the same pre-Fall.
Dead skin and dead hair is not the same as a dead human or a dead animal.
Dead skin and dead hair is not the same as a dead human or a dead animal.
J
JM3
Guest
I think I missed something somewhere. When did ‘dead’ and ‘death’ develope seperate meanings?
Romans 5:12
J
JM3
Guest
J
JM3
Guest
CCC 1008 - ‘The Church’s Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man’s sin.’
S
SunshineZA
Guest
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die Gen.2:17
The condition of death was present in the garden in Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The condition of death was present in the garden in Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
J
JM3
Guest
What takes place is restoration to good condition, renewal; revival, rebirth; re-creation, re-formation and not the death of a cell. (In cancers the cell reproduces in an abnormal way and eventually causes death)
J
JM3
Guest
That’s not what the Church teaches.But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die Gen.2:17
The condition of death was present in the garden in Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
D
DPMartin
Guest
JM3
Maybe you misunderstand. It is true that death entered the world on account of man’s sin. But the world by definition is human existence. And there was no presence of Life in creation until the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Therefore there is nothing saying that such a thing as death was not before Adam and Eve ate of the tree. For if death was not, God would not have said so, before death enter the world (human existence).
Gen:2:16: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
It is to rebel against God’s Word or Commandment is death to that which He has given Life.
J
JM3
Guest
You would be correct about misunderstanding. I do not understand ‘doublespeak’.
‘the world by definition is human existence’?
What does that mean?‘there was no presence of Life in creation until the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.’
Perhaps you should reread Genesis, as you appear to be twisting Scripture around. The ‘spirit of God moved over the waters’ (Genesis 1:2) before God began the creation. Genesis 1:3 - ‘And God said: Be light made. And light was made.’
‘For if death was not, God would not have said so, before death enter the world (human existence).’
Can God not know things that do not exist? Would you limit God to human reasoning?
‘there is nothing saying that such a thing as death was not before Adam and Eve ate of the tree.’
I believe the Church said it, quoting St. Paul and Genesis.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
This is an interesting discussion. I’ve heard notable Catholic scholars/apologists on both side of the fence of this issue; whether death means death period, or whether it means death for humans only. Dr. Brant Pitre, for instance, believes it refers to death period, whereas many other theologians, particularly those that support evolution in varying degrees, prefer the idea that it refers to death for humanity.
Dr. Pitre has used a similar argument to JM3, referring to the perfect state of Creation itself, and that Paul speaks of Jesus as a New Adam that must redeem not only the world, but Creation and the physical. To allow death in the sense of “before humanity,” is problematic in many ways. Creation itself is fallen, and yet if death was here prior to man, then man really imparted no curse upon creation due to his actions that apparently was not already in place. It also complicates the reversal of the Fall that Jesus must bring about, since he would apparently only need to redeem mankind’s sinful flesh, and the new heavens and new earth would be superfluous. This seems to fly in the face of everything Paul tries to say, and the fact that the Catechism in paragraph 400 says that “Because of man, creation is now subject to ‘it’s bondage and decay.’” Also, the book of Wisdom said God did not create death. So if death for all of nature is not in view, if it really only means death for people, then God must have created it. This would seem to contradict Scripture, including the Catechism; our interpretation of Scripture.
I have heard the arguments, including by many apologists on this forum, that death refers merely to human death, but honestly in the end I believe it creates too many contradictions, even though it does seem to make it easier for some to believe in the fossil record…
Dr. Pitre has used a similar argument to JM3, referring to the perfect state of Creation itself, and that Paul speaks of Jesus as a New Adam that must redeem not only the world, but Creation and the physical. To allow death in the sense of “before humanity,” is problematic in many ways. Creation itself is fallen, and yet if death was here prior to man, then man really imparted no curse upon creation due to his actions that apparently was not already in place. It also complicates the reversal of the Fall that Jesus must bring about, since he would apparently only need to redeem mankind’s sinful flesh, and the new heavens and new earth would be superfluous. This seems to fly in the face of everything Paul tries to say, and the fact that the Catechism in paragraph 400 says that “Because of man, creation is now subject to ‘it’s bondage and decay.’” Also, the book of Wisdom said God did not create death. So if death for all of nature is not in view, if it really only means death for people, then God must have created it. This would seem to contradict Scripture, including the Catechism; our interpretation of Scripture.
I have heard the arguments, including by many apologists on this forum, that death refers merely to human death, but honestly in the end I believe it creates too many contradictions, even though it does seem to make it easier for some to believe in the fossil record…
L
larkin31
Guest
I am presently not a believer, but my church and I always read Genesis metaphorically, and my father/minister would never even with certainty claim that Genesis meant that there were not other humans and animals also in existence outside of Eden. That there was also a “Tree of Life” inside the Garden suggests that humans inside it would be able to transcend their mortal condition by having access to THAT tree. In other words, Adam and Eve weren’t by original design immortal, and death was present in Eden. But the Tree of Life protected them from death as long as they had access to it. When they are banished from eden, they lose access to that Tree, and thus are no longer protected from the mortality inherent in their physical existence.
Thus spoke Agnosticus.
Thus spoke Agnosticus.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
I’m digging that ending quote. This interpretation could be possible, but if it is, then theologians need to do a better job of hacking through the contradictions that it could create, as discussed above. I hope you come back to the faith, by the way…I am presently not a believer, but my church and I always read Genesis metaphorically, and my father/minister would never even with certainty claim that Genesis meant that there were not other humans and animals also in existence outside of Eden. That there was also a “Tree of Life” inside the Garden suggests that humans inside it would be able to transcend their mortal condition by having access to THAT tree. In other words, Adam and Eve weren’t by original design immortal, and death was present in Eden. But the Tree of Life protected them from death as long as they had access to it. When they are banished from eden, they lose access to that Tree, and thus are no longer protected from the mortality inherent in their physical existence.
Thus spoke Agnosticus.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I don’t think we know a whole lot about it. It’s even possible that the Eden account is, itself, metaphorical in another way. Being in communication with God might have meant that Adam and Eve were in perfect harmony with Providence, so that “death” to them was not what “death” is to us. After all, we are taught that we are immortal still. But we transition from one state to another, and we do not well accept that. Eden might have been more about acceptance than about pretty flowers and delicious fruit and undergoing no changes at all forever.I am presently not a believer, but my church and I always read Genesis metaphorically, and my father/minister would never even with certainty claim that Genesis meant that there were not other humans and animals also in existence outside of Eden. That there was also a “Tree of Life” inside the Garden suggests that humans inside it would be able to transcend their mortal condition by having access to THAT tree. In other words, Adam and Eve weren’t by original design immortal, and death was present in Eden. But the Tree of Life protected them from death as long as they had access to it. When they are banished from eden, they lose access to that Tree, and thus are no longer protected from the mortality inherent in their physical existence.
Thus spoke Agnosticus.
But one thing is manifestly true. We do still insist on “knowing” (experiencing) good and evil. And in so doing, we insist on defining it for ourselves. And in that insistence, we reject Divine Providence. We’re not at all different from Adam and Eve at and after the fall, however different they might have been from us before it.
L
larkin31
Guest
Thanks, Nathan. I offer no effort to convince anyone of my interpretation; I just thought I would share.
L
larkin31
Guest
What “perfect harmony” exists between a couple who disobeys God? This seems quite a disharmony, honestly.
What “acceptance” do you mean? That is an interesting idea, but I don’t understand it yet. Do you mean accepting that their bodies would in fact die while their spirit lives on? Do you mean that Adam and Eve were made mortal (in body) but had no grief/awareness over it? If so, I am intrigued also by that idea. But it sounds like heresy!
D
DPMartin
Guest
JM3You would be correct about misunderstanding. I do not understand ‘doublespeak’.
‘the world by definition is human existence’?
‘there was no presence of Life in creation until the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.’
Perhaps you should reread Genesis, as you appear to be twisting Scripture around. The ‘spirit of God moved over the waters’ (Genesis 1:2) before God began the creation. Genesis 1:3 - ‘And God said: Be light made. And light was made.’
‘For if death was not, God would not have said so, before death enter the world (human existence).’
Can God not know things that do not exist? Would you limit God to human reasoning?
‘there is nothing saying that such a thing as death was not before Adam and Eve ate of the tree.’
I believe the Church said it, quoting St. Paul and Genesis.
thanks for the reply
The original definition of the word, “world” in the English language is, human existence. You know your world, the world, small world, the collective population of human beings on the planet earth. It does not mean the earth, like many Americans use it. Read the scriptures; first, God created the heaven and the earth. And then the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. There was waters that His Spirit to move on, wasn’t there? Just because God has made some thing doesn’t mean His Presence is in it. When His Spirit moved upon the face of the waters then was God’s Presence in His creation. The text says what it says.
Just because God created the elemental materials of all things created does not mean His Presence was therein. When God’s Presence moved in creation He spoke and then there was Light according to His Will. Where there was no Light, and then He divided the Light from the darkness and evening and morning was the first day. Then there was Light, order, and form, in creation. Where there was without form, and void; and darkness, because God spoke His Will in His Presence, in His creation.
No Presence of God, no Life therein. Isn’t there many things, that God has made, that has no life therein, or even on? If God removes something from His Presence that once had the Life He gives it by His Presence in it. Then it doesn’t have the Life His Presence gives it, does it?
Adam and Eve were perfect, in the Glory of God’s countenance. Then what happened? Well you know, you don’t see God, you don’t hear God, you don’t know God. You don’t even see and hear the Angeles singing Praises unto God in Heaven. Unless it be through the Holy One of Israel who restored us to God, in His Name, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is not sufficient to know that there is a God, it is sufficient to know the Mercy of God in His Holy Name, Jesus Christ forever.
- Status