Do physical bodies die because of Adam's sin?

And yet lions and wolves and adders will lie down with lambs and children against their nature in the heavenly state.
This is a symbol of peace between people who were enemies in the past.
Symbol of security, peaceful coexistence among nations that derives from the knowledge of God.
Here is the text. Please read it and let us know if it should be taken literally. As an alternative, ask any Rabbi of how Jews have interpreted these verses throughout history:

And there shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,
and a Branch shall grow out of his roots.
he Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him,
the Spirit of wisdom and understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and might,
the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord.
He shall delight in the fear of the Lord,
and he shall not judge by what his eyes see,
nor reprove by what his ears hear;
but with righteousness he shall judge the poor,
and reprove with fairness for the meek of the earth.
He shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth,
and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked.
Righteousness shall be the belt of his loins,
and faithfulness the belt about his waist.

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
and a little child shall lead them.
The cow and the bear shall graze;
their young ones shall lie down together;
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
The nursing child shall play by the hole of the asp,
and the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper’s den.
They shall not hurt or destroy
in all My holy mountain,

for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord,
as the waters cover the sea.
 
The wages of sin is not physical death!!!

If there was no death or decay in the creation, can you imagine how many mosquitoes, flies, rats, mice and other such nasties would be around today? There would be no place for us.

Do you really think the fruits, vegetables etc., that Adam and Eve and whatever the rest of the animals were eating did not die? Decay is simply the natural physical chemical reactions created at the very outset. The formation of water from hydrogen and oxygen is an oxidation reaction, similar to all such “decay” functions in nature. That obviously is “good’, and in fact, is very good.
Thanks for such clear, simple and powerful insights, Jim.
 
"Decay" and "corruption" are words that have been for centuries symbol of an undesired state... and therefore associated with evil. That's why the inspired authors use them that way... But they are not evil!

Yes, they are evil.

The truth is that between 50-70 billion cells die in our body EVERY DAY. This "decay" or "corruption" of our cells is highly desirable. It is a good think that allow us to be ALIVE.

You're making a logical mistake.

Cutting one of my arms off is better than cutting both of my arms off.

That does not somehow prove that cutting one of my arms off is good.

If there is a conceivably better state, than by definition, it is not maximally good.
 
However you want to take it...
It is not "however you want to take it"... :)
In the context of this discussion, if you take it literally, it would mean that the ideal situation is that carnivores should eat straw like the ox.
If you take it spiritually, the ideal situation is for nations to coexist in peace.
 
It is not "however you want to take it"... :)
In the context of this discussion, if you take it literally, it would mean that the ideal situation is that carnivores should eat straw like the ox.
If you take it spiritually, the ideal situation is for nations to coexist in peace.
What heretic university did you graduate from?
Shalom
 
You're making a logical mistake.

Cutting one of my arms off is better than cutting both of my arms off.

That does not somehow prove that cutting one of my arms off is good.
No logical mistake at all.
If losing my arms were necessary for the continuous re-growth/ renewal of new arms to perform what arms are designed to perform, for the time they were designed to perform it, then losing arms would prove to be good.

That's exactly what happen in our tissues.
The renewal of cells (which implies that some cells die in order for others to live) is part of the overall good.

If there is a conceivably better state, than by definition, it is not maximally good.
There is no "conceivably better state" of a human body with no organized cellular death.
For something to be conceivable, it must conform to reality. That's the difference between a "conceivable better state" and a fantasy.

What you are presenting is a fantasy. It is your right to believe in fantasies, we all believe in fantasies... but I encourage you not to call a more realistic and reasonable proposition "an insult to God's character". At least don't do that.

Otherwise, your argument has been refuted. Not only by me, but by @Jim and by God's revelation through science.
 
In the context of this discussion, if you take it literally, it would mean that the ideal situation is that carnivores should eat straw like the ox.

Now isn't that something...

If you take it spiritually, the ideal situation is for nations to coexist in peace.

So what does the straw represent in that metaphor.

You're missing the point that the metaphor indicates it itself is a good thing if it points to something good.
 
If losing my arms were necessary

To make corruption somehow necessary, you have to posit a God who is not omnipotent.

He's just "too weak" to do it any other way. This is silly.

Now we see in Revelation all corruption will be over, and we see in the beginning, God did not desire corruption.

It is calling evil good to attribute the punishment of sin as God's ideal.

There is no "conceivably better state" of a human body with no organized cellular death.

Lol. An omnipotent being can do it, by definition.

God created a billion galaxies, but nooooo, cellular death was too much for him.

Right.

What you are presenting is a fantasy. It is your right to believe in fantasies, we all believe in fantasies... but I encourage you not to call a more realistic and reasonable proposition "an insult to God's character". At least don't do that.

You're the one living in fantasy land here.

You violate logic, which proves something better means something is not good.

You violate God's clear attributes, wherein ALL things are clearly possible for God.

Then you turn around and say, "no u," with no actual substance to anything you say.

Otherwise, your argument has been refuted.

My argument is refuted in "fantasy land."

The thing you said was a bad thing.
 
Now isn't that something...
That a lion eats straw is NOT the ideal situation... unless we want lions to disappear.
God created lions to be lions and oxen to be oxen.
The ideal situation, at least for the time in which their existence as species is planned, is to remain what they are, and glorify God in being what they are.

So what does the straw represent in that metaphor.
I don't know. Not all details in an analogy are metaphors on their own.
But if you ask me to speculate, probably production.
Societies have basically two kinds of people: Those who produce, and those who exploit the producers.
So the carnivores would be the symbol of those who exploit the producers. Mainly, governments, drug cartels, the mafia, etc
This is just my take. Who knows!


You're missing the point that the metaphor indicates it itself is a good thing if it points to something good.
I'm not missing the point: the good thing that the verse is pointing to is PEACE.
Not biological absurdities.
The ideal state is that of peace. Not the state in which the lion is no longer a lion.
 
And yet lions and wolves and adders will lie down with lambs and children against their nature in the heavenly state.

This is true. There will be no more being married or given in marriage, as there was before Adam's sin. There will be no more serpent in the garden attempting to deceive, as there was before Adam's sin.

But of course, you won't talk about these truths, because you can't use them to justify your adopted religion.

If all that was very good, there would be no reason to change it.

This is a terrible attack on God's character to accuse him of creating such corruption and violence and perversion.

Yes, it is an evil wickedness to preach to the world, in an attempt to convince as many people are possible, that God created Laws impossible to obey, a Yoke of Bondage HE placed on the Necks of Abraham's Children that placed their trust in HIM. That God lied to the men who trusted Him, when HE told them to obey and that they could obey. And then punished and killed them when they didn't. And so man created an image of God, in the likeness of some handsome, long-haired man that they placed the name of Jesus on, who had to come and save mankind from this unjust, untrustworthy God.

"This is a terrible attack on God's character to accuse him of creating such corruption and violence and perversion".


I just want to warn my brothers about these wicked and evil philosophies, in the hopes they will stop adopting and promoting the religions that promote such insidious lies.

Or to imply in their preaching, as you are, that God was caught off guard, was taken by surprise and didn't know that Eve would listen to the serpent when HE created the earth and all that is in it. So HE had to go back after Adam sinned, after the Sabbath I guess, and "Re-create" everything different, but didn't tell us about it anywhere in the entire Bible.

But there are "many" popular religious philosophies promoted by the religion of this world, that paints God in an evil light.

The promotion of your religious philosophy, that both Paul and David teach in the Holy Scriptures that God was not capable or competent enough to bring even "ONE" sinner into His Righteousness, "No Not One", is another of many evil doctrines promoted by this world's religious system "Who call Jesus Lord, Lord. And when someone points it out to you, by showing you what Paul and David actually said in your own Bible, you completely reject them, and cling to your adopted religion instead.

Jesus speaks to this in John 3. Men hide from the Light of the Scriptures, "Lest their Deeds should be exposed" in order to preserve their precious darkness.

But for me, although I too, love darkness, nevertheless, I want the truth of God, not man. So I go to the Light "For the very purpose" of exposing my beliefs, whether or not they are wrought in God. This causes humiliation, correction, reproof, but it also shows me God's Instruction in Righteousness that "many", who call Jesus Lord, Lord, preach to the world He is not capable of bringing a sinner into, "No not one".

I was really hoping you might consider what is actually said by David and Paul so you can adopt their teaching, not the traditions of this world's religious businesses. I still have this hope.

Nevertheless, Jesus said to "Take Heed" of these "MANY" who come in His Name, who call Him Lord, Lord, who transform themselves into Apostles of Christ, but refuse to teach what He instructed, or "Live By" the Words of God as HE Commands.
 
To make corruption somehow necessary, you have to posit a God who is not omnipotent.
He's just "too weak" to do it any other way. This is silly.
Now we see in Revelation all corruption will be over, and we see in the beginning, God did not desire corruption.
It is calling evil good to attribute the punishment of sin as God's ideal.

Lol. An omnipotent being can do it, by definition.
God created a billion galaxies, but nooooo, cellular death was too much for him.
There is a way that God chose to create the universe that could allow our existence. He chose the particular laws of physics and a particular biology. So, why don't you praise God for the way He did things?

All stars in the galaxies you refer to, are the result of the destruction of other stars, and the recycling of their matter and energy.
So, even stars die as other stars are born.
This is the way it is, and if you believe God is great, then this way is great.
 
Lol. An omnipotent being can do it, by definition.
We are not discussing here what God can or can't do.
We are discussing whether his creation, including the mechanisms planned for recycling and renewal, are good or bad.
I say such mechanisms are good, because

  • God is All-Knowing and All-Merciful
  • Science shows clearly that the existence of all material things (from stars to the bodies of whales and human beings) depends on the recycling of matter and energy.

If you want to start a debate on whether God can do everything He pleases, please invite an atheist to the discussion.
Then we both will have to explain to such atheist how God did not make a mistake when He decided to give men free will, which could lead to sin. We would have to explain such atheist why God didn't stop sin right away, or didn't prevent sin from affecting innocent beings.
 
Last edited:
You're the one living in fantasy land here.
No. Thinking that trilobites did not die before the appearance of men is fantasy.
You violate God's clear attributes, wherein ALL things are clearly possible for God.
All things are possible to Him, but He chooses to do what is best. Isn't He All-Knowing?
God chose to create a universe that works through the recycling and renewal of matter and energy, at the level of stars and at the level of your garden.
 
No. Thinking that trilobites did not die before the appearance of men is fantasy.

Well, I'm a theistic evolutionist, so this is kind of a whiff and a miss.

 
You violate logic, which proves something better means something is not good.
No, I don't.
"Something conceivable better" can only be conceived within the realm of reality. Otherwise it is a fantasy.

Let me give you an example.
A false preacher could claim that "something conceivable better" is a world where all men choose always the good and have no chance to make a bad decision. But that is a fantasy, because in such situation "man" would not be "man". It is intrinsic to man the ability to make moral choices.
What that preacher is saying is that in the ideal world men would not exist. That would be an entirely different debate.

In conclusion, I am not violating logic. You are resorting to fantasies to keep hanging from the thread of your theological understanding.
That thread will break.
However, God has a nice safety net for you.
 
Well, I'm a theistic evolutionist, so this is kind of a whiff and a miss.

Good to know!
My apologies, Dizerner.
So many Forum members express different perspectives, that I confuse what is the position of everyone.

So, do we both agree on the fact that Adam´s sin is not the cause of the death of trilobites?
 
Back
Top Bottom