What could the Pre Fall of Man biocycle looked like?

[AdamjEdgar]

I am not sure if this has been discussed before or not, however, I have had this idea lingering in the back of my mind for some time. I do not have a logical order for what I have written below, they are all just randoms thoughts banging around in my head that I am putting down. Its a developing story...eventually some order will be made of it all I'm sure.

Ok, so on to the question...

We know that prior to the fall, God created the heavens and the earth and he saw that it was good. Now theological discussions centre on what is meant by the term good, however for now lets just accept that something created without sin must have been awesome enough that the world was not tarnished in any way and things lived forever.

Now there is the catch phrase that interests me...things lived forever.

If one considers the current bio cycle on this planet, we have seasons, we have trees that regularly loose their leaves (even outside of the seasonal changes), animals deficate on the ground, insects and various other forms of life feed on that stuff and convert it etc etc.

In the bicycle we see today, its not just the plant life that has to contribute to the bicycle...animals also form part of the process. So they live and die as well.

Are only things with a concscious mind able to be considered as dying...so plants don't count theologically (I can think of stories when plants are claimed to have died in the Bible...so this is problematic obviously)

The point is, when talking about plants, how does one define what is happening in the cycle when a leaf falls from a tree? Has that leaf died? Do termites feasting on trees actually cause the death of the tree or did termites not eat trees in the past?

the Bible I believe says lions ate grass...is a lion or cow eatings grass causing the death of grass?

Did mankind and even animals poop? If food was perfect, was the any waste produced before the fall?

The bible says God placed Adam in the garden to "tend to it"...what would that have meant/looked like in a sinless world?

If no waste produced, did plants remove nutrients from the soil such that it needed replacing?

Before sin entered this world, could any of the life>death>life bicycle as we know it today have actually existed or did this all come as a result of sin?

God says in the book of Revelation chapter 21

1. there will be no more night.
2. There wont be any sun or moon,
3. all of the light that sines on the New Earth will shine from the glory of God radiating out from the New Jerusalem from the Lamp of the Lamb

(see references below)

1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth,a for the first heaven and earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.
5And the One seated on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.”
10And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the holy city of Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, 11shining with the glory of God. Its radiance was like a most precious jewel
23And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, because the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its lamp. 24By its light the nations will walk, and into it the kings of the earth will bring their glory.

How might all of the above and any other biblical statements that do not appear to align well with our current model of the life-death cycle providing nutrients to the earth, affect a Biocycle in the Biblical model of the future?

This I think would require us to try to reconcile the book of Revelation with the first 3 chapters of Genesis...and indeed I believe that even the story of the flood and what the earth looked like after it may also need to be references (even though we are living in the result of that change on this earth)

sorry for the mess above...its all just thoughts at present. I hope where Im going with this makes sense to people as it presents some very deep theological and scientific issues that could very well be almost impossible to reconcile, however, I would like to try to find a solution that is a compromise between biblical theology and inerrancy, and our modern understanding of the science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not sure if this has been discussed before or not, however, I have had this idea lingering in the back of my mind for some time. I do not have a logical order for what I have written below, they are all just randoms thoughts banging around in my head that I am putting down. Its a developing story...eventually some order will be made of it all I'm sure.

Ok, so on to the question...

We know that prior to the fall, God created the heavens and the earth and he saw that it was good. Now theological discussions centre on what is meant by the term good, however for now lets just accept that something created without sin must have been awesome enough that the world was not tarnished in any way and things lived forever.

Now there is the catch phrase that interests me...things lived forever.

If one considers the current bio cycle on this planet, we have seasons, we have trees that regularly loose their leaves (even outside of the seasonal changes), animals deficate on the ground, insects and various other forms of life feed on that stuff and convert it etc etc.

In the bicycle we see today, its not just the plant life that has to contribute to the bicycle...animals also form part of the process. So they live and die as well.

Are only things with a concscious mind able to be considered as dying...so plants don't count theologically (I can think of stories when plants are claimed to have died in the Bible...so this is problematic obviously)

The point is, when talking about plants, how does one define what is happening in the cycle when a leaf falls from a tree? Has that leaf died? Do termites feasting on trees actually cause the death of the tree or did termites not eat trees in the past?

the Bible I believe says lions ate grass...is a lion or cow eatings grass causing the death of grass?

Did mankind and even animals poop? If food was perfect, was the any waste produced before the fall?

The bible says God placed Adam in the garden to "tend to it"...what would that have meant/looked like in a sinless world?

If no waste produced, did plants remove nutrients from the soil such that it needed replacing?

Before sin entered this world, could any of the life>death>life bicycle as we know it today have actually existed or did this all come as a result of sin?

God says in the book of Revelation chapter 21

1. there will be no more night.
2. There wont be any sun or moon,
3. all of the light that sines on the New Earth will shine from the glory of God radiating out from the New Jerusalem from the Lamp of the Lamb

(see references below)

1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth,a for the first heaven and earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.
5And the One seated on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.”
10And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the holy city of Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, 11shining with the glory of God. Its radiance was like a most precious jewel
23And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, because the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its lamp. 24By its light the nations will walk, and into it the kings of the earth will bring their glory.

How might all of the above and any other biblical statements that do not appear to align well with our current model of the life-death cycle providing nutrients to the earth, affect a Biocycle in the Biblical model of the future?

This I think would require us to try to reconcile the book of Revelation with the first 3 chapters of Genesis...and indeed I believe that even the story of the flood and what the earth looked like after it may also need to be references (even though we are living in the result of that change on this earth)

sorry for the mess above...its all just thoughts at present. I hope where Im going with this makes sense to people as it presents some very deep theological and scientific issues that could very well be almost impossible to reconcile, however, I would like to try to find a solution that is a compromise between biblical theology and inerrancy, and our modern understanding of the science.

It is just a morality tale. Reading it literally is an error. We know that is not how life came about. What you are proposing is a fanfiction debate. Much like people arguing about aspects of Spiderman. It does not help beliefs in a God at all and can harm those beliefs.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In the bicycle we see today, its not just the plant life that has to contribute to the bicycle...animals also form part of the process.

One can only assume that the bicycle was followed by the tricycle and, of course, preceded by the unicycle. Given enough time peddling around the Garden on a unicycle and a Fall is almost inevitable.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

It is just a morality tale. Reading it literally is an error. We know that is not how life came about. What you are proposing is a fanfiction debate. Much like people arguing about aspects of Spiderman. It does not help beliefs in a God at all and can harm those beliefs.

I know that an Atheist would have problems with this.

its probably not a discussion that someone without a deep understanding of Biblical theology can adequately understand or contribute meaningfully too. However, having said that, this is also one of the reasons why I ask this question...so that people who are Christians can appreciate the issues that a seemingly lack a well thought out appreciation of the scientific issues that a "sinless bicycle" (refer to jayhawkers response above) might present to non Christians such as yourself.

I do appreciate your post input here as it highlights exactly why this topic is important. I feel that many times in my life I have seen Christians brush by this topic without really thinking deeply about the consequences of it. They just seem to hang off the "have faith in God" line and whilst this is adequate for those who don't really worry about the apparent contradiction this kind of biblical theology causes, for those who do find it a stumbling block, I think it needs a logical answer that is both consistent with the Bible theology (which is authoritative according to YEC) and a valid interpretation of the science.

(Obviously, a valid interpretation of the science is going to differ between world views...however, academic logic and consistency, with references, is about the best that can be done here)​

 

[AdamjEdgar]

One can only assume that the bicycle was followed by the tricycle and, of course, preceded by the unicycle. Given enough time peddling around the Garden on a unicycle and a Fall is almost inevitable.

I have to respond to this...tis an absolute "cracker "

 

[F1fan]

I know that an Atheist would have problems with this.

its probably not a discussion that someone without a deep understanding of Biblical theology can adequately understand or contribute meaningfully too.

Atheists tend to have a pretty good understanding of the Bible, and most importantly, how the texts were written, edited, translated, and then interpreted over time. I suspect you are confusing devotion to an interpretation with understanding the Bible. Frankly I think it more importatnt to know how the Bible came about than learning a certain interpretation.

However, having said that, this is also one of the reasons why I ask this question...so that people who are Christians can appreciate the issues that a seemingly lack a well thought out appreciation of the scientific issues that a "sinless bicycle" (refer to jayhawkers response above) might present to non Christians such as yourself.

The dilemma is that even Jews don't interpret Genesis literally, and it's their book. Why Christians interpret the OT literally, especially in the 21st century, is a whole subject unto itself. And there are definitive answers.

Your topic is kind of fun as an exercize, but it should include why God did it all in the first place. Why create a world that could fall? Why does the world post-Fall behave with such brutality? It's all as God created and intended. God created the world with a trap, and that was A&E eating the fruit of knowledge.

I do appreciate your post input here as it highlights exactly why this topic is important. I feel that many times in my life I have seen Christians brush by this topic without really thinking deeply about the consequences of it. They just seem to hang off the "have faith in God" line and whilst this is adequate for those who don't really worry about the apparent contradiction this kind of biblical theology causes, for those who do find it a stumbling block, I think it needs a logical answer that is both consistent with the Bible theology (which is authoritative according to YEC) and a valid interpretation of the science.

(Obviously, a valid interpretation of the science is going to differ between world views...however, academic logic and consistency, with references, is about the best that can be done here)​

Why is this topic important?

 

[Brickjectivity]

I am not sure if this has been discussed before or not,

You do not have to, but I think you need to start this discussion in a different section of the forum where it will be taken with some gravity. Since it is something people will argue about I recommend restarting it in Same Faith Debates and specify some kind of limiter about who is welcome to reply, such as "SDA only" or "Believers of Genesis Eden story only", and put that limiter into the title. Then we can moderate the discussion better. We don't have enough staff to moderate all areas with the same kind of focus, so we instead have special rules for specific areas. In general unless an area is marked 'Debate' we don't even allow correcting another person. This particular area is like a free for all, and you will be having to defend every assumption and every foundation.

There is no pressure though, and you can feel free to keep this thread going.

 

[paarsurrey]

I am not sure if this has been discussed before or not, however, I have had this idea lingering in the back of my mind for some time. I do not have a logical order for what I have written below, they are all just randoms thoughts banging around in my head that I am putting down. Its a developing story...eventually some order will be made of it all I'm sure.

Ok, so on to the question...

We know that prior to the fall, God created the heavens and the earth and he saw that it was good. Now theological discussions centre on what is meant by the term good, however for now lets just accept that something created without sin must have been awesome enough that the world was not tarnished in any way and things lived forever.

Now there is the catch phrase that interests me...things lived forever.

If one considers the current bio cycle on this planet, we have seasons, we have trees that regularly loose their leaves (even outside of the seasonal changes), animals deficate on the ground, insects and various other forms of life feed on that stuff and convert it etc etc.

In the bicycle we see today, its not just the plant life that has to contribute to the bicycle...animals also form part of the process. So they live and die as well.

Are only things with a concscious mind able to be considered as dying...so plants don't count theologically (I can think of stories when plants are claimed to have died in the Bible...so this is problematic obviously)

The point is, when talking about plants, how does one define what is happening in the cycle when a leaf falls from a tree? Has that leaf died? Do termites feasting on trees actually cause the death of the tree or did termites not eat trees in the past?

the Bible I believe says lions ate grass...is a lion or cow eatings grass causing the death of grass?

Did mankind and even animals poop? If food was perfect, was the any waste produced before the fall?

The bible says God placed Adam in the garden to "tend to it"...what would that have meant/looked like in a sinless world?

If no waste produced, did plants remove nutrients from the soil such that it needed replacing?

Before sin entered this world, could any of the life>death>life bicycle as we know it today have actually existed or did this all come as a result of sin?

God says in the book of Revelation chapter 21

1. there will be no more night.
2. There wont be any sun or moon,
3. all of the light that sines on the New Earth will shine from the glory of God radiating out from the New Jerusalem from the Lamp of the Lamb

(see references below)

1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth,a for the first heaven and earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.
5And the One seated on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.”
10And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the holy city of Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, 11shining with the glory of God. Its radiance was like a most precious jewel
23And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, because the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its lamp. 24By its light the nations will walk, and into it the kings of the earth will bring their glory.

How might all of the above and any other biblical statements that do not appear to align well with our current model of the life-death cycle providing nutrients to the earth, affect a Biocycle in the Biblical model of the future?

This I think would require us to try to reconcile the book of Revelation with the first 3 chapters of Genesis...and indeed I believe that even the story of the flood and what the earth looked like after it may also need to be references (even though we are living in the result of that change on this earth)

sorry for the mess above...its all just thoughts at present. I hope where Im going with this makes sense to people as it presents some very deep theological and scientific issues that could very well be almost impossible to reconcile, however, I would like to try to find a solution that is a compromise between biblical theology and inerrancy, and our modern understanding of the science.

Friend @AdamjEdgar belongs to SDA (Seventh Day Adventist ).
" Revelation chapter 21 "

What does one mean by pre-fall, did (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah mention it, if yes, then kindly quote from him, please?? Right?

Is "Revelation chapter 21" from Yeshua, please?:

Holy Bible King James Version (Red Letter Edition)
The Roman Catholic Holy Bible with the words of Jesus in red.

It is not, right?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know that an Atheist would have problems with this.

its probably not a discussion that someone without a deep understanding of Biblical theology can adequately understand or contribute meaningfully too. However, having said that, this is also one of the reasons why I ask this question...so that people who are Christians can appreciate the issues that a seemingly lack a well thought out appreciation of the scientific issues that a "sinless bicycle" (refer to jayhawkers response above) might present to non Christians such as yourself.

I do appreciate your post input here as it highlights exactly why this topic is important. I feel that many times in my life I have seen Christians brush by this topic without really thinking deeply about the consequences of it. They just seem to hang off the "have faith in God" line and whilst this is adequate for those who don't really worry about the apparent contradiction this kind of biblical theology causes, for those who do find it a stumbling block, I think it needs a logical answer that is both consistent with the Bible theology (which is authoritative according to YEC) and a valid interpretation of the science.

(Obviously, a valid interpretation of the science is going to differ between world views...however, academic logic and consistency, with references, is about the best that can be done here)​

A person that abuses the Bible should never claim that someone else has a lacking of theological knowledge. Most atheists that I know of became so due to a more thorough theological knowledge than that of most of their ex-faith. If you truly understood the Adam and Eve myth you would realize that if one insists upon believing it literally that God is to blame in the story.

 

[Valjean]

We know that prior to the fall, God created the heavens and the earth and he saw that it was good. Now theological discussions centre on what is meant by the term good, however for now lets just accept that something created without sin must have been awesome enough that the world was not tarnished in any way and things lived forever.

We do not know anything of the sort. This is unsupported folklore.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

A person that abuses the Bible should never claim that someone else has a lacking of theological knowledge. Most atheists that I know of became so due to a more thorough theological knowledge than that of most of their ex-faith. If you truly understood the Adam and Eve myth you would realize that if one insists upon believing it literally that God is to blame in the story.

I will respond to this post as it basically sums up the ones before from a number of other respondents.

Let me give a great example of a well-known "former Christian" regarding the claim atheists know bible theology. The truth and facts are, they do not. I am not going to argue this point because in reality, the mere consequence of poor theology and lack of genuine biblical understanding finds it consequences in agnosticism and atheism.

Now back to Bart Erhman...Bart was a Christian (Baptist if memory serves correctly...however this isn't really important). When I listen to Bart's claims over the years, it appears to me that he lost his faith because he found it difficult to reconcile the idea that God allows us to have free choice and we may write his words accordingly. Bart in modern times demands imperfection in the bible and since it does not display (for want of a better phrase) absolute inerrancy, he claims there must be no God. Add to this the moral high ground where a loving God directs characters in the Old Testament to barbarically kill entire races of people (seemingly innocent women, and children, included), and finally how one can explain the evil against young children in current times...and obviously, Bart cannot believe in God anymore!

In taking note of some of Bart's original Christian doctrinal beliefs, and when I view it from my position as a Seventh-Day Adventist, I'm sorry but I can see exactly why Bart stumbled and fell. His foundation in Christianity was deeply flawed beyond that of just the issues with his denominational problems. Most Christian scholars who debate Bart really feel for him, they almost universally agree that he is really nitpicking at issues in the Bible that in reality, do not actually have any impact on biblical theology at all (despite his claims to the contrary). They have, in numerous debates, demolished his arguments against biblical truth so often its pointless even trying to reference all of the times this has happened (it's easy to find for yourself anyway)...instead, I will simply cite that it [Bart's theological error] is, on the balance of probabilities, proven fact! He is theologically wrong period!

Now, this isn't an earbash against Bart...that is not my intention. The point is, Bart is a non-believer who absolutely believes Jesus of the Bible really existed. He has written extensively about it and without a doubt in an expert on the historical Jesus (even though he does not believe Jesus was God).

Ok, so now that we dispense with the "the bible is a myth"...that is a non-argument easily proven false...back to the point about creation and the New Testament.

I note a respondant who is Hindu...

may suggest that since your religious faith has its roots dating back to only about 500 AD...that really doesn't have much supporting history to explain the origins of man. To my thinking, this might be why you have a problem with the idea of a creator God in the first place? Christianity builds upon 4500 years B.C of Judaism...it has extensive historical heritage. I think most scholars make the claim the isarelite culture and subsequent Christian story is the oldest historical oral and written references in the world.

For our Jewish friend here who responded...might I suggest you research Messianic Judaism . You need to get with the modern times on this one as have some of your compatriots that now recognize the Messiah you have been waiting for over a period of 6 thousand years actually really did minister and die between approx AD 27 and 31. Your culture simply missed the point of the prophecies in Isaiah for example about him. You also did not adequately interpret the prophecies in the book of Daniel which gave a very accurate timeline of when he would come (you ignored the wise men (Maggi) who understood the prophecies well enough to actually go looking for Christ's birth in/or around 4-2BC. I do not think it worrysome to accept He was killed by His own people. The fact is, the plan of salvation always proposed the Messiah would die for his own creation. God died for sinners not the sinless!

The debate about whether or not one should read Genesis literally or allegorically is really a side issue. It has been put to not only theological scholars but also literary experts (many of whom are not even religious) and both parties have conclusively proven the book of Genesis (and indeed all the books of Moses) cannot be read as allegories. They are historical narratives in the way in which they are written. From a theological perspective, they cannot be an allegory either as this actually causes huge (and I mean huge) theological issues with the entire Christian religious belief and in the authenticity of the bible writings themselves. Not least the major problem that if one says the creation story and the fall of man is an allegory, then how does one reconcile a "spiritual death" with the physical death that our Messiah endured on our behalf in order to pay the penalty for sin? ("wages of sin are death")

If Christ didn't need to die a physical death...what was the point of the entire plan of salvation as outlined in Genesis chapter 3? It becomes completely pointless, thus rendering the rest of the Bible unnecessary. Christ isn't our savior...if Christ isn't a savior...what is the point of being Christian exactly?

This also invalidates almost the entire writings of the apostle Paul. Nothing he writes is relevant when ones turns Genesis chapter 1,2&3 into an allegory! Im not going to go into the sanctuary...that is an even bigger problem because it completely destroys any relationship between us modern Christians (spiritual Israel) and taking the gospel to the Gentiles. This means no gentile can be saved...we are all lost.

Ok enough of the above...back to the O.P

Please focus on the following:

When Adam and Eve were placed in the garden of Eden, there was no sin.
How might the Biocycle in a sinless world actually function? Consider:

1. termites eat trees,
2. plant leaves fall off and rot thus fertilizing other plants,
3. lions ate grass,
4. did humans and animals poop,
5. no sun or moon to shed light on the world as the new Jerusalem will be the only source of all light and there will be no night...
6. any other relevant things you can think of related to a sinless Biocycle in the new earth.

The point of this is to bring it to the attention of Christians that we need to adequately explain the problems non Christians have with what is a naive view of a sinless (before the fall) vs sinful (after the fall) Biocycle.

 

[danieldemol]

Ok, so now that we dispense with the "the bible is a myth"...that is a non-argument easily proven false...

Depends on what you mean by that.
If you mean the Bible is part-myth you are going to have to do more than just claim it is easily proven false.

If you mean on the other hand that the Bible is 100% myth you are probably arguing against a strawman as possibly none of us that I'm aware of dont believe there are at least some factual details in the collection of works known as the Bible.

In my opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will respond to this post as it basically sums up the ones before from a number of other respondents.

Let me give a great example of a well-known "former Christian" regarding the claim atheists know bible theology. The truth and facts are, they do not. I am not going to argue this point because in reality, the mere consequence of poor theology and lack of genuine biblical understanding finds it consequences in agnosticism and atheism.

Now back to Bart Erhman...Bart was a Christian (Baptist if memory serves correctly...however this isn't really important). When I listen to Bart's claims over the years, it appears to me that he lost his faith because he found it difficult to reconcile the idea that God allows us to have free choice and we may write his words accordingly. Bart in modern times demands imperfection in the bible and since it does not display (for want of a better phrase) absolute inerrancy, he claims there must be no God. Add to this the moral high ground where a loving God directs characters in the Old Testament to barbarically kill entire races of people (seemingly innocent women, and children, included), and finally how one can explain the evil against young children in current times...and obviously, Bart cannot believe in God anymore!

In taking note of some of Bart's original Christian doctrinal beliefs, and when I view it from my position as a Seventh-Day Adventist, I'm sorry but I can see exactly why Bart stumbled and fell. His foundation in Christianity was deeply flawed beyond that of just the issues with his denominational problems. Most Christian scholars who debate Bart really feel for him, they almost universally agree that he is really nitpicking at issues in the Bible that in reality, do not actually have any impact on biblical theology at all (despite his claims to the contrary). They have, in numerous debates, demolished his arguments against biblical truth so often its pointless even trying to reference all of the times this has happened (it's easy to find for yourself anyway)...instead, I will simply cite that it [Bart's theological error] is, on the balance of probabilities, proven fact! He is theologically wrong period!

Now, this isn't an earbash against Bart...that is not my intention. The point is, Bart is a non-believer who absolutely believes Jesus of the Bible really existed. He has written extensively about it and without a doubt in an expert on the historical Jesus (even though he does not believe Jesus was God).

Ok, so now that we dispense with the "the bible is a myth"...that is a non-argument easily proven false...back to the point about creation and the New Testament.

I note a respondant who is Hindu...

may suggest that since your religious faith has its roots dating back to only about 500 AD...that really doesn't have much supporting history to explain the origins of man. To my thinking, this might be why you have a problem with the idea of a creator God in the first place? Christianity builds upon 4500 years B.C of Judaism...it has extensive historical heritage. I think most scholars make the claim the isarelite culture and subsequent Christian story is the oldest historical oral and written references in the world.

For our Jewish friend here who responded...might I suggest you research Messianic Judaism . You need to get with the modern times on this one as have some of your compatriots that now recognize the Messiah you have been waiting for over a period of 6 thousand years actually really did minister and die between approx AD 27 and 31. Your culture simply missed the point of the prophecies in Isaiah for example about him. You also did not adequately interpret the prophecies in the book of Daniel which gave a very accurate timeline of when he would come (you ignored the wise men (Maggi) who understood the prophecies well enough to actually go looking for Christ's birth in/or around 4-2BC. I do not think it worrysome to accept He was killed by His own people. The fact is, the plan of salvation always proposed the Messiah would die for his own creation. God died for sinners not the sinless!

The debate about whether or not one should read Genesis literally or allegorically is really a side issue. It has been put to not only theological scholars but also literary experts (many of whom are not even religious) and both parties have conclusively proven the book of Genesis (and indeed all the books of Moses) cannot be read as allegories. They are historical narratives in the way in which they are written. From a theological perspective, they cannot be an allegory either as this actually causes huge (and I mean huge) theological issues with the entire Christian religious belief and in the authenticity of the bible writings themselves. Not least the major problem that if one says the creation story and the fall of man is an allegory, then how does one reconcile a "spiritual death" with the physical death that our Messiah endured on our behalf in order to pay the penalty for sin? ("wages of sin are death")

If Christ didn't need to die a physical death...what was the point of the entire plan of salvation as outlined in Genesis chapter 3? It becomes completely pointless, thus rendering the rest of the Bible unnecessary. Christ isn't our savior...if Christ isn't a savior...what is the point of being Christian exactly?

This also invalidates almost the entire writings of the apostle Paul. Nothing he writes is relevant when ones turns Genesis chapter 1,2&3 into an allegory! Im not going to go into the sanctuary...that is an even bigger problem because it completely destroys any relationship between us modern Christians (spiritual Israel) and taking the gospel to the Gentiles. This means no gentile can be saved...we are all lost.

Ok enough of the above...back to the O.P

Please focus on the following:

When Adam and Eve were placed in the garden of Eden, there was no sin.
How might the Biocycle in a sinless world actually function? Consider:

1. termites eat trees,
2. plant leaves fall off and rot thus fertilizing other plants,
3. lions ate grass,
4. did humans and animals poop,
5. no sun or moon to shed light on the world as the new Jerusalem will be the only source of all light and there will be no night...
6. any other relevant things you can think of related to a sinless Biocycle in the new earth.

The point of this is to bring it to the attention of Christians that we need to adequately explain the problems non Christians have with what is a naive view of a sinless (before the fall) vs sinful (after the fall) Biocycle.

No, Bart found countless flaws in the Bible. That is why he eventually became an atheist. If you think that your theological knowledge is superior to his you are gravely mistaken . With a literalist viewpoint of the Bible one cannot fully understand it. You have an endlessly self contradicting book.

If you want to discuss theology we can do that separately. The problem with reading Genesis literally is that to do so one has to claim that God is a liar. You will probably not understand this. You have to claim that God planted endless false evidence, and that would be lying, to cover up what happened in Genesis.

 

[F1fan]

I note a respondant who is Hindu...

may suggest that since your religious faith has its roots dating back to only about 500 AD...that really doesn't have much supporting history to explain the origins of man.

This isn't accurate. Hinduism dates to about 1900 BCE in the Indus Valley of India.

To my thinking, this might be why you have a problem with the idea of a creator God in the first place?

Hindus have hundreds of gods that have different functions, so it is a completely different theology that the Abrahamic religions.

Christianity builds upon 4500 years B.C of Judaism...it has extensive historical heritage. I think most scholars make the claim the isarelite culture and subsequent Christian story is the oldest historical oral and written references in the world.

Well the Cannanites were a polytheistic culture that originated around 1500 BCE. Yahweh was the war god and had a female partner goddess, Adonona, or something like that, can't remember. There was also the gods El and Baal. All these other gods were eliminated when Judaism evolved into a monotheistic culture, and that was around 600-500 BCE.

For our Jewish friend here who responded...might I suggest you research Messianic Judaism . You need to get with the modern times on this one as have some of your compatriots that now recognize the Messiah you have been waiting for over a period of 6 thousand years actually really did minister and die between approx AD 27 and 31. Your culture simply missed the point of the prophecies in Isaiah for example about him. You also did not adequately interpret the prophecies in the book of Daniel which gave a very accurate timeline of when he would come (you ignored the wise men (Maggi) who understood the prophecies well enough to actually go looking for Christ's birth in/or around 4-2BC. I do not think it worrysome to accept He was killed by His own people. The fact is, the plan of salvation always proposed the Messiah would die for his own creation. God died for sinners not the sinless!

Yikes. Now we know what we are dealing with.

The debate about whether or not one should read Genesis literally or allegorically is really a side issue.

Just a side issue? Your belief system requires assuming a certain interpretation that not only has no evidence, but is also contrary to fact and knowledge.

It has been put to not only theological scholars but also literary experts (many of whom are not even religious) and both parties have conclusively proven the book of Genesis (and indeed all the books of Moses) cannot be read as allegories. They are historical narratives in the way in which they are written. From a theological perspective, they cannot be an allegory either as this actually causes huge (and I mean huge) theological issues with the entire Christian religious belief and in the authenticity of the bible writings themselves. Not least the major problem that if one says the creation story and the fall of man is an allegory, then how does one reconcile a "spiritual death" with the physical death that our Messiah endured on our behalf in order to pay the penalty for sin? ("wages of sin are death")

Well you don't have to reconcile an implausible story. Literalists have a problem because the story of Jesus is absurd, and doesn't make sense in any way. To take all the stories from the creation myths and the way through to Jesus suggests an incompetent God that can't create a world that works the way he wants.

Starting with the Fall in Eden, if God really wanted to make obedient beings don't you think he would do it? If God really wanted them to be obedient would he really create the serpent and allow it to tempt A&E? God surely knew what was going to happen, and A&E were created without adequate disciline to resist temptation. So the Fall was God's doing, a total setup. And A&E get blamed for being naive. The tree was the Tree of Knowledge, they didn't have adequate knowledge of consequences un til after they ate. It was a setup.

So then a sinful earth gets more sinful and God's solution is to kill all but 7 people? That's what God did, and guess what? It didn't fix anything, people still sinned. So what does God do next? He impregnantes a women to have a child that he then arranges to teach people moral decency, and then has him executed to God himself as a sacrifice to pay for the sins of mankind. That is quite Rube Goldberg work by God, as God could have just avoided all this and absolved all humans of sin instantly. Did it fix anything? Not really. Christianity came about, and did we see Christians act through history with an exceptional level of morality and kindness? Sometimes. But with Christians in power they killed a lot of people. The Church tortured infidels and those who didn't pay indulgences (basically blackmail) for special favors. The protestants killed about 30,000 people in the 16th century for witchcraft, which would be about half million today. Our Lutheran friends in 1940's Germany killed over 6 million Jews, among otehrs they didn't approve of in Europe. All endorsed by God and Jesus? And let's not forget the KKK, a Christian organization, that terrorized and murdered black people in the USA after the US Civil War. Just a few examples of Christians at work through the blood of Christ.

If Christ didn't need to die a physical death...what was the point of the entire plan of salvation as outlined in Genesis chapter 3? It becomes completely pointless, thus rendering the rest of the Bible unnecessary. Christ isn't our savior...if Christ isn't a savior...what is the point of being Christian exactly?

Right, if you think about it individual Christians are their own saviors. God and Jesus have doen their work. the gift of salvation is available for anyone to accept. So if a person does nt accept the gift, they are not saved. So to become saved the person makes the decision, and thus save themselves. God caused the sin, Jesus created the solution, but the individual is the savior.

Please focus on the following:

When Adam and Eve were placed in the garden of Eden, there was no sin.
How might the Biocycle in a sinless world actually function? Consider:

1. termites eat trees,
2. plant leaves fall off and rot thus fertilizing other plants,
3. lions ate grass,
4. did humans and animals poop,
5. no sun or moon to shed light on the world as the new Jerusalem will be the only source of all light and there will be no night...
6. any other relevant things you can think of related to a sinless Biocycle in the new earth.

So why did lions and some other animals magically become carnivores after the Fall, but others did not?

If they didn't poop then they didn't eat. But of course, A&E had to eat the fruit, so..... So did poop decay with bacteria, since there was no death, would there be bacteria? And there were no seasons with no sundown, so no leaves would fall from trees. Didn't you take any science classes in school?

The point of this is to bring it to the attention of Christians that we need to adequately explain the problems non Christians have with what is a naive view of a sinless (before the fall) vs sinful (after the fall) Biocycle.

I think you have your own hands full of problems with your own beliefs. Atheists have no such problems, no sin to worry about, no implausible dogma to try to make work.

 

[Brian2]

 

[AdamjEdgar]

No, Bart found countless flaws in the Bible. That is why he eventually became an atheist. If you think that your theological knowledge is superior to his you are gravely mistaken

Sorry but you are misquoting me... I referenced that a large number of other scholars have proven Bart is absolutely wrong in his biblical critcism and therefore his theology. Please don't misrepresent my posts thank you. Go and actually do some research on the debates they have had with him before blindly spreading misinformation. I suggest you start with Dr Dan Wallace (a textual expert who has comprehensively shown Bart to be very very wrong in his claims). There are plenty of others. I don't agree with all of their theology in specific denominational doctrine, but that has nothing to do with this.

The problem with reading Genesis literally is that to do so one has to claim that God is a liar.

Provide evidenc3 of this please...Seventh Day Advent doctrines have never encountered such problems...I do not find any evidence of this in many other denominal beliefs either. I'd be keen to see your references for this.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Since it is something people will argue about I recommend restarting it in Same Faith Debates and specify some kind of limiter about who is welcome to reply, such as "SDA only" or "Believers of Genesis Eden story only", and put that limiter into the title

This is not a denomination specific belief...its a generic biblical topic. I'm not sure why you would think it specific to SDA? What you are suggesting to me that this is some kind of weird SDA culture thing...I categorically reject that.

This topic has more to do with evolution actually, but it cannot go in the science forum because it also require deep theological understanding which is outside of science.

The topic is an important one for Christians because non-believers view their views on the creation account as being naive an illi formed given how the current biocycle works.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Yahweh was the war god and had a female partner goddess, Adonona, or something like that, can't remember. There was also the gods El and Baal. All these other gods were eliminated when Judaism evolved into a monotheistic culture, and that was around 600-500 BCE.

This is complete nonsense. It's certainly not Jewish history. Apparently Indian civilisation oral and written history is valid to you, but Jewish is not. Do you not see the inconsistency in your claim there? Israelite history long predates Indian. BTW the term Hinduism didn't come about until hundreds of years after Christ. Check Britanica if you don't believe me. It is believed to have been coined by Indians themselves around 16th century in an attempt to separate Indian tradition with that of the Turks. Greeks and Persians were responsible for it actually as they used it to label the geographical culture. It was not a spiritual or religious term it seems. The Indians appear to have taken on the term Hindu as a name for this religious belief in the 16th century.

I think you are probably referring to the ancient Verdic religion when you talk B.C as even Wikipedia states 7th century as the earliest known references to the word Hinduism to describing religion vs the geographic location/culture. Even that text only has connotations...so it's not an ideal reference. Most more definitive religious references using that term are much later(14th, 16 and 18th centuries)

All of the above suggest that the religious practises were not well defined prior to this time and may have actually been incorporated from other older civilisations/cultures. Which would not be uncomon given the habits of conquerors to also breed into locals their own culture and religions.

In any case an interesting reference below about Veda

Parts of the Veda are quoted in essential Hindu rituals (such as the wedding ceremony), and it is the source of many enduring patterns of Hindu thought, yet its contents are practically unknown to most Hindus. Most Hindus venerate it from a distance. In the past, groups who rejected its authority outright (such as Buddhists and Jains) were regarded by Hindus as heterodox, but now they are often considered to be part of a larger family of common Indic traditions.

​

I suspect this religion is probably rooted the worship of false Gods by very early civilisations as illustrated in the Bible. Just my personal opinion (i would not be alone in this belief however).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry but you are misquoting me... I referenced that a large number of other scholars have proven Bart is absolutely wrong in his biblical critcism and therefore his theology. Please don't misrepresent my posts thank you. Go and actually do some research on the debates they have had with him before blindly spreading misinformation. I suggest you start with Dr Dan Wallace (a textual expert who has comprehensively shown Bart to be very very wrong in his claims). There are plenty of others. I don't agree with all of their theology in specific denominational doctrine, but that has nothing to do with this.

Really? What scholars have done this? By the way Christian apologists (aka Liars for Jesus) are not scholars. A scholar is someone that publishes regularly in well respected, peer reviewed, professional journals.

Provide evidenc3 of this please...Seventh Day Advent doctrines have never encountered such problems...I do not find any evidence of this in many other denominal beliefs either. I'd be keen to see your references for this.

Not true. Seventh Day Adventists are among the worst. But I take it that you have never studied the sciences at all. Give me some of your specific beliefs and I will explain how the scientific evidence refutes them. For example, you do know that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old, I hope.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

A scholar is someone that publishes regularly in well respected, peer reviewed, professional journals.

I cannot answer this because it's literally quite stupid when used in an attempt to discredit doctorate degree scholars who regularly research and publish said research. Few scholarly papers from the likes of Dan Wallace, Stephen Myer, Michael Behee, Andrew Snelling and many others are not found in the archives of well known universities. These papers are easily accessible on the public record...your argument falls flat on this point.

Seventh Day Adventists are among the worst. But I take it that you have never studied the sciences at all. Give me some of your specific beliefs

OK so SDA's are the worst...um hang on, why then do you ask for a list of SDA beliefs. Didn't you already make the judgement we are the worst based on adequate research of our beliefs? If you don't actually know sda beliefs, where pray tell did you come up with the educated opinion we are a one the worst...you wouldn't be listening to wives tails as your source of authority would you?

HonestlySubduction zone...in reading many of your responses on these forums, your answers are often rehashed sourceless wives tails that are mostly misinformed and largely not even biblical. You provide few if any references for the apparent bible theology claims you make...

Do some proper study and then come back to these concepts when you adequitely understand the theological debate.