I'm still stuck on how they could start a fire on something without some sort of material that was dried because it was dead? I thought nothing had died yet because they hadn't sinned? How can you start of fire with wet wood?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Adam and Eve
- Thread starter The Hammer
- Start date
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
[
Where did you get the idea plants didn't die?
Gen 1:29: “And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.”
If they ate plants, plants died.
Biblically,
“life” is in the blood, which plants do not have. Lev. 17:11: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls:
Where did you get the idea plants didn't die?
Gen 1:29: “And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.”
If they ate plants, plants died.
Biblically,
“life” is in the blood, which plants do not have. Lev. 17:11: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls:
While this is entirely plausible. And Neanderthals knew how to make fire along with homo erectus well before us, probably teaching them to the younger Homo Sapiens as they interacted.
I wanted to ask because unlike most other mythologies that exist. There seems to be no reference to the capture and control of fire within the Bible. Which seems to be a pretty important milestone
Lightning may have created the first fire. Animals trapped in the fire or those that succumbed to smoke, may have been seared in the fire, and became the first cooked meat (cooked by nature, not mankind). Once they tasted cooked meat, and realized the effect of fire, they might have tried to make fire.
If a dinosaur farted near an active volcano, that could have ignited a bruth fire. It wasn't me, exclaimed the brontosaurus. But they ate a lot of vegetation, and they were very large.
https://www.quora.com/Did-Adam-and-...t-cant-remember-any-about-how-people-got-fire
According to Ian Sawyer (on quora.com), Adam and Eve weren't characters in the original text of the bible. I don't know if this is true, and I have not researched it.
Human Ancestors Tamed Fire Earlier Than Thought
The history.com link above, says that over 300,000 years ago, Homosapiens and Neanderthals used fire. If so, that likely predated Adam and Eve. Homo erectus "had some familiarity" with fire, and they lived from 1.8 million yo 200,000 years ago.
Did plants have to sin to die?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Don't be silly.
There are Creationists who teach that before the fall, all animals were herbivores because sin had not yet entered into the world, therefore bring death. That is of course based upon an interpretation of the Bible, reading in part from Romans 12. "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned". There are other verses which speak about sin being what brought death into the world.
So, I believe that there are Christians who believe that before the fall, animals did not kill each other and were all herbivores. They teach that humans were to be vegetarians. Death Before Sin?
As you can see, they get around this issue of plants being alive, by saying plants are not alive.
"Many species of life cannot survive for even three hours without food, and the ingestion of food requires at least the death of plants." This is, of course, true, except that the Bible never ascribes to plants the status of "life," (nor to the "lower" animals, for that matter)."
They then go on to argue that only humans, and only certain animals are to be considered "alive" (why not all is unclear). Of course, all of that is utterly absurd.
My point is, this is the problem you get into when you are a biblical literalist. One has to mangle and twist and distort reality to fit one's tortured reading of the Bible this way.
Oh, so you believe plants aren't alive because they don't have red blood cells? Does this mean that animals with yellow blood aren't alive? What about spiders? These Animals Have Blue or Yellow Blood
So, if you then accept that all of these are alive because they have a fluid running in their bodies that carry oxygen to the cells to keep them all alive, and it doesn't need to be red, but just serve that function, then why aren't plants considered alive when they have liquid chlorophyll? Isn't that "blood" just as much as hemoglobin? Does it serve the same purpose in keeping the plant alive?
But if that isn't sufficient, then why do you differentiate between live plants and dead plants? Would you eat a dead leaf of lettuce, or a dead carrot, all decemated and drained of all life? In other words, would you eat garbage?? Where would the energy come from to sustain your body then?
As I said, the Bible is not a book of science. It's not meant to be one, and certainly shouldn't be taken to challenge science with. That only leads to confusing reality, calling some animals alive, and others not, and imagining plants lack life. That's goes again all reasonable faith. It is confusion.
Last edited:
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
I don't see anything confusing about it. No it's not meant to be a science book. Life is in the blood so the idea of no death doesn't include plant life.There are Creationists who teach that before the fall, all animals were herbivores because sin had not yet entered into the world, therefore bring death. That is of course based upon an interpretation of the Bible, reading in part from Romans 12. "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned". There are other verses which speak about sin being what brought death into the world.
So, I believe that there are Christians who believe that before the fall, animals did not kill each other and were all herbivores. They teach that humans were to be vegetarians. Death Before Sin?
As you can see, they get around this issue of plants being alive, by saying plants are not alive.
"Many species of life cannot survive for even three hours without food, and the ingestion of food requires at least the death of plants." This is, of course, true, except that the Bible never ascribes to plants the status of "life," (nor to the "lower" animals, for that matter)."
They then go on to argue that only humans, and only certain animals are to be considered "alive" (why not all is unclear). Of course, all of that is utterly absurd.
My point is, this is the problem you get into when you are a biblical literalist. One has to mangle and twist and distort reality to fit one's tortured reading of the Bible this way.
Oh, so you believe plants aren't alive because they don't have red blood cells? Does this mean that animals with yellow blood aren't alive? What about spiders? These Animals Have Blue or Yellow Blood
So, if you then accept that all of these are alive because they have a fluid running in their bodies that carry oxygen to the cells to keep them all alive, and it doesn't need to be red, but just serve that function, then why aren't plants considered alive when they have liquid chlorophyll? Isn't that "blood" just as much as hemoglobin? Does it serve the same purpose in keeping the plant alive?
But if that isn't sufficient, then why do you differentiate between live plants and dead plants? Would you eat a dead leaf of lettuce, or a dead carrot, all decemated and drained of all life? In other words, would you eat garbage?? Where would the energy come from to sustain your body then?
As I said, the Bible is not a book of science. It's not meant to be one, and certainly shouldn't be taken to challenge science with. That only leads to confusing reality, calling some animals alive, and others not, and imagining plants lack life. That's goes again all reasonable faith. It is confusion.
So you do not see plants as living? Do you believe that if you don't water your plants, that nothing will happen and they do not transition from living things to dead things? Surely you have to recognize the difference between alive and dead plants? You can tell the difference between a live tree and a dead tree, yes? What are they if not alive then? How is it not life?
Also, you are treating the Bible as a book of science if you limit life to only things with blood in them, because of how you interpret scripture. Science would never agree with that understanding. So, you are claiming the Bible knows better than science. You let your interpretation of the Bible inform you of scientific matters. Minerals are not considered alive by science. But all plants and animals are. (Plus it's also common sense).
BTW, do you believe that all animals were herbivores before the fall? Do you believe that no animals died before the fall, according to your interpretations of scripture?
Last edited:
Adam was created first… he probably was given that knowledge early on, by Jehovah God. And he passed it on to Eve.
To answer these other questions from posters: they knew what death was, otherwise when God told Adam, “On the day you eat from it (the tree) you will die”, that would have no meaning if he didn’t know what it was. So Adam knew…God didn’t have to explain it. So yes, the animals died.. they (the animals) were not created as children of God. And A&E ate “all vegetation.” (Gen.1:29..”Then God said: “Here I have given to you all vegetation that is on the entire earth and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. Let them serve as food for you”) And God also said “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction”.
(Which, BTW, is an indication that evolution has occurred: we can’t eat “all vegetation” now.)
But they were created physically perfect…they would not have died if they had stayed obedient. Their perfection, IOW, hinged on their staying loyal / obedient to Jehovah God.
But they didn’t stay loyal, and they began to die. And within that “day” (Hebrew, Yom), they died; Adam some 900+ yrs. later.
(This is also evidence that those creative “Days” were not literal 24 hours.)
The mere fact that they and their immediate offspring lived so long, tells us there was something unique about their DNA, something that at this point we don’t understand. But DNA from later generations began to degrade, so that by Joshua’s time, lifespans were down to 110 years. (It seems our telomeres may play a role.)
So Cain married his sister, or a cousin. (C.f. Genesis 3:20) Even many generations later, Abraham was still able to marry Sarah, who was his half-sister. But by the time the Mosaic Law was created, such unions were taboo.
Regarding Y-chromosome Adam & mitochondrial Eve… and mtEve is before Y-Adam — fascinating, actually — such information is accurate, because according to Scripture (Genesis 3:20) everyone did come from the one woman, Eve. And later, after the Flood, all descended from Noah, the discovered- Y Adam.
Keep in mind that C-14 dating is based on parameters set by amounts of carbon decay from current sun radiation; those rates of decay would have been vastly different — a lot less — from the Bible’s description of Earth’s atmosphere in Adam - to - Noah’s day.
So to answer all these posters: it is wise not to scoff and make judgements before examining the ancient texts in-depth, trying to determine what would result, the outcome, of these ancient statements.
Last edited:
Lol!
Yep, broccoli’ll load ya up!
I think I still got gas from some I ate 20 yrs ago. I don’t touch the stuff anymore.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
It doesn't matter what I see as living, it only matters what the Bible means.
Where's the Bible say nothing died before the fall? It doesn't.
The important part of the story is that death came to humans because of the fall.
I don't really care if animals died before that or not. It's not an issue that matters.
But if you look at it logically it seems like only plants died.
So how you see reality should be discounted and discredited because of someone's interpretation of the Bible? That's what only matters, not what science says, not what history says, not what the facts say? Only someone's interpretation of the Bible should be trusted without question?
BTW, what the "Bible means", is always a subjective interpretation. It means different things to different people. You only need to look to our differences in understanding what it means as proof of that. So that said, how can we discount the obvious, such as plants are living, because someone reads the Bible in such a manner as to claim they aren't because they don't have blood? Doesn't that seem irrational to you?
It says that sin brought death into the world in Romans 12, and in 1 Cor. Doesn't that suggest that before the fall, death did not exist? There are certainly those who teach this. They just only see animals as alive, and ignore that plants are also living things.
They even claim that before the fall all animals were herbivores, and after the fall they abruptly grew canines in order to tear up the flesh of other animals, because that's when death entered the world, while yet some for some unexplainable reason remained herbivores and did not become carnivores. Interestingly, did humans also grow canines for tearing meat after the fall, and prior to it we all have flat teeth like cows?
It all becomes a very strange science, when we base our understanding upon biblical interpretations as "only what matters". To me, the better approach is to start with the science, and adjust our understanding of biblical materials accordingly, and not try to force fit the Bible into science. There's no real good reason to do that.
If you take the Bible literally and claim it can override the sciences, it most certainly is an issue that matters! If it is to the final word on the matter, so it needs to be able to explain the data better than the science.
But of course you must acknowledge they were living in order for them to die. You don't have death without life.
And again, if plants only died, then why do you have animals that have canine teeth to tear flesh with? You'll never find any fossil records of cats, for instance, with herbivore teeth. I wonder if some believe that before the fall, there were only cows, and after the fall, God created cats and dogs, and such? From a scientific point of view, the Bible doesn't really help our understanding of these things.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Science doesn't have all the answers. There's no need to pit science against the Bible.
I think you are creating a conflict that doesn't exist.
You are taking the reality of human death not existing before the fall and applying it to plants and animals. Why? Why do we have to even know exactly how it all worked?
That doesn't mean that it doesn't have solid answers to plenty of things. One doesn't need to know everything there is about everything, in order to be able to be the authority on things you do know. So you can't just dismiss or downplay what science says, because it doesn't know "everything".
Let's state that more precisely. There's no reason to pit the Bible against science. But that is exactly what the Creationists are doing. They are saying evolution is wrong, because the Bible, according to how they read and interpret it, is saying evolution is wrong.
When you say we should only consider animals with blood to be alive, for instance, you are yourself pitting the Bible against science. It's not the other way around.
The conflict exists because Creationists are making it a conflict. I see no conflict between science and the Bible, because I am able to understand the Bible in a different context that allows it to be read non-literally, as I believe it should be read.
Because there are those who claim that animals didn't die before the fall, because that's what the Bible says, according to them. Therefore, I ask, then didn't plants die?, in order to show that the way they read the Bible is not really compatible with reality as we know it to be through the tools of science and reason.
In other words, literalism doesn't work. But instead of looking at how they read it, they double down and say things like plants weren't alive because they don't have blood.
Let's put it this way. If you are speaking of the value and benefits of faith to someone, and then speak ignorantly about the world, citing disinformation, and outright denying valid science to anyone who has been educated and knows the credibility of the science, you make Christianity look foolish, to be blunt about it.
If you simply don't know about science, that's one thing. But to challenge evolution because you read the Genesis story literally and pit it against science? That doesn't fly. It says to rational people, that you have to deny reason in order to believe in God. That is something that truly a disservice to the faith. Don't you think?
Balthazzar
N. Germanic Descent
I would assume it was both learned and already being used by men and woman of that age - Unless we assume Adam and Eve represented pre neanderthal and/or neanderthal humanoids, which I find both possible and unlikely. It would seem they were both cultivators, and accustomed to domesticating beasts of the field, etc. From what I understand, prior to this age, humans were hunter/gatherers -
Just as a heads up. Neanderthals and Homo Erectus, our precursors, were able to use fire.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes. God was always a big fan of barbecue. To quote Uncle Roger:
"Vegetable taste like sad."
Balthazzar
N. Germanic Descent
I know - this doesn't change the intent of my post, nor the fact that Adam and Eve were cultivators as well as familiar with raising domesticated animals. These came much later, after neanderthal - hunter gatherers learned to use fire, which is why I alluded to the use of fire being both already practiced and a learned thing during Adam and Eve's time.