• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Viruses are manufactured

Right Divider

Body part
I think you missed the point. The issue was a question about death prior to the Fall. According to JR's post 17 all death does not equal death in the Biblical sense---plant death does not equal death. Do you agree with that? What death counts as death? Insect death? invertebrate death?
Lev 17:11 (AKJV/PCE)​
(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: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.​

This seems to support the idea that plants are not "alive" in the same sense as animals.
 

Avajs

Active member
Lev 17:11 (AKJV/PCE)​
(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: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.​

This seems to support the idea that plants are not "alive" in the same sense as animals.
define blood.
 

Avajs

Active member
It's always amusing to see people (such as yourself) who do not even know what defining is saying things like "define [X]." @Right Divider did, already, define blood, by his quotation of Leviticus 17:11, wherein we learn the fact that blood is something the life of the flesh is in. Do you not like that fact?
then you
It's always amusing to see people (such as yourself) who do not even know what defining is saying things like "define [X]." @Right Divider did, already, define blood, by his quotation of Leviticus 17:11, wherein we learn the fact that blood is something the life of the flesh is in. Do you not like that fact?
Sorry about that double quote. You have not provided a definition. It was a simple question
 

Avajs

Active member
:ROFLMAO:
Define define.
It was a serious question. "Life of the flesh is in the blood" does that mean without blood there is no life? Or do you need both flesh and blood. Or does it only refer to vertebrates? Or is is a particular reference to humans? Or only connected with humans because other animals do not have souls?
 

Right Divider

Body part
It was a serious question. "Life of the flesh is in the blood" does that mean without blood there is no life? Or do you need both flesh and blood. Or does it only refer to vertebrates? Or is is a particular reference to humans? Or only connected with humans because other animals do not have souls?
You know very well what blood is, so no... it was not a serious question.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
You have not provided a definition.
By saying that, you again show that you do not even know what defining is. And, were I to ask you to try to explain your thinking that motivates your denial of the fact that the definition presented to you is a definition, the best you can hope to do is to mindlessly repeat your assertion by saying something like "Because it's not a definition!" You don't even know what defining is, parrot.
"Life of the flesh is in the blood" does that mean without blood there is no life?
To where are you referring by your word "there"? Are you referring to in the flesh? Clearly, according to the definition of blood given by God in Leviticus 17:11, no life is IN THE FLESH if no blood is IN THE FLESH since the life of the flesh is IN THE BLOOD.
 

Avajs

Active member
You know very well what blood is, so no... it was not a serious question.
Generally blood refers to the circulatory fluid in vertebrates. Haemolymph is the equivalent in invertebrates and plants I guess would be---sap?
So using the Biblical language, only vertebrates are alive therefore the "death" of anything else preFall is not considered death.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Generally blood refers to the circulatory fluid in vertebrates.
Blood doesn't refer. To anything. But someone saying the word "blood" might refer to something by their saying the word "blood". To what are you referring by your phrase "the circulatory fluid in vertebrates"?

Haemolymph is the equivalent in invertebrates and plants I guess would be---sap?
"The equivalent" of what? "Equivalent" how?

So using the Biblical language,
What exactly do you mean by your phrase "using the Biblical language"?

only vertebrates are alive
What do you mean by "alive"?

therefore the "death" of anything else preFall is not considered death.
No death occurred before the Fall, so why would you even want to call anything that occurred before the Fall, "death"?
 

Avajs

Active member
Blood doesn't refer. To anything. But someone saying the word "blood" might refer to something by their saying the word "blood". To what are you referring by your phrase "the circulatory fluid in vertebrates"?


"The equivalent" of what? "Equivalent" how?


What exactly do you mean by your phrase "using the Biblical language"?


What do you mean by "alive"?


No death occurred before the Fall, so why would you even want to call anything that occurred before the Fall, "death"?
"blood" is the circulatory fluid in vertebrates. that is a definition--see how easy that is. You seemed to have trouble with a definition earlier
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
"blood" is the circulatory fluid in vertebrates. that is a definition--see how easy that is. You seemed to have trouble with a definition earlier

That is a MODERN definition of blood.

You need to put yourself in the shoes of the person who wrote the scripture. What was the context? How did they see things? Did they consider insects or plants to be "living beings" that could suffer death?

Blood to the ancients was what flowed through the bodies of animals and humans. Insects, bugs, plants, and many other creatures were not considered to have that.
 

Avajs

Active member
That is a MODERN definition of blood.

You need to put yourself in the shoes of the person who wrote the scripture. What was the context? How did they see things? Did they consider insects or plants to be "living beings" that could suffer death?

Blood to the ancients was what flowed through the bodies of animals and humans. Insects, bugs, plants, and many other creatures were not considered to have that.
Then the definition in ancient times is the same as now. "Blood" is found in vertebrates.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
"blood" is the circulatory fluid in vertebrates.
"Blood" is a word, not a fluid. I grant you, though, that "blood" circulates--in verbal discourse. I mean, "blood" is indeed one of the many words people say from time to time.

that is a definition
To what are you referring by your pronoun, "that"?

--see how easy that is.
How easy what is?

You seemed to have trouble with a definition earlier
What are you even talking about? What would you even mean by "have trouble with a definition"? Your saying that is nothing but cognitively-meaningless noisemaking, an emotional outburst. It's just you lashing out in your anger. You don't even know what defining is. And, since you don't know what defining is, how do you imagine you benefit by your continually throwing around the word "definition" mindlessly?

Come on, Professor Parrot: give us something you'd call "a definition", and then have fun tripping all over your clueless self in your inability to explain why you'd choose to call it "a definition". Above, I asked you to explain yourself, why you chose to deny the fact that the definition of blood given by God in Leviticus 17:11 is a definition; yet, so far, you've not even made a peep about that. And that's because even you know that you, in your ignorance, have no hope of rationally accounting for your choice to call one thing "a definition" nor for your choice to call another thing "no definition".

Here are a couple of questions to further highlight the fact that you don't even know what defining is:
  • Is any definition true? Yes or No?
  • Is any definition false? Yes or No?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I think you missed the point. The issue was a question about death prior to the Fall. According to JR's post 17 all death does not equal death in the Biblical sense---plant death does not equal death. Do you agree with that? What death counts as death? Insect death? invertebrate death?
Death, in the biblical sense of the word, is always a spiritual separation. Physical death happens when one's spirit separates from the body. Spiritual death is when the spirit of a man (human) is separated from God. It is the later of these two that definitely would not have occurred prior to the Fall. Whether physical death was possible is an open question. The Tree of Life existed in the Garden of Eden and so anyone who ate of that Tree certainly would not have died physically but those who had not, it seems, would have been able to die physically. Otherwise, the Tree of Life would have served no purpose.

Plants, of course, do not have a spirit at all and so could not have died in the sense spoken of above and the extent to which the above applies to animals is speculation. Certainly some form of decay would have occurred. The banana peels that Adam and Eve would have discarded would have been consumed by microbes and recycled into the Earth, perhaps in a process identical to what happens today. And things like insects, worms and the like would have likely been on the menu for things like birds and rodents, and birds and rodents would have been on the menu for larger animals, etc.
 

Avajs

Active member
Death, in the biblical sense of the word, is always a spiritual separation. Physical death happens when one's spirit separates from the body. Spiritual death is when the spirit of a man (human) is separated from God. It is the later of these two that definitely would not have occurred prior to the Fall. Whether physical death was possible is an open question. The Tree of Life existed in the Garden of Eden and so anyone who ate of that Tree certainly would not have died physically but those who had not, it seems, would have been able to die physically. Otherwise, the Tree of Life would have served no purpose.

Plants, of course, do not have a spirit at all and so could not have died in the sense spoken of above and the extent to which the above applies to animals is speculation. Certainly some form of decay would have occurred. The banana peels that Adam and Eve would have discarded would have been consumed by microbes and recycled into the Earth, perhaps in a process identical to what happens today. And things like insects, worms and the like would have likely been on the menu for things like birds and rodents, and birds and rodents would have been on the menu for larger animals, etc.
First question I have is how long was the period between Day 6 and the Fall?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
First question I have is how long was the period between Day 6 and the Fall?
A week.

Of course, there is no way to be dogmatic about that answer but there is good reason to accept the conjecture that Adam and Even fell on the following Friday.

See the link in JudgeRightly's post for details.

I'm curious to know why that would have been your first question.
 

Avajs

Active member
A week.

Of course, there is no way to be dogmatic about that answer but there is good reason to accept the conjecture that Adam and Even fell on the following Friday.

See the link in JudgeRightly's post for details.

I'm curious to know why that would have been your first question.
To paraphrase Sgt Friday "Just trying to get the facts, Maam, just the facts" Because some people make a big deal of "no death before the Fall" and read that as NO DEATH, which seems a little different than your reading. When I say death, I mean actual death, physically, since I dont accept "spiritual" death meaning human spirit separated from God since I dont accept God as a person/thing/actual concept or being. So just trying to sort out your reading of the story--because per you there was animal death pre Fall--insects, rodents, etc. Which effectively deals with the issue of why do felines have big canine teeth etc--it avoids the idea that every animal was a vegetarian preFall.
Otherwise, you get into the question of why did your God make cats with big canines if they were vegetarians---was he all knowing and knew Adam and Eve would disobey him so cats were just ready for the big food change?
 
Top