Death occured before the fall?

FYI (For Y'all's Information),

Solomon was the wisest man who ever lived, and was an expert on botanical matters, in fact, a world-authority. He answered every question put to him.

He knew a little something about wine and fermentation.

 

Why was the fig leaf not sufficient for Adam's covering?

Nothing died, he plucked leaves. The very first death was the lamb that provided the clothing. His was Sufficient for Adam's covering.

Who was that Lamb? His death was first so Adam might be covered and live again.

If plant life died so Adam could live in the garden, would not God had accepted the leaf covering?

What then of Cain's offering as opposed to Abel's?
No, there was no death before the fall.

 

What presuppositions? Apparently you have never read the Book of Exodus. What do you know about the Exodus? the Passover? The Feast of Unleavened of Bread?
All of these give us information about what the Israelites knew.

I told you of unleavened bread. You have rejected the truth that I gave you.
I told you of the symbolic nature of grape juice, not the science of whether or not there are particles of yeast on the skin of the grapes. You have rejected the truth that I gave you. The Israelites were using symbols not science in their feasts.

You are forgetting that it was symbolic. If they needed unfermented wine (juice) for their ceremonies, they would go out and get it. Jesus spoke of the fruit of the vine. You are reading your culture into the first century. They didn't store wine in bottles, which hadn't been invented yet. And yes, I know far more of the culture than you do. I am a missionary. I have lived in a third world nation that is so backward that their ways are very similar to the time of Christ. They have none of the modern conveniences that we have today. Some of those areas have no electricity and no running water. I can equate to what it was like in the time of Christ far better than you can. I have lived in conditions similar to what they did in the first century. I don't have to force your 20th century ideology into the first century. I know how people live from day to day, and in climates similar to that of the land of Palestine.
So, yes, I do have a good idea what it was like.

I don't have to know about modern day wine making to understand the Bible.

Many of those preacher just followed the "accepted" teaching of that time never questioning one another. The same is true today. One Callvinist follows another without ever questioning their beliefs. One KJVO follows another without ever questioning their beliefs. And so it goes. It was the "politically correct" position to take. But that doesn't make it right. The majority isn't always right.

I don't have to know the intricacies of how wine is made. You need to study why they used unleavened bread and why they used unfermented wine. You need to realize that some molecules of yeast didn't change the nature of the bread or juice. You are straining at gnats.

 

...After sin took place. Yours is a moot point.



My reference to Solomon was to show that Israelites did understand even minute details of the processes involved with wine.

 

The yeast in the fermentation of wine has as much to do in the yeast in unleavened bread as it does in wine. You have a logical fallacy. You ignore and cannot apply your knowledge to all the information given to keeping bread unleavened. Your statements about "airborne particles" of yeast are totally ridiculous when applied to unleavened bread, the same bread which we would use in the Communion Service; the same bread which was required for them to be used in the Passover and in other such feasts. You are inconsistent. You don't know what to say if some particle of yeast would fall upon their unleavened bread. When you apply it to grape juice you say that the grape juice is fermented. But you can't use the same logic when applied to unleavened bread. You are inconsistent and illogical.
You imply that the Israelites had hi-tech equipment to study particles of yeast on a molecular level both on the grapes, and in the air. This is ridiculous, and shows what extremes you will go to in order to prove a point. BTW, in what year was the microscope invented?

It gives plenty of information of unleavened bread. But you conveniently ignore the facts. Both unleavened bread and unfermented wine are used in the Communion service, and for good reason.

Need I repeat myself. The truths contained in the book of Exodus that tell us about unleavend bread which you conveniently ignore. You want to focus on wine, but will not touch the parallel--unleavened bread. Both are made with yeast. It is the yeast that is used symbolically in the Bible, not the wine per se.

The symbolic nature of fermented wine is God's wrath.
The symbolic nature of fermented wine is drunkeness and perverseness. If you did not come to these conclusions then your study was lacking.

You are putting words in my mouth that I never said.
It is obvious that Noah knew how to make wine. The ability to make it is obvious. I am saying that they knew nothing of what you claim: "airborne particles of yeast," molecules of yeast on the skins of the grapes, etc. That they had no knowledge of. Their level of technology was not that high. Microscopes had not been invented at that time. They used unleavened bread and grape juice which the Bible does refer to as wine (oinos) though it be unfermented. You obviously need to study that word. To them yeast signified corruption and sin; and so it does. This is what the Bible teaches. That is why unleavened bread and grape juice was used. The bread had no leaven in it (possibly that airborne yeast you speak of); and the grape juice had no yeast in it (possibly that airborne yeast you speak of). Both were symbolic of the purity of the body and blood of Christ. The juice had not gone through the corrupting process of fermentation yet. That process which was visible to the naked eye, not just to microscopes.

If it is purely symbolic then there is no need for the corrupting influence of "fermentation" to be used which would then represent a "corruption" of the blood of Christ. Only grape juice could represent the purity of our Lord's blood. It was a symbol of the blood of our Lord. The Israelites did not look at the microscopic make-up of the grape. They looked at the picture as a whole.
I am not reading anything into the passage. I am using common sense. When was the microscope invented? Does the common person buying groceries for her household notice all the yeast on the grapes in the grocery store? No, they don't. To them there isn't any. To the Israelites there wasn't any. It was symbolically pure, and the consequent juice was symbolically pure.
History is often wrong. It is often tainted.

Level of poverty has nothing to do with it. Level of technology is the important thing to note here. The Israelites did not have microwaves. :tonofbricks:
They did not have our technology, but the same approximate technology (very little) as the nations that I have visited.
That was a slanderous statement and a false accusation, if I ever heard one. Where did I say that?
Here is what I did say:
I don't have to know about modern wine making to understand the Bible.
That is not an admission of ignorance.
I don't have to know about wood-working either to understand the Bible. To understand the Bible you must study.

History is not on my side when it comes to a pre-trib, pre-mil. return of Christ. But I firmly believe that I am right. I study the Bible. I base my beliefs on the Bible. It is my sole authority. That is not my authority.

Study your Bible. Find out what the word "wine" is translated from. Find out what those words mean. Find out what the Old English word "wine" means. Do some decent Bible study for once.
And BTW, in case you think it is a personal attack; you above post is also a personal attack of the same manner.

This is a lie.

This is your decision, based on a lie.

 

One more time, eating fruit does not bring about death. Look through mine and other's pertinent posts in this thread. At minimum, you cannot determine that death existed before sin based upon these verses.

 

DHK, as well as myself have given text from historians of the first century AD who attest that a non alcoholic wine can be preserved by following certain methods. I, myself, have used one of those methods to make a non alcoholic wine just as the ancients said could be done.

We do know about wine making. We know about making non alcoholic wine. As soon as you grasp that truth, you will begin to see the truth of wine and context in Scripture of Jesus' days upon the earth and before.

Wine was not only made alcoholic, it was nonalcoholic as well.

 

I've been thinkin again...

Now I am wondering if anything decayed prior to the fall?

 

It pays to think, Bible-boy. Just don't tell the boss:laugh:

I would have to say, no. Decay is part of the death process. Death was not known prior to the fall, so decay would not have been known either.

 

Okay, I'm going to put this in the most polite terms that I can. So if there was no decay prior to the fall what became of all the animal (and human) wastes. What with everything eating a very high fiber vegetarian diet, and we all know what fiber is good for, did the manure just pile up and sit there unchanged or did it decay and return to the soil?

 

Wait.....is this allowed on the Baptist Board?
I think the proper thing to do, when you are shown you are wrong is to first, never admit you are wrong.
Then frantically look for any way to twist the evidence to prove you are right.
Then if all else fails, attack the other poster.
Show how his choice of baseball team is way inferior to yours and thus could never be taken seriously on theological issues.

 

There is no way to know this for sure since the Bible does not say. But I have thought about it. One theory I have is that all food was 100% efficient and thus no waste at all.

 

I like it! But I would change it to say that all bodies were 100% efficient...