Would Adam have lived (physically) forever but for the fruit bite?

[RedFan]

Human cells are not designed to last for eternity. But maybe they really were designed that way initially, and Adam's cells underwent a fundamental mortality change when he ate the forbidden fruit. Who thinks so? Who thinks not? Give your reasons, and try to focus on physical death rather than other cellular changes (like Eve experiencing pain in childbirth when she wouldn't have before being booted out of the Garden).

[Where I am going with this: If Calvary reversed the curse, and the curse included physical death, there is a bit of a disconnect when the born-again believer experiences physical death -- which I suspect was something the earliest Christians didn't expect would happen to them, and may have been the occasion for Paul to write First Thessalonians (likely the earliest writing in the NT) to put the kibosh on that assumption.]

 

[SteVen]

This is a great topic, thanks.
I had previously done a topic on another forum asking the question:

What is the affect on The Fall and The Atonement, if Adam was not the first human?​

Since Jesus died to pay the death penalty for original sin, what happens if you remove the original sinner?
Or to state this another way... How does our view of origins affect our doctrine?
Trying to sort this out in my own mind. Stuck somewhere between science and religion.
Send help! - LOL

This scripture shows that the fate of all humankind rested on the actions of the two Adams.

Romans 5:18-19
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

\

 

[SteVen]

Human cells are not designed to last for eternity. But maybe they really were designed that way initially, and Adam's cells underwent a fundamental mortality change when he ate the forbidden fruit. Who thinks so? Who thinks not? Give your reasons, and try to focus on physical death rather than other cellular changes (like Eve experiencing pain in childbirth when she wouldn't have before being booted out of the Garden).

This raises a lot of questions.
1) What was the death that were the consequences of the original sin? (physical or spiritual?)
2) What if Eve had eaten but not Adam? (would his headship have saved her?)
3) What if neither had eaten? (your question)
4) What about the Tree of Life and what God said about it after the Fall?

/

 

[Mr E]

Human cells are not designed to last for eternity. But maybe they really were designed that way initially, and Adam's cells underwent a fundamental mortality change when he ate the forbidden fruit. Who thinks so? Who thinks not? Give your reasons, and try to focus on physical death rather than other cellular changes (like Eve experiencing pain in childbirth when she wouldn't have before being booted out of the Garden).

[Where I am going with this: If Calvary reversed the curse, and the curse included physical death, there is a bit of a disconnect when the born-again believer experiences physical death -- which I suspect was something the earliest Christians didn't expect would happen to them, and may have been the occasion for Paul to write First Thessalonians (likely the earliest writing in the NT) to put the kibosh on that assumption.]

It's fascinating, but not exactly like that. I'm a bit of a genetic nerd.

Our cells regenerate constantly. The process is simple cell division-- and you could think of it actually as cellular reproduction. A single cell divides and becomes two, without diminishing the original. Think of it as Eve, being taken out of Adam since you are pointing toward genesis (the source material for genetics).

While it's true that our cells are not designed to last for eternity-- there is no reason that cellular regeneration could not continue indefinitely. Our cells constantly are dying-- daily, in fact. Our skin cells, the most vulnerable of all cells as they are essentially on the outside of us-- are shed daily- to the tune of about 500 million of them. You lose and regenerate a whole new set of skin cells every few weeks.

In the cellular sense-- You are a river. You look at yourself in the mirror and it's the same old you, or you look at the river and it's the same old river, but not really. It's not the same water you looked at last week. That water continued on downstream and when you look at the river now, it's actually all new water. The same goes for you. "You" are not the same collection of cells you were seven years ago. A whole new you has become 'you' by cellular regeneration.

So for Adam to be physically immortal-- all you would have to do is find the cellular regeneration switch that gets flipped at about 120 years of age as the present upper limit-- and flip it back on. The 'tree of life' was designed to keep on producing fruit forever.

 

[RedFan]

Well, let's take the cell biology out of the mix and focus on the theological: However He might have managed it, did God design Adam to live physically forever -- and alter that after Adam's disobedience? I'd like your take on that question.

 

[Mr E]

Well, let's take the cell biology out of the mix and focus on the theological: However He might have managed it, did God design Adam to live physically forever -- and alter that after Adam's disobedience? I'd like your take on that question.

Scripture says yes. Gen 6 tells us Yahweh changed his mind and put a new limit on humans as a ‘best before’ expiration date.

 

[Mr E]

Nobody?

I was hoping someone would counter that.

There is no 120 year lifespan dictated by scripture. Our bodies were designed to live forever. We just need to find the switch, or the key that tells our cells to keep reproducing. There is a tremendous amount of research being done today in an attempt to find this cell signaling mechanism.

 

[Mr E]

This is a great topic, thanks.
I had previously done a topic on another forum asking the question:

What is the affect on The Fall and The Atonement, if Adam was not the first human?​

Since Jesus died to pay the death penalty for original sin, what happens if you remove the original sinner?
Or to state this another way... How does our view of origins affect our doctrine?
Trying to sort this out in my own mind. Stuck somewhere between science and religion.
Send help! - LOL

This scripture shows that the fate of all humankind rested on the actions of the two Adams.

Romans 5:18-19
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

\

Have you had a chance to read @O'Darby III blog post on the subject?

The quest for a Christian narrative that makes sense


Snipped>>>

Looking at doctrines such as the Fall of Man and the Atonement in conservative Christian terms, I'm curious as to what sense anyone thinks they make? Taking these doctrines at face value, the creator of the universe allowed a purely evil, supernaturally intelligent being to beguile the first woman into disobeying the creator's command not to eat the fruit of a particularly attractive tree. When the naive woman (who, by definition, didn't know the difference between good and evil) succumbed to the urgings of this purely evil, supernaturally intelligent being (as the omniscient creator had always known she would), the creator decided her single act of disobedience had somehow infected mankind and all the rest of creation. Some vast period of time later, the creator made everything OK, at least from his perspective, by sending his son to die on the cross and by this act somehow redeeming mankind and rectifying all wrongs. But thereafter, the creator allowed the purely evil, supernaturally intelligent being to continue to roam the planet for at least 2000+ years, wreaking havoc and leading souls astray while the creator tried to win these souls for himself by working through those who believed in his son and were willing to spread the message of salvation.

 

[RedFan]

Well, I think the Genesis account of the Fall is a metaphor, not historically accurate -- but that doesn't change the concern @O'Darby III expresses. My own conclusion is that we humans just reckon justice differently than God, and for that reason have difficulty understanding either our own punishment for ancestral sin, or God's punishment of His Son in our stead, as a "just" outcome.

 

[Mr E]

Well, I think the Genesis account of the Fall is a metaphor, not historically accurate -- but that doesn't change the concern @O'Darby III expresses. My own conclusion is that we humans just reckon justice differently than God, and for that reason have difficulty understanding either our own punishment for ancestral sin, or God's punishment of His Son in our stead, as a "just" outcome.

Do you really think that God was punishing His son?

For what crime?

 

[RedFan]

Do you really think that God was punishing His son?

For what crime?

For the sins of mankind.

 

[SteVen]

... the creator of the universe allowed a purely evil, supernaturally intelligent being to beguile the first woman into disobeying the creator's command not to eat the fruit of a particularly attractive tree. When the naive woman (who, by definition, didn't know the difference between good and evil) succumbed to the urgings of this purely evil, supernaturally intelligent being (as the omniscient creator had always known she would), ...

This is part of the Logos. (the logic, the reason, the plan) Established at creation.

/