Re: Re no death prior to the fall....

From: Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>
Date: Tue Aug 02 2005 - 11:50:47 EDT

You bet! Any other thoughts about how this can be worked around? JimA

Bill Hamilton wrote:

>
>
> Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net> wrote:
>
> While the idea of no death before the fall is clearly somewhat widely
> accepted, I sure can't figure out why that idea would stick after a
> little thought.
>
> Suppose that death has not entered the world, that reproduction and
> population of the Earth has always been a part of God's master
> plan, and
> that children mercifully wait until the adults are 20 years old.
> Adam and Eve are generation 1.
> Adam and Eve beget Cain and Abel - Generation 2 - and the
> population has
> doubled.
> Cain and Abel take wives (wherever they came from) and produce
> children
> - generation 3 - and the population has at least doubled again
> (for this
> exercise, I just assumed 2 children per couple).
>
> Harkening back to an old math tale about such doubling, a peasant
> makes
> a deal for one grain of wheat for the first square of a
> checkerboard, 2
> grains for the second, 4 for the third square and so on, with the
> result
> that by the end of the checkboard he had "won" more than the world's
> production of wheat.
>
> Sure enough, it turns out that it takes just 32
> generation-to-generation
> doublings (640 years) to reach our present world population if
> noone dies.
>
> If you just continue this doubling process for 14 more generations
> (940
> years total), we are running out of space for people on Earth with
> about
> one person for every square yard.
> If this continues for 6000 years, just 300 generations, there are
> more
> people than atoms in the universe (by some reckonings).
>
> What's wrong with this picture?
> The math is not wrong, and it's simple to check.
> Is the idea of reproducing and populating the world wrong?
> Probably not.
> Or maybe reproductive sex is also the result of the fall!?
>
> While thinking about this problem a number of years ago I
> concluded that maybe reproductive sex was the result of the fall.
> But Scripture throws cold water on that one: God said to Eve, "I
> will _greatly increase_ your pains in childbearing". Childbearing
> is assumed. Since God said, "In the day (there's that pesky word
> again) you eat of it, you will die." So following the literalist
> path we need to look for something that happened in the day Adam
> and Eve ate of the tree. In that day they were banished from the
> Garden, where they enjoyed close communion with God. Is the loss
> of close communion with God a kind of death? Seems reasonable.
>
>
>
> Bill Hamilton
> William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
> 586.986.1474 (work) 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
> "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=34442/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
Received on Tue Aug 2 11:51:56 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 02 2005 - 11:51:56 EDT