Was man designed to die,

[scooteraz]

or is that a result of his disobedience? If the latter, what was the purpose of the tree of life mentioned in Gen. 3?

Just wanted to find out what the consensus was here, for my 1000th post.

[ptrallan01]

Man was not 'designed' to die. Scripture tells us that God told Adam and Eve that they could eat from any tree in the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This offer/provision included the tree of life that would allow man to live forever.

After eating from the tree of knowledge, man was expelled from the garden so that he couldn't eat from the tree of life. This meant physical death would follow the spiritual death which had already occurred.

We see in this the wisdom of our creator for had he allowed man to live forever in his fallen condition, His Son, our Saviour, could not have been born of woman and died as a man to take away our sins.

Physical death is therefore a brutal mercy that our creator has allowed to accomplish his goal of having us with him forever. Death both spiritual and physical are our enemy. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life!

Happy 1000!

[scooteraz]

Great explanation, except that it didn't actually answer the question. So, what was the purpose of the tree of life?

If it (the tree of life) was to "allow" eternal life, that explanation inextricably implies that man was designed to die. I have no problem with the rest of your explanation, but it didn't actually answer the core question.

[ptrallan01]

Man was designed with the 'possibility' of death. The choice between what he would eat was the method for determining the outcome, if he chose God over himself (or his wife), he lived forever. If he chose himself over God, he would die.

[scooteraz]

So you're saying that had Adam and Eve eaten from the tree of life first, they would not have had the "opportunity" to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Would that have been via the removal of said tree or through a loss of free will?

[Kitty]

I would be interested in knowing why the question is important to you.

[ptrallan01]

That God would have done something different then banish them from the Garden. I don't know what He would have done.

Remember that scripture tells us that God knows the end from before the beginning so He knew what would happen in the garden and was prepared for it. Had something else been a probability He would have had the right plan ready for it.

Hey Kitty, this has always been something that puzzled me since I was a kid. I understand Scooteraz's inquiry and perhaps fascination. Had there been some different actions what would the world be like now? Just something to think about.

[Crunchyriff]

From what I read in the Bible: Neither man, nor creation itself, was "designed to die".
It was corrupted by sin.

IIRC, the tree of life will be available once again at the end of time. Since we don't have enough information on it in the scriptures, much of what we might say about could be supposition and conjecture.
That said, I wonder if the tree of life is something of a 'reward' from the Father: one that Adam had access to before the fall, and one we will access some day. We will already have Eternal Life, so perhaps the tree of life is a bonus for those who have incorruptible, glorified bodies. Just a thought.

We will know for sure one day, though!

[scooteraz]

I would be interested in knowing why the question is important to you.

And I'd be interested why the importance of the question to me is of interest to you.:wasntme:

Would the specifics of my interest and how I came to post the question somehow change the exegesis of this part of the Bible? But you answer my original question and I will answer yours.:D

[scooteraz]

From what I read in the Bible: Neither man, nor creation itself, was "designed to die".
It was corrupted by sin.

IIRC, the tree of life will be available once again at the end of time. Since we don't have enough information on it in the scriptures, much of what we might say about could be supposition and conjecture.
That said, I wonder if the tree of life is something of a 'reward' from the Father: one that Adam had access to before the fall, and one we will access some day. We will already have Eternal Life, so perhaps the tree of life is a bonus for those who have incorruptible, glorified bodies. Just a thought.

We will know for sure one day, though!

So, asking the question that comes up with this explanation, the working theory here is that Adam (and Eve) had access to both trees, but chose the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. After that befuddling experience, they did not think to run to said tree and get eternal life; God had to keep the from eating the tree of life by putting up the barrier.

Of course, even in this answer, the purpose of a tree of life in an existence where death doesn't occur is a question. Why would the tree be made available later? Do we not have eternal salvation through the action of Jesus? If so, what would be the future purpose of the tree of life?

I agree that we will know one day...

[Kitty]

But you answer my original question and I will answer yours.:D
The answer to your question is, there's no way for any man to know the answer to your question in this life.

My curiosity stems from wondering if you're onto something, and if so, I wondered how you got there. Sometimes my interest will be piqued by a particular verse or circumstance in the Bible about which I've never wondered before. I think at those times maybe God is trying to show me something that I hadn't been ready for up to that point.

Wondering what the purpose of the tree of life is and whether or not man was designed to die doesn't strike me as something one would typically just start wondering about for no reason. So to repeat myself, I'd be interested in knowing why the question is important to you.

If you have some reason for not wanting to say, then please do refrain from answering. Either way is fine with me.

Kitty

[Teleguy]

My take on the garden thing:

Man lived in the garden and it was paradise on earth, and they were innocent and could have lived eternally.

Their eyes were opened to know good and evil, and they were banished from the garden, and death entered into their reality because knowing good from evil opened their eyes to something besides innocence and odedience.

God SPARED THEM (us) from an eternity of being in the fallen state by allowing death, and promising redemption to come, after His working out a plan. The death and resurrection of Jesus points to the necessity of putting to death - death itself, once and for all.

When saved we become a part of that plan and He uses us to do something (but we don't get to see what He's doing with us). We must be obediant and believe the promise, which is a form of innocence as a type: Faith (which He provides us with).

So mankind was born once to eternal life but disobeyed. God in His love allowed death in to deliver us from an eternity of lostness. Then He provided a deliverer. More will be revealed. But not until the time is fulfilled.

So in my belief mankind was created eternal: born once.
But realizes the promise by being born twice, and putting to death our fleshly natures, which are taking us to hell, where evil has been banished to, ultimately.

Kinda symbolic I guess, but I also believe it's literal. So the story is symbolic - a map of the territory. But the territory is US, and the sojourn.

This make sense? If it doesn't, PLEASE quit listening!

[Micter]

My take on the garden thing:

Man lived in the garden and it was paradise on earth, and they were innocent and could have lived eternally.

Their eyes were opened to know good and evil, and they were banished from the garden, and death entered into their reality because knowing good from evil opened their eyes to something besides innocence and odedience.

God SPARED THEM (us) from an eternity of being in the fallen state by allowing death, and promising redemption to come, after His working out a plan. The death and resurrection of Jesus points to the necessity of putting to death - death itself, once and for all.

When saved we become a part of that plan and He uses us to do something (but we don't get to see what He's doing with us). We must be obediant and believe the promise, which is a form of innocence as a type: Faith (which He provides us with).

So mankind was born once to eternal life but disobeyed. God in His love allowed death in to deliver us from an eternity of lostness. Then He provided a deliverer. More will be revealed. But not until the time is fulfilled.

So in my belief mankind was created eternal: born once.
But realizes the promise by being born twice, and putting to death our fleshly natures, which are taking us to hell, where evil has been banished to, ultimately.

Kinda symbolic I guess, but I also believe it's literal. So the story is symbolic - a map of the territory. But the territory is US, and the sojourn.

This make sense? If it doesn't, PLEASE quit listening!

I'm glad you took the time to type that so I didn't have to.

[Teleguy]

I'm glad you took the time to type that so I didn't have to.

It was Clif notes. From an old course I took on Literary Criticism.:D

[Micter]

It was Clif notes. From an old course I took on Literary Criticism.:D

sweet, I didn't have to type it and neither did you!

:yeah:

[stephen]

The Tree of Life makes its first appearance in the Creation story. It makes its second and final appearance in Revelation.

Jesus Christ is the Alpha (the beginning of creation) and the Omega (the end, or the finishing). He is the Tree of Life.

Sin keeps us from the Tree of Life.

It took a great many years for us to learn how to die: Adam lived 800 plus years, Methuselah lived 900 years.... It took a while for them to learn how to die.

BUT, their spirits are eternal, and they will suffer eternal death, which is separation from God.

The physical body was created to have either the possibility to live forever, or die a physical death. And we will see that with the Tribulation Saints, that emerge out the other side of the 7 year tribulation, for they will be gathered up in the air when Jesus returns, and changed from corruptible, to incorruptible. But again, they need the Tree of Life: Without it, no life.

[Strat-tastic]

I have the theory that the tree of life hadn't yet come into season; the fruit wasn't ripe and ready to eat at the time of the Fall. Perhaps God was waiting with perfect timing.

[ptrallan01]

makes an earlier appearance in the Revelation 2:7, where Jesus says that to those who overcome he will give the right to eat from the tree of life. Perhaps it is necessary to stem the results of corruption of the flesh. But clearly God did not want man to eat from it and live forever in his fallen state.

[Crunchyriff]

Perhaps it is necessary to stem the results of corruption of the flesh. But clearly God did not want man to eat from it and live forever in his fallen state.

I don't know how that might be, being we will have glorifed bodies. Whatever the case, we will know one day.

:yeah:

[scooteraz]

To answer Kitty's question and state my beliefs:

Why am in interested in this question? First, there are no deep dark secrets that I am keeping and am uncomfortable with discussing. Bur rather because I don't believe that information is just kept in the Bible for no reason. Even those parts that don't make a lot of sense, or seem pretty harsh. The only thing I can conclude from the story is that God DID design man to die. That is different from intent. But that is hard to explain to others, particularly new believers (a couple of which who have asked me the question).

Let me explain with an example. A while ago, there was a big story in the newspaper that scientists had pretty much discarded the idea of creation. But this was for a very interesting reason. They had decided, from their studies that all living things shared about 90% of DNA. Therefore biodiversity that we see had to come from random chance. I found this a very (may I say VERY, VERY) interesting conclusion. Why? Because I'm an engineer. What does that have to do with anything, you ask? Just this, most of my designs share 90% of the raw basics. Let me use building structures for instance. In the US, most structural engineers use a book called the AISC Steel Construction Manual. Almost all beams, columns, inter-ties, and connections used in construction are in the manual. A group has figured out these designs, and so you don't have to re-calculate how to use them. You re-use work that was already done. In the same manner, a Creator would, most probably, re-use as much of previous design as possible, and make for an economical design. I find additional evidence of this in how we behave, since we were created in His image.

I believe God created man to die as a safety valve. So, when Adam and Eve sinned, they would not have to live forever in a fallen state. That would be disaster (as others have mentioned). Perhaps the tree of life did not come to fruit in time for the fall. Perhaps the Tree of Life is another name for Jesus and the fruit of His actions. I don't know (and really, I'm not sweating that detail). But I believe the mention of the tree of life mentioned in Gen 3 is a reference to Christ and his sacrifice.

But, I still have problems with this exegesis, since I think most of the Bible should be taken literally....well you can see where calling the tree of life a metaphor goes. OTOH, that would not be the only metaphor for Christ in the Bible.

In any event, whether there was a literal tree or not, I think the purpose of the tree of life in Gen 3 is to point to the later salvation through Christ. But the barrier of death was put between us and that everlasting life. Essentially, God is telling us there that we will still have to suffer death to have everlasting life.

In any event, I thought the question might offer a chance for a different view that I had not yet heard. Oh, and the possibility of a lively discussion could be fun too.

[Kitty]

I like that engineering example.

Sometimes I think there are parts of the Bible that are both literal and metaphorical at the same time. Maybe the Tree of Life is one of those.

[stephen]

I am of the opinion that the Tree of Life is a metaphorical reference to Christ.

We are told throughout the New Testament that if we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior and follow after Him, we will not see death, and will live forever with Him.

IF Adam and Eve had not sinned, they would have had access to Jesus, The Tree of Life. But, they sinned, and they where denied access to the Tree/Jesus.

He has been called the Lamb, The Lion, The Vine, the Gate. The Tree of Life fits Him too. imho.

[Teleguy]

I am of the opinion that the Tree of Life is a metaphorical reference to Christ...


Outstanding!:clap:

I think you put your finger right on it!

[Jaybo]

But they wouldn't have "needed" Jesus, because they wouldn't have eaten the fruit, nor sinned. hmmm

To me - not much of Genesis is literal, or a good science text book. And the fact (to our Western minds) that it's not all spelled out clearly, with 50 different proof texts and video evidence, as well as expert testimony befuddles many, and discourages them from reading onwards, or accepting and studying much of it.

Creation, Giants, the Flood, Garden, snakes with legs, Tower of Babel.,... the list goes on. What's literal, what should be defended, how does the rest of the bible get reflected through the lens of those passages.

[ptrallan01]

I have to disagree with Jesus being the Tree of Life.

When Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, nothing happened. When Adam ate the corruption became complete. Why? Not because Adam was the man and Eve the Woman but because Adam in his sinless state could have become the appropriate sacrifice for her sin and redeemed her. Since he didn't everything(one) was lost necessitating the Second Adam, Jesus Christ. This is a reflection on Paul's teaching in 1st Cortinthians.

Further we are told that both the Father and the Son would sit on the throne in Revelation and out of the throne would come the river of the water of life and that in the midst of the river would be the tree of life and that its leaves would be for the healing of the nations.

I believe that the metaphor loses its cohesion in Revelation 22, so we need to understand it differently.

[stephen]

I believe that the metaphor loses its cohesion in Revelation 22, so we need to understand it differently.

I dont think it does loose cohesion bro, Jesus is "The King", and all nations will bow down too Him, and surrender their sovereignty too Him. Christ will heal all nations, and they will become His (no longer any nations).

I still believe the cohesion is very much there still.............

Good discussion.

[stephen]

But they wouldn't have "needed" Jesus, because they wouldn't have eaten the fruit, nor sinned. hmmm

What is it that keeps us from accessing the Heavenly "Holy of Holies"? Sin.

Up till the time of their sin, there was no death in them. When they sinned, death was "born" into man.

It then took a Blameless Sacrifice to remove that death (separation from God).

Remember, when we talk about death, it is not just the physical bodies cessation of life, it is also the spiritual aspect: The spirit is eternal, and it lives in either Life (in God's presence), or death (denied God's presence), eternally.

[scooteraz]

I have to disagree with Jesus being the Tree of Life.
Fair enough

When Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, nothing happened.
I'm not sure this is true. Nothing was obvious, but the fall had started. Sort of like we could say that when the airliners were hijacked on 9/11, that nothing happened (until they hit the buildings). Because the outward view didn't change doesn't mean that the change didn't occur.

When Adam ate the corruption became complete. Why? Not because Adam was the man and Eve the Woman but because Adam in his sinless state could have become the appropriate sacrifice for her sin and redeemed her. Since he didn't everything(one) was lost necessitating the Second Adam, Jesus Christ.
Interesting, but this would make Adam equal to the Son of God. Not sure that holds up so well.

This is a reflection on Paul's teaching in 1st Cortinthians.
I don't see Adam as the potential perfect sacrifice in 1Cor. I only see the teaching of the restored state.

Further we are told that both the Father and the Son would sit on the throne in Revelation and out of the throne would come the river of the water of life and that in the midst of the river would be the tree of life and that its leaves would be for the healing of the nations.

I believe that the metaphor loses its cohesion in Revelation 22, so we need to understand it differently.

All metaphors breakdown at some point.lol

[ptrallan01]

It is after Adam ate that BOTH their eyes were opened. Prior to that Adam was sinless. Paul tells us that Jesus came as the second Adam. From this I, and perhaps only I, understand that prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, that Adam was in a sinless state. In this state he was capable of redeeming Eve and the balance of creation. Nothing was cursed yet, not man, not woman, not the earth, not the creation. Had he gone to God and interceded on Eve's behalf things might have been different. Instead he chose to follow his wife rather than God, ate, and then both their eyes were opened....and Adam lost his ability to be a redeemer.

The biblical account puts the blame on Adam for sin entering the world, for by one man death entered (adam) by on man it is taken away (Jesus) is Paul's teaching in Roman's. This gives further credence to Adam's ability to have changed the course of history by not eating or by redeeming Eve. Eve is not blamed for the entry of sin but is revealed to be deceived by the enemy in Genesis 3 and 1st Timothy 2. Adam was not deceived but by choice committed the 2nd sin and leaving no room for the redemption of men by men.

Christ the second Adam, came and did what the first would not do. The difference being one of volition. Christ is willing at all times and in all ways to do the Father's will. Adam was not but COULD have. God, in His foreknowledge of our condition (to borrow a line from Parliment/Funkadelic) had already set the plan in motion for Christ to come as the second Adam and redeem us.

BTW notice carefully that the name of the tree is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, not the Tree of Knowledge of the Difference Between Good and Evil. We simply obtained the knowledge of various things and didn't obtain wisdom with it to know how to follow the good and shun the evil.

Following from the engineering example above, man was created with the potential of life and death but not designed to die. When we build a car we can build it to last for 10,000 miles or 1,000,000 miles. If the latter, we still need to take steps to prevent entropy, i.e. oil changes, trans fluid changes, gas in the tank. I see the Tree of Life as a one time maintenance job on the physical body that brings out the permanent potential for life which we were offered at the outset of creation but instead chose the quick fix and wound up with an eternal problem.

[Micter]

It is after Adam ate that BOTH their eyes were opened. Prior to that Adam was sinless. Paul tells us that Jesus came as the second Adam. From this I, and perhaps only I, understand that prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, that Adam was in a sinless state. In this state he was capable of redeeming Eve and the balance of creation. Nothing was cursed yet, not man, not woman, not the earth, not the creation. Had he gone to God and interceded on Eve's behalf things might have been different. Instead he chose to follow his wife rather than God, ate, and then both their eyes were opened....and Adam lost his ability to be a redeemer.

The biblical account puts the blame on Adam for sin entering the world, for by one man death entered (adam) by on man it is taken away (Jesus) is Paul's teaching in Roman's. This gives further credence to Adam's ability to have changed the course of history by not eating or by redeeming Eve. Eve is not blamed for the entry of sin but is revealed to be deceived by the enemy in Genesis 3 and 1st Timothy 2. Adam was not deceived but by choice committed the 2nd sin and leaving no room for the redemption of men by men.

Christ the second Adam, came and did what the first would not do. The difference being one of volition. Christ is willing at all times and in all ways to do the Father's will. Adam was not but COULD have. God, in His foreknowledge of our condition (to borrow a line from Parliment/Funkadelic) had already set the plan in motion for Christ to come as the second Adam and redeem us.

BTW notice carefully that the name of the tree is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, not the Tree of Knowledge of the Difference Between Good and Evil. We simply obtained the knowledge of various things and didn't obtain wisdom with it to know how to follow the good and shun the evil.

Following from the engineering example above, man was created with the potential of life and death but not designed to die. When we build a car we can build it to last for 10,000 miles or 1,000,000 miles. If the latter, we still need to take steps to prevent entropy, i.e. oil changes, trans fluid changes, gas in the tank. I see the Tree of Life as a one time maintenance job on the physical body that brings out the permanent potential for life which we were offered at the outset of creation but instead chose the quick fix and wound up with an eternal problem.

First of all, the "I and only I" comment is a bit well...let's just say it doesn't come across very well.

Christ the second Adam seems to refer to the fact that Adam was born sinless as was Jesus. I don't see redemption in Adam being taught in scripture.

[LesStrat]

To expand on your premise, Jesus was born of a woman BY the Holy Spirit. Joseph was NOT Jesus' father. Why not?

Because Adam's sin is passed down through the fathers.

[ptrallan01]

I was trying to be clear that this is my own understanding and not something that I was taught or came from some recognized school or system of theology. I didn't mean it as though I have some greater understanding or authority. If I am in error here I don't want it to be blamed on someone else.

Please, accept my apology.

And scripture doesn't teach redemption in Adam because he sinned and was no longer a qualified redeemer.

[scooteraz]

It is after Adam ate that BOTH their eyes were opened.
By definition. Each eyes were opened after the eating. It was after she was deceived that Eve decided to also offer the fruit to Adam

Prior to that Adam was sinless.

Agreed

Paul tells us that Jesus came as the second Adam. From this I, and perhaps only I, understand that prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, that Adam was in a sinless state.

1) We all understand that both Adam and Eve were in a sinless state before the fall.
2) Adam was the beginning of man. Jesus, the Son of God (and God incarnate) was required to fix the foul-up of original man and give a new beginning. In that he is the second Adam. This does not necessarily imply that Adam could have fixed Eve's foul-up.

In this state he was capable of redeeming Eve and the balance of creation.

I don't think that follows. By what we have seen, the only way for Adam to have done this (if it were possible), would be to die. Even would have been left in the same state that we are in now after the death of Jesus; she would have to die to come to glory. So, where is the salvation there? It is not like Adam could have died for Eve, and everything would have been fine.

Nothing was cursed yet, not man, not woman, not the earth, not the creation. Had he gone to God and interceded on Eve's behalf things might have been different.

Interesting argument you pose there, but still, you are saying that Adam's sacrifice would have been even greater than Christ's, because Adam's would have kept the garden pristine. Don't think that is supported by the facts.

Instead he chose to follow his wife rather than God, ate, and then both their eyes were opened....and Adam lost his ability to be a redeemer.

Based on what I said above, I don't believe that Adam had the ability to be the redeemer in the first place. But I understand your logic.

The biblical account puts the blame on Adam for sin entering the world, for by one man death entered (adam) by on man it is taken away (Jesus) is Paul's teaching in Roman's. This gives further credence to Adam's ability to have changed the course of history by not eating or by redeeming Eve. Eve is not blamed for the entry of sin but is revealed to be deceived by the enemy in Genesis 3 and 1st Timothy 2. Adam was not deceived but by choice committed the 2nd sin and leaving no room for the redemption of men by men.

Only looked up Tim 2:14, and it seems to blame Eve
"14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." (NIV) Even makes the implication that perhaps Adam had been tempted by Satan and resisted, but it was the combined action of Satan and Eve that caused Adam's fall....:roll: Ok, that is a stretch, but no bigger than you make with the idea that Adam could have redeemed the world.

Christ the second Adam, came and did what the first would not do. The difference being one of volition. Christ is willing at all times and in all ways to do the Father's will. Adam was not but COULD have. God, in His foreknowledge of our condition (to borrow a line from Parliment/Funkadelic) had already set the plan in motion for Christ to come as the second Adam and redeem us.

But, if Christ's action could not wipe out sin and bring the world back to an Eden like state, how could have Adam's? He redeems us for a later life in glory.

BTW notice carefully that the name of the tree is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, not the Tree of Knowledge of the Difference Between Good and Evil. We simply obtained the knowledge of various things and didn't obtain wisdom with it to know how to follow the good and shun the evil.

Agreed. Not particularly germane to the OP, but ok.


Following from the engineering example above, man was created with the potential of life and death but not designed to die. When we build a car we can build it to last for 10,000 miles or 1,000,000 miles. If the latter, we still need to take steps to prevent entropy, i.e. oil changes, trans fluid changes, gas in the tank. I see the Tree of Life as a one time maintenance job on the physical body that brings out the permanent potential for life which we were offered at the outset of creation but instead chose the quick fix and wound up with an eternal problem.

So, in glory, we will all have to eat of the tree to maintain our warranty? I find that a bit odd...but then...

[Micter]

I was trying to be clear that this is my own understanding and not something that I was taught or came from some recognized school or system of theology. I didn't mean it as though I have some greater understanding or authority. If I am in error here I don't want it to be blamed on someone else.

Please, accept my apology.

And scripture doesn't teach redemption in Adam because he sinned and was no longer a qualified redeemer.

No apology necessary. It just didn't sound right so I thought I would nudge you for a clarification. :cool:

[Kitty]

Hey Peter,

I do follow your logic and I appreciate knowing a little bit about how you came to your conclusions. I agree that if Adam had chosen NOT to deliberately disobey God, he would have remained in a sinless state. I'm not sure I can go so far as to say he would have had the power to redeem Eve, though.

But in light of the concept of sin not entering the world until Adam ate the fruit, I think maybe the real question is not whether Adam could have redeemed Eve, but whether or not Eve would have required redemption at the time, i.e., if Adam had not tasted the fruit, then sin would not have entered the world and Eve wouldn't need to be redeemed. I admit, that part doesn't make any sense to me -- isn't disobeying God sin regardless of whether one is deceived or not? But that's what seems to be said in Romans. I'm sure there's something important in there, but I don't yet have a complete grasp on it.

The point is moot anyway; what happened, happened. The good news for today is that anyone who chooses to place their faith in Jesus Christ gets to be on the receiving end of his redemption. :)

Kitty

[Kitty]

And to bring it around to the original post, if I was forced to make a call, I would have to say that man was originally designed with a natural physical death being a part of his life. How that all would have played out if we had not sinned, I couldn't tell ya, but I bet the Tree of Life figured into it somewhere.

Kitty

[scooteraz]

And to bring it around to the original post, if I was forced to make a call, I would have to say that man was originally designed with a natural physical death being a part of his life. How that all would have played out if we had not sinned, I couldn't tell ya, but I bet the Tree of Life figured into it somewhere.

Kitty

This is my starting point. However, I think that man was designed to die only in the event that sin entered the world. If Adam had refused to eat the fruit, then I have no idea. Sin would have entered the world (Eve had already sinned, and I don't believe that Adam would have been able to pay for that), so how that would have worked out might be interesting, but not germane to our situation. I really think it a safety valve for an out of normal situation. Or, a better analogy, a rupture disk (a sort of safety valve that cannot be closed).