The first death?

[Shev]

It is easy, when thinking of the first physical death caused by the fall of Adam, to think of Abel, who was murdered by his brother Cain. It was the first murder, and it is easy to casually regard it as the first death. However, the first death was actually whichever animal (surely a lamb!) that was slain in order for Adam and Eve to be covered. So the first death was a sacrifice that was a type for the covering of all mankind's sins, and also a symbol for Christ being slain even from the foundation of the world.

[Lazarus Short]

A good observation!  :iagree:

[micah7:9]

I have found only assumption that an animal was slain for this purpose Gen 3:21  Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. 

Here I find the first evidence of death and blood Gen 4:8  And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
Gen 4:9  And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
Gen 4:10  And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
:2c:

[jugghead]

I have found only assumption that an animal was slain for this purpose Gen 3:21  Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. 

Here I find the first evidence of death and blood Gen 4:8  And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
Gen 4:9  And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
Gen 4:10  And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
:2c:

I would have to agree with Shev on this one

May I ask ..... what do you think the "coats of skin" were from if not from a slain animal?

[marie glen]

It is easy, when thinking of the first physical death caused by the fall of Adam, to think of Abel, who was murdered by his brother Cain. It was the first murder, and it is easy to casually regard it as the first death. However, the first death was actually whichever animal (surely a lamb!) that was slain in order for Adam and Eve to be covered. So the first death was a sacrifice that was a type for the covering of all mankind's sins, and also a symbol for Christ being slain even from the foundation of the world.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: Very interesting!

... :Chinscratch: hmmm, and, which to me, seems to be saying, this life of straying / imperfection-"missing the mark" has pained Father and Son, more than any one of us.. since God is everywhere present and all-knowing.. He witnesses (and even experiences!?) all sufferings. etc, which ever occur? I'm not saying, only to "save us" as is so commonly thought, that somehow we were captured (while He wasn't looking :faint: ) .. but the whole journey since the very first straying, which He in His wisdom has ordained (it all run its course?)..

[micah7:9]

I have found only assumption that an animal was slain for this purpose Gen 3:21  Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. 

Here I find the first evidence of death and blood Gen 4:8  And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
Gen 4:9  And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
Gen 4:10  And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
:2c:

I would have to agree with Shev on this one

May I ask ..... what do you think the "coats of skin" were from if not from a slain animal?

I don't know where the coats of skin were from, but if there was something slain there is no evidence of it. God could have just covered them, maybe the skin we have now. To me if we are to go along with some animal being slain for this purpose, it would be significant to mention it. But there is only an assumption which leads to speculation. :2c:

[Shev]

Hey Micah,

I believe you are technically correct - it is an assumption for sure. However, I like to think that it is a supported assumption based on other facts, such as the undoubted symbolism of man trying to clothe Himself before being clothed by God, the link to the lamb being slain from the foundation of the world, and also the fact that other interpretations would seem even more tenuous. I agree that my interpretation could be wrong, for sure, but I don't think it unreasonable to assume a coat of skin came from a creature that had to vacate that skin!

I do think there is merit to debating even assumptions though. For example, there are many here that assume the New Testament was actually written in Hebrew without the text itself explicitly saying so. They base this assumption on other facts, mainly linguistic, that lend considerable weight to their assumption, and make the matter well worth exploring.

[marie glen]

What a sobering thing! To know all death came about through disobedience. (And if we've ever lost anyone.  Or many.. And we hate to see them go and experience time without them, just how sobering.. death is.)

[micah7:9]

Hey Micah,

I believe you are technically correct - it is an assumption for sure. However, I like to think that it is a supported assumption based on other facts, such as the undoubted symbolism of man trying to clothe Himself before being clothed by God, the link to the lamb being slain from the foundation of the world, and also the fact that other interpretations would seem even more tenuous. I agree that my interpretation could be wrong, for sure, but I don't think it unreasonable to assume a coat of skin came from a creature that had to vacate that skin!

I do think there is merit to debating even assumptions though. For example, there are many here that assume the New Testament was actually written in Hebrew without the text itself explicitly saying so. They base this assumption on other facts, mainly linguistic, that lend considerable weight to their assumption, and make the matter well worth exploring.

"but I don't think it unreasonable to assume a coat of skin came from a creature that had to vacate that skin!"   Perhaps, but could not the Lord just have make coats of skins? Besides I don't believe man tried to clothe himself, he just tried to cover himself. I only stated there is no evidence at all that an animal was slain in Gen 3:21 

[Shev]

Hey Micah,

I believe you are technically correct - it is an assumption for sure. However, I like to think that it is a supported assumption based on other facts, such as the undoubted symbolism of man trying to clothe Himself before being clothed by God, the link to the lamb being slain from the foundation of the world, and also the fact that other interpretations would seem even more tenuous. I agree that my interpretation could be wrong, for sure, but I don't think it unreasonable to assume a coat of skin came from a creature that had to vacate that skin!

I do think there is merit to debating even assumptions though. For example, there are many here that assume the New Testament was actually written in Hebrew without the text itself explicitly saying so. They base this assumption on other facts, mainly linguistic, that lend considerable weight to their assumption, and make the matter well worth exploring.

"but I don't think it unreasonable to assume a coat of skin came from a creature that had to vacate that skin!"   Perhaps, but could not the Lord just have make coats of skins? Besides I don't believe man tried to clothe himself, he just tried to cover himself. I only stated there is no evidence at all that an animal was slain in Gen 3:21

Hey Micah,

I agree there is no direct evidence an animal was slain, but as there is no direct evidence of God making them in another manner either, my point was that it is not unreasonable to assume based on other factors.

Don't worry, I am not going to start a church/cult out of this assumption! The Church of the First Skins is a bit of a mouthful anyway. :)

God bless!

[micah7:9]

 :dsunny:

[eaglesway]

But just think about it. Skins are skins.....not that anyone should start a cult over it.

Hmmmm lets see, How much could we sell anointed lambskin for, you know, just to fund our "ministry".  :laugh:

[marie glen]

idk..  :Chinscratch: "Church of the Frst Skins" has a good ring to it.. might make folks curious as to just what it was all about! :laugh: :laugh:

...but would we have to wear animal skins? we'd have protestors outside the doors.. and get a lot of attention! :gimmefive:

[eaglesway]

oh yeah, I guess God made the first fur coat?

[Shev]

He must have used more than four skins...  :laughing7: