We were made to believe that we die because of the sin committed by Adam and Eve. The popular thinking is that had Adam and Eve not sinned, we would have lived forever. But is that really so? The curse concerning Adam is in Gen. 3 17-19. Note that it was only Adam that God did not curse directly. He cursed the land (read vs 17 very well). It was the effect of the curse on Adam that God was talking about. What God was saying is that Adam would continue to work hard till he die. The task of Adam was supposed to be a pleasant one (2:15).

2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and keep it.

Now after the disobedience, it was hard work: thorns, thistles, weed, pests etc. Let me quote part 17 to 19 of chapter 3

17 , cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweet of thy face shall thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return

The operative word here is 'till'. Here is what Oxford Advanced Learner say: up to the time when. To paraphrase that sentence, we can say: you will continue to work hard until you die. You will not rest until you die.

What does all these mean. If they had not eaten the fruit, our mothers will not experience birth pains. Farming would have been very easy and pleasant. Why did God chase the miserable pair away? Read Gen 3: 22 & 23. So what do you think? Peace

I think it is all crap and horseshit

MisterMan:

We were made to believe that we die because of the sin committed by Adam and Eve.

For some (or many) of us, the belief still holds

The popular thinking is that had Adam and Eve not sinned, we would have lived forever.

Maybe that's the popular belief, but that's not necessarily what the bible says: from Gen. 3;21 one can infer that if the man (in his fallen state) should eat of the tree of life, then he will live forever. To my knowledge, the bible is silent about what his fate would have been if he hadn't eaten the tree of knowledge. But my guess is that he probably would have eaten from the tree of life.

But is that really so?

why do you think it isn't so? You don't really give any cogent reasons in your post

The curse concerning Adam is in Gen. 3 17-19. Note that it was only Adam that God did not curse directly.

the curse is not 'concerning Adam'. the curse was to the ground - and it was a direct consequence of Adam's actions. By disobeying God, he had violated the initial order of things as God created them Gen. 1;31 (ie everything was very good albeit perfect). that perfection of things was lost
Also, its not 'only Adam' that God did not curse directly; He did not curse Eve either (directly or indirectly). Gen 3;16; "to the woman He said"

He cursed the land (read vs 17 very well).

I read it. "Cursed is the ground (land) because of you" in order words, because of your actions, the ground is cursed. Simple.

It was the effect of the curse on Adam that God was talking about

I wonder why you're arriving at the wrong conclusions. Its the other way round - Adam was not cursed; his actions resulted in the land being cursed. Its the effect of Adam's sin. Are you forgetting that sinning has consequences, he (Adam) knew the consequences. Adam was not decieved (see 1Tim2;14).

What God was saying is that Adam would continue to work hard till he die. The task of Adam was supposed to be a pleasant one (2:15).

2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and keep it.

Now after the disobedience, it was hard work: thorns, thistles, weed, pests etc. Let me quote part 17 to 19 of chapter 3

17 , cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweet of thy face shall thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return

Ok?

The operative word here is 'till'. Here is what Oxford Advanced Learner say: up to the time when. To paraphrase that sentence, we can say: you will continue to work hard until you die. You will not rest until you die.

I'm really at a loss to what your point is, however, basically, a life without christ, in sin, is meaningless. Read ecclesiastes. In Christ, there is meaning AND fulfillment.

What does all these mean.

It means just what it says without misreading concepts that aren't taught into the scriptures.

If they had not eaten the fruit, our mothers will not experience birth pains.

Again, not necessarily true; the punishment (note, not curse) was that he would 'greatly increase' her pains in childbearing (Gen. 3;16); that doesn't connote that she would not have experienced any pain(s) had she not been decieved, but that it would not have been to the same degree. There is nothing wrong with normal, moderate amounts of pain - there's pain involved in many physiologic processes (not to be crude but sometimes there's pain with/in defeacation) - excessive pain however is undesirable.

Farming would have been very easy and pleasant. Why did God chase the miserable pair away? Read Gen 3: 22 & 23. So what do you think? Peace

He chased them away for the very reasons he stated in the scriptures you read and quoted. Cheers.

I don't really know what your underlying issues are - i can't seem to get it from your post, except for the errors you had in your inferences/conclusions - however, i just want to say that those chapters couldn't be plainer than they are. Not that deep things aren't contained in them, they or there are, but that one can easily grasp the major concepts there and make meaning of it all. As per the title of the topic, death entering through sin, i believe it is clear from the text and your post did not undermine that truth in any way.
On re-reading your post though it seems you fail to realize the import of Adam's sin, rather, you're focussing on the consequence rather than the action that brought about the consequence. the consequence is not the whole picture; you need to understand the action, so that it would give you an inkling into God's mind and his requirements, as regards obedience, man's resposibility, doing right, and so on. You also need to study and understand what led to their action ie Satan's deception(Gen.3;1-5), Eve's misinterpreation of God's word ("neither shall you touch it" 2:17 versus 3;3), her lusts (Gen. 2:9a versus 3;6a - see also 1John 2;16), Adam's willful disobedience etc so you can understand man (in a generic sense) better (and of course, man's adversary). Cheers.

IDINRETE:

I think it is all crap and horseshit

that's your opinion; it does not undermine other people's convictions. Like one of my friends says 'assertion (in this case, subjective opinion) does not an argument make' . I'm sure some people thought the same of your post.
And: if thats what you think of it, there's really no need to get angry. I'm not angry that Zeus defeated the Titans . Except your anger is because some of us believe it, in which case, i can only say; no 'vess'. Cheers.