Perhaps Adam and Eve lived in Eden for an interminable amount of time.
Why does it say Adam was 130 when Seth was born [Gen 5:3]? The day they
ate of the fruit was the day they were to die -- but the meaning of this
was (obviously) not that they would drop dead before the sunset.
Perhaps it was the day that they became mortal, and maybe it was from
this day that their years were numbered?
The text in Genesis suggests that there are a number of people around very
early in the narrative [Gen 4:14,17]. This is a little hard to work out
in just the times given, but if Adam/Eve had lived for a long time and
fulfilled their initial charge:
[Genesis 1:28] And God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful
and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish
of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing
that moves on the earth."
then it isn't suprising.
The main requirement of the Scripture seems to be
[Genesis 3:20] Now the man called his wife's name Eve,
because she was the mother of all {the} living.
and that Adam was the first man [1 Cor 15:45].
The suggested interpretation raises some questions:
Did pre-fall children become mortal when Adam/Eve did, or
were they always mortal? Could any die accidental deaths?
Where did their pre-fall children live in relationship to Eden?
Did their pre-fall children have the kind of relationship with God
that Adam and Eve had?
but it also suggests some answers to other questions, like:
How did Adam name all those animals so quick?
One objection I have heard is tied into some view of original
sin being passed through maternal lineage (with implications for
the virgin birth and the sinlessness of Christ).
But the only related discussion I can actually find in the Scripture is:
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and
death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--
for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when
there is no law. [Romans 5:12-13]
i.e. that it spread to all men, but not necessarily through conception.
***
If anybody would care to share their thoughts on this possibility,
I would appreciate it -- particularly if you can point out Scripture
that represents a glaring flaw in the logic.
--Dave