Physical Death Has ALWAYS Been A Natural Part of Life on Earth

One of the main premises of the Adam and Eve allegory  
is the absence of death in the beginning (Genesis 2-3).  
Eden (and Earth) was, supposedly,in a sinless state.  
(Sounds like Heaven on Earth to me, or close to it.)  
Moses (or God via him) is claiming that sin produces evil.  
So, since there was no sin yet, there shouldn't  
be any death, for death is a big form of evil.  
   
How are we to deal with such a claim ?  
First of all, Genesis is part of "the Law of Moses,"    
So we are NOT to equate it with the New Testament,  
As far as truthfulness and inerrancy is concerned !!!.  
The books of Moses are NOT on a par with the Gospel,  
For we read, "The Law was given by Moses, but ..  
TRUTH came by Jesus Christ [NOT Moses]" (John 1.17).  
   
Paul the Apostle confirms that view of John 1.17    
by declaring not once, but twice, that we, as Christians,  
"are NOT under the Law [of Moses]" (Romans 614; Galatians 5.18).  
   
How are we to deal with the premise that Earth was a    
death-free zone as long as SIN hadn't entered the world?    
Obviously, it was true only in regard to SPIRITUAL death.  
(I admit that physical death is pointed to here but that's mythological !!  
To de-mythologize, we look for the parts that are true, and scrap the rest.)    
Logically, it is SPIRITUAL death that came with the Fall of Man.
 
(For Paul's demythologized account of the Fall, see Romans 1.20-32.
It starts off with Creation (Rom. 1.20), just as in Genesis 1-3,
the Fall occurs not long after Creation(Genesis 1).
And it ends with "God's decree that those who practice [sin]  
deserve to die"(Rom. 1.32),  which corresponds directly  
with the account of the Fall in Genesis 2-3 where  
God tells Adam that sin will result in death(Gen.2.17).)
 
The idea that all the animals would live on and on, on and on,  
Multiplying but not dying  -- its childish, "storybook" religion,  
And now, since we're in the 21st century, I'd go so far as to say COMPLETELY INSANE !!  
That concept may well be what Paul the Apostle was referring to when    
he spoke of the need to "put away things that are childish"(1 Corinthians 13.11),  
Putting away things after we outgrow them - THAT is a test of our maturity,  
Just like holding onto them (when children) used to be a test of our loyalty to God.  
   
We're told as children not to have sex,  
Then in marriage we are supposed to have it,  
Which is a complete reversal, of course.  
Abraham was told to sacrifice his son,  
Then the angel reversed that command.  
   
The good part about giving up our belief in a literal Adam and Eve is this:  
We don't have to give it up all the way.Just like with Abraham and the ram.  
The angel told him to offer a substitutionary sacrifice in place of the literal one.  
Instead of holding onto Adam as the first man,  
We can hold onto him (more realistically) as a figure of the first farmer(Gen. 3.23).   
Farmers were at the vanguard for mankind at the dawn of civilization.  
 
The Bible's geneological record puts Adam at around 4,000 BC,
which be thought of as a "shadow"of the truth (Colossians 2.15-17; Hebrews 10.1). 
For, archeology estimates the agricultural revolution occurred around 8,000 BC.  
The dawn of civilization was marked by nomads settling down, living in villages.  
Agriculture is what enabled that to happen.  
   
The deathlessness idea in Genesis 1-2, is sort of carried over  
in the form of near-endless lifespans listed later on (Genesis 5).  
People living 800 or 900 years -- that's FUTURISTIC rather than historical.  
It reminds me of how Christ's sweeping of the moneychangers out of the temple  
Is placed at the start of Christ's 3 year ministry in John (John  2.13-22 ).  
Whereas the other 3 accounts place it at the very end(Mt 21.12-13; Mk 12.15-18; Lk 19.45-48).  
If we assume that the three accounts are correct, just what is John doing ??  
He may be throwing out the rules of convention, the chronological timeline to put  
that event first for the sake of emphasis, in an act of unbridled boldness. But WHY ?  
 
Maybe God is giving us a precedent to go by in interpreting Genesis 5 !!!  
I mean, if John can put something in the beginning that  
doesn't belong there but which does belong at the end,  
Then the question arises, Has this happened in other, earlier, Bible passages??  
Well, a world in which longevity extends to even 969 years for Methuselah (Gen 5.27) --
THAT belongs in, NOT the past, but the future (that science, God-ordained, will bring us).
For it is in the future that "the days of a man will become like the days of a tree"(Isaiah 65.20-22).
 
PS: death was supposed to happen "in the [very] day of Man's sinning"(Genesis 2.17)
                    "In the day that you eat of it [the tree of
                     knowledge of good and evil], you shall die."
Since Adam and Eve DIDN'T die physically on the very day that they ate the forbidden fruit
But did die spiritually ("Their minds became darkened," Romans 1.22,28),
Doesn't this show that SPIRITUAL death, NOT physical, is what came with the Fall?
Which means that physical death was already present - as it should be.