What if death was in the world before Adam's sin

[GoodNewsJim]

Is it plausible that animals died before Adam sinned?

I'm wondering about the fossil record if man correctly assessed certain animals to having lived millions of years ago.

The geological record is easy to explain: A day for God is different than a day for man especially since the sun wasn't even created until the fourth day.

I'd like people's thoughts on this.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Psalm 104 actually describes the pre-fall state of nature, with God allowing lions to kill animals to eat.

 

[ClearSky]

Is it plausible that animals died before Adam sinned?

Yes, it is plausible. Animals could die a violent death - for instance, by being hit from lightning, falling down a crevice etc. A world where no creature ever died is hardly imaginable.

Also, God threatened Adam with death. For Adam to understand this concept, death had to be possible in the world.

A day for God is different than a day for man especially since the sun wasn't even created until the fourth day.

The author of Genesis 1 went to great length, by explicitly mentioning day and night, to make clear that he meant normal days. Besides, the sun existed before the creation of animals. So an extended day would not explain the fossil record at all.

 

[champuru]

also it would be unfair if animals were punshed for man's arrogance

 

[billwald]

The animals in Adam's gut would have choked him to death if they didn't die but we couldn't expect Moses to know that.

 

[MrSnow]

If Adam rubbed against something and some of his outer (dead) skin cells came off, his body would have made new ones by other skin cells dying and others being made to replace those. Unless friction didn't work and Adam didn't have a layer of dead skin cells that could flake off from friction. Maybe his finger and toe nails didn't grow until the fall. Maybe his hair didn't grow until the fall either. After Adam and the animals ate some plants and then took a squat, the waste would, I'm sure, have been recycled; unless of course there was no decay before the fall, in which case there would be poop covering everything. Or perhaps Adam and the animals didn't get rid of any waste. And if they ate plants, then the plants would die. Unless God miraculously kept the plants alive when they were eaten.

In order for there to be life, there has to be some sort of physical death. SOMETHING has to die for animal life to remain alive.

 

[Mallon]

In order for there to be life, there has to be some sort of physical death. SOMETHING has to die for animal life to remain alive.

The usual YEC response to all of this is that plants aren't alive. I've seen Sarfati argue before that small accumulations of cells aren't alive, either, thereby negating things like cell death. He didn't go on to comment about whether human zygotes were also alive by the same standards.

 

[Vance]

I see no problem with any death before the Fall. Genesis never says that there was no physical death at any point. And I think Paul was talking about spiritual death primarily.

 

[busterdog]

Yes, it is plausible. Animals could die a violent death - for instance, by being hit from lightning, falling down a crevice etc. A world where no creature ever died is hardly imaginable.

Also, God threatened Adam with death. For Adam to understand this concept, death had to be possible in the world.


The author of Genesis 1 went to great length, by explicitly mentioning day and night, to make clear that he meant normal days. Besides, the sun existed before the creation of animals. So an extended day would not explain the fossil record at all.

I think it is quite difficult to try to imagine what a perfect world would be like.

Funny thing when you go back to looking at scripture, funny things happen. Here's a really funny thing about your comment. God says not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Well, what do you suppose Adam knows about the tree if He hasn't eaten yet? I don't offer a clear conclusion, but it is curious. Makes all assumptions hard ones.

As for death, Paul says it entered later. The return of Jesus is a restoration of the old order.

 

[Vance]

The whole Garden story is interesting.

Why would they need a Tree of Life (makes someone immortal), if they were already immortal?

What was special about the Garden, as opposed the outside the Garden? We know that when they left, they went out into a world that was full of death. Is there any reason to believe that it wasn't always that way? If not, then why does it matter being in the Garden or out?

The text says that God created Adam outside the Garden, then placed him into the Garden. What was he doing outside? How long was he outside? What was life like out there?

 

[ClearSky]

The whole Garden story is interesting.
Why would they need a Tree of Life (makes someone immortal), if they were already immortal?

I can imagine two possibilities:

a) Either they weren't immortal outside the garden, but only within the garden when they eat from that tree.

b) Or they all were immortal (meaning not that they didn't die, but that they didn't age) and the tree was a symbol for that immortality.

What was special about the Garden, as opposed the outside the Garden? We know that when they left, they went out into a world that was full of death. Is there any reason to believe that it wasn't always that way? If not, then why does it matter being in the Garden or out?

That would support hypothesis a) - no immortality outside the garden.

The text says that God created Adam outside the Garden, then placed him into the Garden. What was he doing outside? How long was he outside? What was life like out there?

According to Genesis 1 God created men and women and told them to multiply and conquer the earth. This sounds as if He created not only Adam and Eve, but many. Only Adam was placed into the garden at first. The rest stayed outside and did their best to multiply. At least, that would be a logical interpretation.

 

[Mallon]

b) Or they all were immortal (meaning not that they didn't die, but that they didn't age) and the tree was a symbol for that immortality.

The Tree of Life wasn't simply symbolic. It was functional. As Gen 3:22-23 tells us, the tree was there so that, by eating from it, man could live forever. This, of course, implies that if he did not eat from it, man would not live forever (i.e., man was created mortal).

 

[GoodNewsJim]

Thank you all for your input. If death existed before Adam's sin, the world could be any age, and fossils could be from around any time too. I'm going to stick with this as my working theory now because everything fits, even when compared with the scientific analysis of geology.

Added to this is:
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]2 Peter 3:8[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]"But do not forget one thing, my dear friends! There is no difference in the Lord's sight between one day and a thousand years; to him the two are the same"[/FONT]
So for God, a day can be any length of time.

 

[ClearSky]

If death existed before Adam's sin, the world could be any age, and fossils could be from around any time too.

Would you mind to share with us how you come to this conclusion?

Fossils mean dead animals. Animals can not die before they came into existence. Death and fossils do not change the creation record.

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]2 Peter 3:8[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]"But do not forget one thing, my dear friends! There is no difference in the Lord's sight between one day and a thousand years; to him the two are the same"[/FONT]
So for God, a day can be any length of time.

For God, yes. For humans, no. The person who wrote Genesis 1 explicitly mentioned day and nightfall for making clear that he meant normal days.

 

[MrSnow]

The person who wrote Genesis 1 explicitly mentioned day and nightfall for making clear that he meant normal days.

The person who wrote Genesis also explicitly mentioned that God placed the sun, moon and stars between the two waters, making them in our own atmosphere. Unless somewhere, way out in deep, deep, outer space, there is a layer of water encompassing the entire universe.

 

[ClearSky]

The person who wrote Genesis also explicitly mentioned that God placed the sun, moon and stars between the two waters, making them in our own atmosphere.

True. But there's a big difference. Historians assume that Genesis 1 was written about 500 BC. The person who wrote it had a clear understanding of what day and night is, but at that time there was no understanding of the solar system.

"All scripture is inspired by God". But the inspiration had to be written down by humans who were restricted to their vocabulary and knowledge. Day and night is an easy concept and easy to describe. A description of planets moving due to Newton's law was beyond any person that lived in 500 BC.

 

[Vance]

One thing to keep in mind about the "day" issue is that just because the human author wanted to use the word "yom" to mean a regular "day" (and I think he did), that does not at all mean that he intended it be to read as literally meaning God created everything insix 24 hour periods.

It is MUCH more likely that the author is using the entire structure as a literary device, a structure within which to describe the real messages of the passage: that God created everything, that he is in control, and he created with a plan, bring order out of chaos, that he did something special with and for Mankind to make Mankind "in His image", etc.

Like a poet using the word "tree" in a poem which is really talking about a family, he does, indeed, want you to consider "tree"in the "leaf and branch" sense of the word (as opposed to, say, the computer file system sense of the word, for those oldsters like me), but the poet is not ultimately expecting you to think the poem is about a "leaf and branch" tree, but a family. He is using the word in its most common sense, but he is using it figuratively, and expects the reader to get it.

 

[paulican]

The whole Garden story is interesting.

Why would they need a Tree of Life (makes someone immortal), if they were already immortal?

What was special about the Garden, as opposed the outside the Garden? We know that when they left, they went out into a world that was full of death. Is there any reason to believe that it wasn't always that way? If not, then why does it matter being in the Garden or out?

The text says that God created Adam outside the Garden, then placed him into the Garden. What was he doing outside? How long was he outside? What was life like out there?

I think it it marvelous that I have been away from the forums for a long time, and log back in and find this thread. Just today I was having a discussing the importance of the Garden on the way home from a trip. You asked what is special outside the Garden, as opposed to what was inside. You actually qualified and defined the importance when you said outside the Garden was death. What was also outside the Garden was wilderness. You can also find examples of wilderness at the exodus of course, and interestingly enough at the baptism of Jesus. In the gospel of Mark, the heavens were ripped asunder when the Spirit decended upon the Lord. He was then immediately driven into the wilderness (NRSV).

In both cases, the wilderness was exclusive to the protection of God; protection was dependant on obedience and faith of the individual. It is important to be in the Garden. It is VERY important to be the gardner.

You pointed out that God created man and then placed him in the Garden. That version of the creation is the second one mentioned in Genesis. It also says that when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground.

No rain, no plants, no gardner.

Personally, I believe the wilderness outside the garden is man's struggle out of the direct protection of God, and in the the realm of free will of humankind. I assume there will be disagreement, but again, this is just my opinion.

Also, someone mentioned that Adam with a gut full of animal... Not possible, meat was not consumed by humans until after the flood. It is right there in the bible.

-p

 

[Gareth]

Is it plausible that animals died before Adam sinned?

I'm wondering about the fossil record if man correctly assessed certain animals to having lived millions of years ago.

The geological record is easy to explain: A day for God is different than a day for man especially since the sun wasn't even created until the fourth day.

I'd like people's thoughts on this.

At the time of the creation only man was given the opportunity to live indefinitely. The first man new what the concept of death was for both domestic and wild animals were created. Also many animals, insects and bacteria exist that dispose of carcasses, indeed this is what some only do. It is a shame that man fell from Grace and ended up sharing the same end as that of animals. What a waste.

 

[tansy]

The whole Garden story is interesting.

Why would they need a Tree of Life (makes someone immortal), if they were already immortal?

What was special about the Garden, as opposed the outside the Garden? We know that when they left, they went out into a world that was full of death. Is there any reason to believe that it wasn't always that way? If not, then why does it matter being in the Garden or out?

The text says that God created Adam outside the Garden, then placed him into the Garden. What was he doing outside? How long was he outside? What was life like out there?

These are the sorts of questions I struggle with---I've tried every which way to figure them out. Sometimes I wonder if the Garden of Eden was kind of a spiritual garden---that is to say, maybe Adam and Eve before the Fall, could live simulataneously in the spiritual and the physical realms. After all, thr Cherubim guarded against their re-entering the garden and so eatinf from the Tree of Life and livinf forever---this however raises all sorts if other questions to which I have no answer