Animal death before the Fall.

[juvenissun]

Why do some claim the Bible teaches no animal death before the Fall? What theological or evangelical purpose does this serve?

Peace

My understanding (but not defending it):

After the sin, God curses the earth. I think the idea assumed that it includes everything of the earth. So, lives started to die. Before that, the earth was "good". Good means no bad, and death is bad.

 

[juvenissun]

Okay, so what theological or evangelical purpose does arguing against evolution serve?

I ask because it sounds like absolutely dreadful evangelism to me. I am an educated person. It sounds like you're telling me I need to leave my brain at the door of the church!

Peace

This is off the topic. So it is short.

Because evolution is evil. Or, if you don't like it, because evolution leads to evil.

Please, don't reply on this one.

 

[JVPITER]

My understanding (but not defending it):

After the sin, God curses the earth. I think the idea assumed that it includes everything of the earth. So, lives started to die. Before that, the earth was "good". Good means no bad, and death is bad.

Disagree. "Good" doesn't mean "no bad".

"Good" means "more good than bad".

*Perfect* means no bad. But God doesn't describe the created world as "perfect".

Peace

 

[elopez]

Why do some claim the Bible teaches no animal death before the Fall? What theological or evangelical purpose does this serve?

Peace

I don't know why, perhaps to preserve the age of the earth as young? I am arguing against the idea, so I couldn't tell you.

 

[elopez]

Don't blame YEC for everything. The "no death before sin" has nothing to do with YEC. It is simply a theological idea.

I'm not blaming anything on yec, except that it is inconsistent. And the idea that there was no death before the Fall has everything to do with yec. I am not sure what you're talking about but it is a yec doctrine.

 

[elopez]

My understanding (but not defending it):

After the sin, God curses the earth. I think the idea assumed that it includes everything of the earth. So, lives started to die. Before that, the earth was "good". Good means no bad, and death is bad.

Surely the death of Christ was not bad. Death is beneficial in many ways and is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Surely the death of Christ was not bad. Death is beneficial in many ways and is not necessarily a bad thing.

but a world in which the death of Jesus was necessary is bad.

 

[gluadys]

but a world in which the death of Jesus was necessary is bad.

True enough, but that doesn't make death itself bad.



Paul says "The sting of death is sin."

If that is the case, death before there was sin would have no sting and not be bad.

For that matter, since plants and animals (other than humans) and bacteria, etc. don't sin, their death isn't evil even in a fallen world.

 

[juvenissun]

Disagree. "Good" doesn't mean "no bad".

"Good" means "more good than bad".

*Perfect* means no bad. But God doesn't describe the created world as "perfect".

Peace

It is in a disproportional scale:

"Good" in God's eyes is more than "perfect" in our eyes. God won't call anything with a tiny trace of bad as "good".

 

[juvenissun]

True enough, but that doesn't make death itself bad.



Paul says "The sting of death is sin."

If that is the case, death before there was sin would have no sting and not be bad.

For that matter, since plants and animals (other than humans) and bacteria, etc. don't sin, their death isn't evil even in a fallen world.

Death is bad because death is evil. (Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.)

The question is, was there evil before the sin?

And, if cabbage is not alive, then cabbage has no death. (don't feel guilty if you just "killed" a cabbage yesterday. )

 

[Jaxy H]

"Good" in God's eyes is more than "perfect" in our eyes. God won't call anything with a tiny trace of bad as "good".

Where do you get this idea? If there is no difference between good and perfect in God's eyes, then what about when He calls something "very good"? Doesn't that make it closer to perfect than good? I am not understanding this. I think a good effort is one that's on the whole good, but can contain bad elements. Maybe I am misunderstanding you?

Is the argument that Eden before the Fall of Man was perfect, and so there could be no death of animals or man there? But this isn't what the Bible says, is it? I think we have a good earth now, and yet people die ... Maybe basing our concept on what God deems "good" is where we're straying, because none of us can know exactly what His standard is. I could say the earth was good, even with the whole circle of life. But what would God say was good? How can we know?

Even something that seems dreadful to us, we end up calling "good," like "Good Friday." It was really a bad Friday! Yet it resulted in greater good ... so -- I don't think we can say there was no death before the Fall just because god said Eden was good. Maybe He meant it was good as the launchpoint for the ultimate battle of good vs. evil which He intended from the foundation of the world?

 

[juvenissun]

Where do you get this idea? If there is no difference between good and perfect in God's eyes, then what about when He calls something "very good"? Doesn't that make it closer to perfect than good? I am not understanding this. I think a good effort is one that's on the whole good, but can contain bad elements. Maybe I am misunderstanding you?

Is the argument that Eden before the Fall of Man was perfect, and so there could be no death of animals or man there? But this isn't what the Bible says, is it? I think we have a good earth now, and yet people die ... Maybe basing our concept on what God deems "good" is where we're straying, because none of us can know exactly what His standard is. I could say the earth was good, even with the whole circle of life. But what would God say was good? How can we know?

Even something that seems dreadful to us, we end up calling "good," like "Good Friday." It was really a bad Friday! Yet it resulted in greater good ... so -- I don't think we can say there was no death before the Fall just because god said Eden was good. Maybe He meant it was good as the launchpoint for the ultimate battle of good vs. evil which He intended from the foundation of the world?

This is, in fact, one of the basic Christian doctrine or concept: God does not tolerate a single trace of sin (or evil). If so, sin (not good) or not sin (good) is as clear as black and white in the eyes of God. We can not argue with God by saying that someone is "good enough". Think about Adam, is he good "enough"?

In contrast, since evil was introduced into man, shades of gray appeared all of a sudden in everything. Today, in our society and culture, NOTHING is absolutely good or bad. Everything is gray. That is one of the consequence of sin.

If God says good at one place and says very good at another place, I would interpret it as all are good. God creates something good, and loves His creations every time He looks at them, He might say again that they are very good.

 

[granpa]

'second death' or 'spiritual death' was impossible before the fall.

obviously animals have been eating each other for millions of years.

 

[Jaxy H]

'second death' or 'spiritual death' was impossible before the fall.

obviously animals have been eating each other for millions of years.

Right, that's what I am thinking.

If God says good at one place and says very good at another place, I would interpret it as all are good. God creates something good, and loves His creations every time He looks at them, He might say again that they are very good.

But don't you think God looks at me, His child, and says I am good? And yet there's plenty that's "bad" in me. I don't think you can make the argument that animals didn't die before the Fall just because God said Eden was good. And I don't know why you would want to say that, anyway.

We can not argue with God by saying that someone is "good enough". Think about Adam, is he good "enough"?

I don't know exactly what you are getting at, here. God is wholly good, I agree, and creation was wholly good in His eyes before the Fall of man, but saying that doesn't mean that animals didn't die. Creation can still be good and animals can still die ... to my mind.

 

[juvenissun]

Right, that's what I am thinking.

But don't you think God looks at me, His child, and says I am good? And yet there's plenty that's "bad" in me. I don't think you can make the argument that animals didn't die before the Fall just because God said Eden was good. And I don't know why you would want to say that, anyway.

I don't know exactly what you are getting at, here. God is wholly good, I agree, and creation was wholly good in His eyes before the Fall of man, but saying that doesn't mean that animals didn't die. Creation can still be good and animals can still die ... to my mind.

If your pet died, is the situation still good?

Death is NOT good.

 

[Jaxy H]

Ah well, but the Bible says the sting of death is sin -- doesn't that imply the reason we regard death with horror is that somehow sin corrupted death. not that death itself is inherently evil?

I think you're misunderstanding me; I didn't say that DEATH IS GOOD! I said that creation can still be good even with death as a part of it. So yes, my pet's life can still be called good, even if he dies at the end of it, as seems likely.

 

[Assyrian]

It is in a disproportional scale:

"Good" in God's eyes is more than "perfect" in our eyes. God won't call anything with a tiny trace of bad as "good".

Then again if we are looking at good and bad from God's p.o.v. maybe God does not share the sentimentalism of Creations who react in horror at the thought of a rabbit dying.

Death is bad because death is evil. (Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.)

The question is, was there evil before the sin?

If you are going to take the personification of death and hell literally, who created these beings? God? Does that mean God created intrinsically evil supernatural beings he later destroyed?

And, if cabbage is not alive, then cabbage has no death. (don't feel guilty if you just "killed" a cabbage yesterday. )

Whatever makes you think plants are not alive? They grow the reproduce they breathe. Plants release chemical alarm signals to warn nearby plants when they are under attack or alert the predators of the insect attacking them.

 

[juvenissun]

Then again if we are looking at good and bad from God's p.o.v. maybe God does not share the sentimentalism of Creations who react in horror at the thought of a rabbit dying.


If you are going to take the personification of death and hell literally, who created these beings? God? Does that mean God created intrinsically evil supernatural beings he later destroyed?


Whatever makes you think plants are not alive? They grow the reproduce they breathe. Plants release chemical alarm signals to warn nearby plants when they are under attack or alert the predators of the insect attacking them.

Good question.

Hell is simply a space where God put the product of death. So it is not a problem.

Death is not created. Death is a consequence (a product) of sin. God takes care of evil angels at the end. God still needs to take care of the evil product: death, to clean up the mess.

As a result, animals do not sin, so they do not "die". If you avoid the interpretation of fossil record, this idea makes perfect sense.

 

[juvenissun]

Ah well, but the Bible says the sting of death is sin -- doesn't that imply the reason we regard death with horror is that somehow sin corrupted death. not that death itself is inherently evil?

I think you're misunderstanding me; I didn't say that DEATH IS GOOD! I said that creation can still be good even with death as a part of it. So yes, my pet's life can still be called good, even if he dies at the end of it, as seems likely.

This is a good example of gray. I can also argue that there is some good in any bad thing, or there is some bad in any good thing.

Death is bad. Period. That is the way to look at it.

 

[Jaxy H]

This is a good example of gray. I can also argue that there is some good in any bad thing, or there is some bad in any good thing.

Death is bad. Period. That is the way to look at it.

But you know that the Bible says God killed animals in Eden to make clothes for Adam and Eve. Does this mean God was doing a bad thing because "death is bad. period"? I do not see how physical death can be B-A-D-end-of-story if God uses it, and if it is our way to pass from this life into His glory ... so I do not see that animal death before the Fall of Man is impossible on the basis that death is bad and God called His creation good. There's a logical fallacy in there ...

Supposition 1: there was no death before the Fall of Man because God called creation good, and death is bad.

Supposition 2: God is all good, and there is no bad in Him, He cannot do evil.

Scripture says: God killed animals, which we know is bad (see Supposition 1).

Ergo: Either God did evil (which we know He cannot per Supposition 2) or Death is not inherently evil (which destroys Supposition 1).

I prefer to think God does no evil, which means that animal death before the Fall of Man was not, in and of itself, bad.

You may contend that death is always bad, but then you must agree that God did a bad thing in slaying those animals to make clothes for Adam and Eve (and in asking for blood sacrifices in the OT, etc.)

I prefer to believe that He is all Good, but Death is not all Bad.