Why were animals affected by the Fall?

[Joined2krist]

If we are to believe that the Bible is the entire truth, then Cain married one of his sisters. He took her along with him when he was banished. Abraham also married his half sister

 

[Joined2krist]

Sex was only meant for procreation before the fall, and its timing would be determined solely by God. Adam wasn't sexually attracted to Eve before the fall. God could put them to sleep in order for procreation to occur to keep them innocent.Gen2:25

 

[TedT]

@TedT

How do you know the animals were sinful?

Ummmm, as I already said in post #13, there are three reasons to consider about this:
- they are a lesser version of the serpent's being cunning in evil
- they were cursed for sin with the serpent's curse before
Adam was cursed.
- they were destroyed in the flood for their evil.

 

[Job 33:6]

The event that led me to ponder this scenario was a presentation by a couple of Mormon "elders". Mormon belief is that God commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply prior to the Fall, but the knowledge of how to be fruitful and multiply was not given to them, but was in the fruit of the forbidden tree of knowledge. Thus, Adam and Eve were in a quandary. To obey God in one commandment required them to disobey God in another commandment, so Eve chose to disobey by eating the fruit in order to obey God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply. When they ate, of course, they realized that they were naked and then covered themselves with fig leaves.

Of course there are serious theological flaws, not the least being a capricious God who demands a choice to disobey one commandment in order to obey another commandment.

If, however, Eve had conceived in the garden and subsequently bore Cain and Abel after the fall, then the Mormon theology is quite false, but the text does not provide any clue to what, if any, sexual activity they engaged in while in the garden.

The other curiosity, of course, is where Cain's wife came from. Logically, it would have to have been his sister, if Adam and Eve were the only couple alive. However, there is no record in the text regarding the origins of his wife.

Sure. This continues on with the question of who Cain was afraid of when he was exiled to the land of Nod.

I think that the simple answer is that other people were alive outside of the garden and even before Adam and Eve. But God simply didn't seek to make modern 21st century corrections to their text. Things we find strange today were normal in their creation stories of their own time. So we might have trouble with this, while they may have been perfectly comfortable with these ideas.

And we may have ended up with some blend of multiple perspectives and even multiple creation stories going on at once. Genesis 1 places mankind as being created on day 6 after plants and animals, while any honest person who reads Genesis 2 can clearly see that it was intended to imply that Adam was created before plants and animals.

It could be that these are simply two different creation stories, one reflecting Egyptian cosmology, Genesis 1, while the other reflecting the mesopotamian atrahasis, Genesis 2. Perhaps even further interpreted in various ways with some viewing this story as being a repeat of the same events (though teledoths aren't known to repeat information anywhere else in scripture) while some otherwise view these stories as being chronological with Adam and Eve and all animals of the garden more rightfully interpreted as being created on something like day 8.

These all being efforts to make sense of things that probably were never meant to make perfect sense, simply because the Bible isn't a scientific text, and such concepts aren't particularly important in comparison to the theological truths of scripture.

A lot of biblical scholars are actually looking back at the Hebrew of Genesis 1 and are suggesting that "in the beginning" doesn't actually even mean the very beginning of all creation, rather that it means in the beginning of God's organizational actions. And that bara, create, wouldn't mean ex nihilo, but rather would mean, creating order from something that is pre existing and disordered. Just like I can create a painting without actually physically making something come into existence.

And the case seems justified imo. There's a lot in the Hebrew that the church is playing catch-up on as more historical records are uncovered to make better sense of things. Concordism is slowly falling apart quite frankly.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Sex was only meant for procreation before the fall, and its timing would be determined solely by God. Adam wasn't sexually attracted to Eve before the fall. God could put them to sleep in order for procreation to occur to keep them innocent.Gen2:25

The actual text does not support, or deny, your speculations. If God believed that there was something wrong with sexual procreation for humans, did that also apply to animals in the Garden?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Sure. This continues on with the question of who Cain was afraid of when he was exiled to the land of Nod.

I think that the simple answer is that other people were alive outside of the garden and even before Adam and Eve. But God simply didn't seek to make modern 21st century corrections to their text. Things we find strange today were normal in their creation stories of their own time. So we might have trouble with this, while they may have been perfectly comfortable with these ideas.

And we may have ended up with some blend of multiple perspectives and even multiple creation stories going on at once. Genesis 1 places mankind as being created on day 6 after plants and animals, while any honest person who reads Genesis 2 can clearly see that it was intended to imply that Adam was created before plants and animals.

It could be that these are simply two different creation stories, one reflecting Egyptian cosmology, Genesis 1, while the other reflecting the mesopotamian atrahasis, Genesis 2. Perhaps even further interpreted in various ways with some viewing this story as being a repeat of the same events (though teledoths aren't known to repeat information anywhere else in scripture) while some otherwise view these stories as being chronological with Adam and Eve and all animals of the garden more rightfully interpreted as being created on something like day 8.

These all being efforts to make sense of things that probably were never meant to make perfect sense, simply because the Bible isn't a scientific text, and such concepts aren't particularly important in comparison to the theological truths of scripture.

A lot of biblical scholars are actually looking back at the Hebrew of Genesis 1 and are suggesting that "in the beginning" doesn't actually even mean the very beginning of all creation, rather that it means in the beginning of God's organizational actions. And that bara, create, wouldn't mean ex nihilo, but rather would mean, creating order from something that is pre existing and disordered. Just like I can create a painting without actually physically making something come into existence.

And the case seems justified imo. There's a lot in the Hebrew that the church is playing catch-up on as more historical records are uncovered to make better sense of things. Concordism is slowly falling apart quite frankly.

Thank you for elaborating on my logic. I believe that there is a great amount of reason in your post, although for the biblical literalist it will probably be considered to be heresy. However, biblical literalism tends to gloss over these issues, which leads to all manner of problems.

 

[TedT]

When they ate, of course, they realized that they were naked and then covered themselves with fig leaves.

Do you think that Adam's created nudity was sinful? No one since the Puritans accepts that nudity is sin but his nakedness was sinful as he saw when his eyes were opened to his sin and saw his nakedness, not his eating, and he became properly ashamed. It is obvious that nakedness is a symbol for being a sinner (and blind to spiritual reality, hence his not being ashamed) as is echoed in Revelation 3:17 You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.

The root word for Adam and Eve being naked and the serpent being crafty in an evil was is the same word, `rm.* They can be read the opposite, ie, Adam and Eve were crafty and the serpent was naked if so desired. The vowels that make the root to specifically mean to be naked or crafty were not put into the writing until ç600AD, that is, the meaning had to be added to the root by the reader. The reason the Rabbis and the Church fathers chose naked for Adam and Eve was their decision that all mankind was created at conception (traducianism) or at birth (creationism of the soul), so, as newly created in the garden they had to be innocent since GOD does not create evil except maybe the evil animals and when HE wants evil people so HE supposed created the rest of us in Adam's sin but that is a different blasphemy.

*There is also a perfectly good word about Noah that describes the nakedness of being unclothed with absolutely no chance of thinking it meant evil.

Where is the sin in being unclothed in your own garden as GOD made you? Even if naked refers to sex as the Mormons and puritans like to suggest, how could sex be sinful if they were commanded to procreate? No, the telling part of this verse is "They were not ashamed!". If there was no sin in being naked then why bring up shame? They were not over 12 feet tall either but there is no hint that they should be ashamed of that!

The reference to their shame is echoed in Rev 3:17-18, being a sinner is shameful but those blinded by sin need their eyes opened by the Lord's salve and their shame covered by white garments, the righteous acts of the saints, Rev 19:18.

It is also curious how, when their eyes were finally opened to their sin, they saw their being naked, a nakedness they had before they ate, not their eating. The only thing that happened when they ate was that they now saw their sinfulness / nakedness which they already had and were ashamed but their nakedness did not change in the least. So, if being unclothed is no sin, why did they suddenly become ashamed of their nakedness when they sinned???

There is more going on here than our Sunday School teachers told us, methinks...

 

[friend of]

@TedT So everytime a lion hunts a gazelle, it sins? Will a sinning lion not enter heaven? Did Jesus make His covenant with animals as well as man?

 

[TedT]

The other curiosity, of course, is where Cain's wife came from. Logically, it would have to have been his sister, if Adam and Eve were the only couple alive.

Sure. This continues on with the question of who Cain was afraid of when he was exiled to the land of Nod.

One of our problems with this story is that we do not know how old Cain and Abel were when they had their fight.

Because they are mentioned without any other child being mentioned it is assumed they are the only children and the first children. BUT that is not proven in the text...Genesis 4 is about Cain and Abel, not anyone else, so no one else is mentioned until their story is over.

But if Adam and Eve had a child each year and these children started to have their own children at age 15 or so, in a very short time, 125 years, (out of a 900 year lifespan that is) the exponential increase would be huge with 125 years being between 9 and 10 generations, on the order of between 20 billion and 289 billion people in this model (math available). So, if Cain and Abel were born during Adam and Eve's 100 year on earth, it might have had a very large population indeed by that time, given exponential growth. If they were even only 25 years old themselves by the time their religious war came to a head, how many people were populating the earth?

Also it is not proven by the text that these two were just kids when the religious war happened. Cain was trying to supplant the religion of the coats of skins for righteousness instituted by GOD with his first fruits fertility / weather cult of the Ba'als and Asherah (groves).

 

[ChetSinger]

Isn't it possible that animals have always died?
Mankind had access to the fruit of The Tree of Life, the Bible doesn't say animals did. And according to Genesis 3:22 the fruit from the tree of Life must have given instant healing, immortality, or incredibly long life, considering God put them out so that they wouldn't eat from it and live forever.

Isn't it possible the workings of man on Earth has drastically cut the lifespan of animals?

I'm inclined to agree with you. We had eternal life because we had access to the tree of life. But the animals ate the grasses.

Also, Romans 5, and specifically Romans 5:12, state that death spread "to all men" because of Adam. It doesn't say "all life". I think that pre-Fall animal death is permitted by the text.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Do you think that Adam's created nudity was sinful? No one since the Puritans accepts that nudity is sin but his nakedness was sinful as he saw when his eyes were opened to his sin and saw his nakedness, not his eating, and he became properly ashamed. It is obvious that nakedness is a symbol for being a sinner (and blind to spiritual reality, hence his not being ashamed) as is echoed in Revelation 3:17 You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.

The root word for Adam and Eve being naked and the serpent being crafty in an evil was is the same word, `rm.* They can be read the opposite, ie, Adam and Eve were crafty and the serpent was naked if so desired. The vowels that make the root to specifically mean to be naked or crafty were not put into the writing until ç600AD, that is, the meaning had to be added to the root by the reader. The reason the Rabbis and the Church fathers chose naked for Adam and Eve was their decision that all mankind was created at conception (traducianism) or at birth (creationism of the soul), so, as newly created in the garden they had to be innocent since GOD does not create evil except maybe the evil animals and when HE wants evil people so HE supposed created the rest of us in Adam's sin but that is a different blasphemy.

*There is also a perfectly good word about Noah that describes the nakedness of being unclothed with absolutely no chance of thinking it meant evil.

Where is the sin in being unclothed in your own garden as GOD made you? Even if naked refers to sex as the Mormons and puritans like to suggest, how could sex be sinful if they were commanded to procreate? No, the telling part of this verse is "They were not ashamed!". If there was no sin in being naked then why bring up shame? They were not over 12 feet tall either but there is no hint that they should be ashamed of that!

The reference to their shame is echoed in Rev 3:17-18, being a sinner is shameful but those blinded by sin need their eyes opened by the Lord's salve and their shame covered by white garments, the righteous acts of the saints, Rev 19:18.

It is also curious how, when their eyes were finally opened to their sin, they saw their being naked, a nakedness they had before they ate, not their eating. The only thing that happened when they ate was that they now saw their sinfulness / nakedness which they already had and were ashamed but their nakedness did not change in the least. So, if being unclothed is no sin, why did they suddenly become ashamed of their nakedness when they sinned???

There is more going on here than our Sunday School teachers told us, methinks...

Perhaps you give more credit (or blame) to the Puritans. Nineteenth-century culture was extremely prudish, which is the milieu for Mormonism and its take on the Fall. There were only faint echoes of Puritanism by that time.

Obviously, there must not have been the least bit of shame in the garden about nudity. However, Adam and Eve's response after the Fall indicates, at a minimum, a recognition that nudity is a particular state of appearance which required covering. That definitely points to a level of shame and embarrassment on their part, which could be attributed to the fact that they knew they had disobeyed God and wanted to hide from Him.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I'm inclined to agree with you. We had eternal life because we had access to the tree of life. But the animals ate the grasses.

Also, Romans 5, and specifically Romans 5:12, state that death spread "to all men" because of Adam. It doesn't say "all life". I think that pre-Fall animal death is permitted by the text.

The digestive systems of carnivores would render them dead by starvation if they only ate grasses. This means that perhaps there were no carnivores in the garden, or the digestive systems of carnivores in the garden were radically altered after the fall, or that carnivores in the garden did eat meat. We simply don't know, because the text does not tell us anything in that regard.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Ummmm, as I already said in post #13, there are three reasons to consider about this:
- they are a lesser version of the serpent's being cunning in evil
- they were cursed for sin with the serpent's curse before
Adam was cursed.
- they were destroyed in the flood for their evil.

What support do you have for these conclusions from scripture?

 

[Carl Emerson]

A biblical truth to keep in mind is that God required and innocent lamb to be sacrificed on a regular basis.

This was to be without spot or blemish.

This was required to atone for sin being sinless it's self.

 

[friend of]

@TedT can you answer my questions in post #28 please? Thanks

 

[friend of]

Jesus didn't even die for the Angels and angels are more similar to humans than animals are to humans.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Why do animals die? I mean why would animals who are incapable of moral judgment, be subjected to the Fall of Adam? Presumably they would have had an interminable lifespan like Adam and Eve before the fall. Why did a human decision affect the animal kingdom?

By extension, what about plants? They get sick and die on their own too.

 

[TedT]

@TedT So everytime a lion hunts a gazelle, it sins? Will a sinning lion not enter heaven? Did Jesus make His covenant with animals as well as man?

Sin is only accrued by a free will decision to rebel against one of GOD's commands or against HIS claim to deity.

We ARE sinful, so all we do is sin (unless redeemed) so iF the animal is sinful as these verses suggest, they to only do sin.

 

[TedT]

I'm inclined to agree with you. We had eternal life because we had access to the tree of life. But the animals ate the grasses.

Sure, but...
- death is the wages of sin
- it is hard to believe carnivores ate grass
- the verses I quoted give three reason why the animals were indeed sinful. We must deal with this in our theology, not just pass it off, sigh.

 

[TedT]

However, Adam and Eve's response after the Fall indicates, at a minimum, a recognition that nudity is a particular state of appearance which required covering.

IF it was not sinful then how could it possibly be "recognized" as requiring covering??? This makes no sense. ONLY if nudity is accepted to be a metaphor for sinfulness as it is so aften inscriture, does this make any sense t all.

That definitely points to a level of shame and embarrassment on their part, which could be attributed to the fact that they knew they had disobeyed God and wanted to hide from Him.

YES - THEY KNEW THEY HAD SINNED!! They had had their eyes opened to their sinfulness which is equated to their nakedness, not their eating!! The only problem with this interpretation is that they were naked before they ate ! otherwise it is quite acceptable.

Actually it is actually quite acceptable that they were already sinners when they ate!