Animal death before the Fall.

elopez

Well-Known Member
Oct 11, 2010
2,503
92
Lansing, MI
✟18,206.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Yecs generally agree that the death of any living creature did not happen before the Fall. Though I must ask what verse in particular shows that animal death did not occur? Usually I am given Genesis 3:14 or 21, yet what do the yecs in favor of using those verses have to say in consideration of the significance in the naming of the animals?

If you recall God told Adam to name the animals. This is important because it clues us in to what Adam observed prior to the Fall himself. For example, the Hebrew name for “lion” is derived from the root that means, “in the sense of violence.” It is not likely that Adam was referring to the violence with which the lion ate vegetables, since carnivores could not survive off of a sole vegetarian eating habit. The Hebrew name for “eagle” is “to lacerate.” "Hawk" in Hebrew means “unclean bird of prey,” and “owl” means “to wrong, do violence to, treat violently.” Why would the owl need to treat a vegetable in such a way just to feed? It is not like the plant could defend itself or put up much of a struggle.

To say that animal death did not occur prior to the Fall seems to therefore contradict the original Hebrew definition for the name of these animals, which must be accounted for by yecs who use those verses to support the notion of no death before the Fall.
 

JVPITER

Newbie
Mar 10, 2011
57
6
✟7,714.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Yecs generally agree that the death of any living creature did not happen before the Fall. Though I must ask what verse in particular shows that animal death did not occur? Usually I am given Genesis 3:14 or 21, yet what do the yecs in favor of using those verses have to say in consideration of the significance in the naming of the animals?

If you recall God told Adam to name the animals. This is important because it clues us in to what Adam observed prior to the Fall himself. For example, the Hebrew name for “lion” is derived from the root that means, “in the sense of violence.” It is not likely that Adam was referring to the violence with which the lion ate vegetables, since carnivores could not survive off of a sole vegetarian eating habit. The Hebrew name for “eagle” is “to lacerate.” "Hawk" in Hebrew means “unclean bird of prey,” and “owl” means “to wrong, do violence to, treat violently.” Why would the owl need to treat a vegetable in such a way just to feed? It is not like the plant could defend itself or put up much of a struggle.

To say that animal death did not occur prior to the Fall seems to therefore contradict the original Hebrew definition for the name of these animals, which must be accounted for by yecs who use those verses to support the notion of no death before the Fall.

Maybe Adam didn't name the animals in Hebrew, and the Hebrew names came later.

Peace
 
  • Like
Reactions: brinny
Upvote 0

elopez

Well-Known Member
Oct 11, 2010
2,503
92
Lansing, MI
✟18,206.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Maybe Adam didn't name the animals in Hebrew, and the Hebrew names came later.

Peace
So what did Adam originally name in the animals in then? Plus, even if the names were translated into Hebrew at some later point, one could only assume they would carry the original meanings, or else the Bible would not care to mention them at all.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
It's funny that this still comes up. The mantisplosion is a good place to start, perhaps.


From before:
Please. Misinterpretations like the idea that there was no animal death before the fall make the Bible look silly. Aside from the obvious problems (like what did gulper eels eat, or what were spider webs for), there are so many other problems with the all-vegan world idea that I don't know where to start.

Simple math might be a good place. A praying mantis lays hundreds of eggs per season. If all of those live (because there is no death), then from 1 mantis pair in year 1, you'll have:

Year: Number of Mantids:
1 2
2 200
3 20000
4 2000000
5 2E+08
6 2E+10
7 2E+12
8 2E+14
9 2E+16
10 2E+18
11 2E+20
12 2E+22
13 2E+24
14 2E+26
15 2E+28
16 2E+30
17 2E+32
18 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (just to show what kind of numbers we have)
19 2E+36
20 2E+38

So that means that by around year 12, mantids cover the earth to the depth of 1 mile, and by year 16, the writhing mass of mantids engulfs the moon, expanding at an ever increasing speed to engulf the sun the next year and the whole solar system (including the Kuiper belt) the year after that. The mantisplosion! Things go even faster for many other insect species, because the reproduce faster.

Silly? Of course it is. Things get silly when one mistakes a metaphor for a literal statement, like having pomegranet on one's face or livestock on one's chest.


Papias
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
So what did Adam originally name in the animals in then? Plus, even if the names were translated into Hebrew at some later point, one could only assume they would carry the original meanings, or else the Bible would not care to mention them at all.

Good thinking. It reminds me the meaning of "name".

For example, how would you "name" these animals? Would you give them one name or six names?

So, I think the name Adam gave to "each" animal must match the "kind" of animal. It implies that the original words for the names are NOT those words Hebrews used for each species (?). For example, instead of using the word lion, Adam might simply use a word which means cat.
 
Upvote 0
A

AnswersInHovind

Guest
It's funny that this still comes up. The mantisplosion is a good place to start, perhaps.


From before:
Please. Misinterpretations like the idea that there was no animal death before the fall make the Bible look silly. Aside from the obvious problems (like what did gulper eels eat, or what were spider webs for), there are so many other problems with the all-vegan world idea that I don't know where to start.

Simple math might be a good place. A praying mantis lays hundreds of eggs per season. If all of those live (because there is no death), then from 1 mantis pair in year 1, you'll have:

Year: Number of Mantids:
1 2
2 200
3 20000
4 2000000
5 2E+08
6 2E+10
7 2E+12
8 2E+14
9 2E+16
10 2E+18
11 2E+20
12 2E+22
13 2E+24
14 2E+26
15 2E+28
16 2E+30
17 2E+32
18 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (just to show what kind of numbers we have)
19 2E+36
20 2E+38

So that means that by around year 12, mantids cover the earth to the depth of 1 mile, and by year 16, the writhing mass of mantids engulfs the moon, expanding at an ever increasing speed to engulf the sun the next year and the whole solar system (including the Kuiper belt) the year after that. The mantisplosion! Things go even faster for many other insect species, because the reproduce faster.

Silly? Of course it is. Things get silly when one mistakes a metaphor for a literal statement, like having pomegranet on one's face or livestock on one's chest.


Papias

I think there is two problems with this.

First: It denies evolution on all levels and assumes that animals are the exact same now as they were back then... somewhat ironic.

Second: It underestimates the shift in creation when sin corrupted it. God made this wonderful balanced world, which was then permeated with sin and imbalanced. Suddenly the fight for survival begins and you could say natural selection starts.

Our view of animals is their post fall state - who knows what the mantis or spider ancestor was like before this? Who is to say spider webs didn't have a different purpose and were twisted into death traps out of the need to survive that suddenly burst forth from the corruption.
 
Upvote 0

elopez

Well-Known Member
Oct 11, 2010
2,503
92
Lansing, MI
✟18,206.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Good thinking. It reminds me the meaning of "name".

For example, how would you "name" these animals? Would you give them one name or six names?

So, I think the name Adam gave to "each" animal must match the "kind" of animal. It implies that the original words for the names are NOT those words Hebrews used for each species (?). For example, instead of using the word lion, Adam might simply use a word which means cat.
Exactly, the type of name given to the animal reflects it's behavior that was observed by Adam. Sure they may have been different than the Hebrew words like "lion," but the definition of the name would still remain the same.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

elopez

Well-Known Member
Oct 11, 2010
2,503
92
Lansing, MI
✟18,206.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
The ancient concept of "naming" something was not to note its behavior, but to define it. I believe this is what God is allowing man to do here - to define the function of each creature.
It was never claimed that the concept of naming was to determine the animals behavior. What was claimed, though, was that the behavior of the animals reflects their name, such as with the lion who "acted violently." I guess you could say that was the function of the lion. So, the objection still persists.
 
Upvote 0

JVPITER

Newbie
Mar 10, 2011
57
6
✟7,714.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Yecs generally agree that the death of any living creature did not happen before the Fall. Though I must ask what verse in particular shows that animal death did not occur? Usually I am given Genesis 3:14 or 21, yet what do the yecs in favor of using those verses have to say in consideration of the significance in the naming of the animals?

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

Peace
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Answers in Hovind wrote:
Originally Posted by Papias
It's funny that this still comes up. The mantisplosion is a good place to start, perhaps.


From before:
Please. Misinterpretations like the idea that there was no animal death before the fall make the Bible look silly. Aside from the obvious problems (like what did gulper eels eat, or what were spider webs for), there are so many other problems with the all-vegan world idea that I don't know where to start.

Simple math might be a good place. A praying mantis lays hundreds of eggs per season. If all of those live (because there is no death), then from 1 mantis pair in year 1, you'll have:

Year: Number of Mantids:
1 2
2 200
3 20000
4 2000000
5 2E+08
6 2E+10
7 2E+12
8 2E+14
9 2E+16
10 2E+18
11 2E+20
12 2E+22
13 2E+24
14 2E+26
15 2E+28
16 2E+30
17 2E+32
18 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (just to show what kind of numbers we have)
19 2E+36
20 2E+38

So that means that by around year 12, mantids cover the earth to the depth of 1 mile, and by year 16, the writhing mass of mantids engulfs the moon, expanding at an ever increasing speed to engulf the sun the next year and the whole solar system (including the Kuiper belt) the year after that. The mantisplosion! Things go even faster for many other insect species, because the reproduce faster.

Silly? Of course it is. Things get silly when one mistakes a metaphor for a literal statement, like having pomegranet on one's face or livestock on one's chest.


Papias

I think there is two problems with this.

First: It denies evolution on all levels and assumes that animals are the exact same now as they were back then... somewhat ironic.


It doesn't deny evolution, it just denies that much of the animal kingdom would undergo hyperevolution, changing most aspects of their lives within the span of a few years or even moments.

How long are you proposing the whole revamping to have taken place when the fall occurred? Seconds? Years? Even the whole time of 6014 years posited by YECs is insufficent for this kind of change.

Second: It underestimates the shift in creation when sin corrupted it. God made this wonderful balanced world, which was then permeated with sin and imbalanced. Suddenly the fight for survival begins and you could say natural selection starts.

In a balanced population, births = deaths. So if there was no death (death = 0), you can do the algebra yourself to see that births = 0.

If births = 0, then why create them with reproductive organs? Why even have male and female? A lot of every animal body and behavior is related to reproduction (look at queen termites, for instance). As the mantiplosion and even a moment's though in a host of other areas shows, this whole "vegan velociraptor" idea is laughably silly. It's no wonder that this kind of thing makes Christians the butt of jokes.

Papias
 
Upvote 0

JVPITER

Newbie
Mar 10, 2011
57
6
✟7,714.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
JVPITER said:
Why do some claim the Bible teaches no animal death before the Fall? What theological or evangelical purpose does this serve?

It is used as an argument against evolution. Evolution and survival of the fittest require animal death.

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
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The ancient concept of "naming" something was not to note its behavior, but to define it. I believe this is what God is allowing man to do here - to define the function of each creature.

Interesting idea. Thanks.

So Adam named lion as lion because it will be lion in the future.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I personally do not. That is the view of yecs who interpret the passages I mentioned in the OP as meaning animals did not die prior to the Fall.

Don't blame YEC for everything. The "no death before sin" has nothing to do with YEC. It is simply a theological idea.
 
Upvote 0