Animal death before the Fall.

[juvenissun]

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.

Your analysis is "good".

Except the timing. God kills an animal AFTER the sin. Death has already been introduced at that time.

-------

Just for curiosity, let me ask you this: Is the death of human not all Bad too? Is the death of human the same as the death of animal?

 

[elopez]

Your analysis is "good".

Except the timing. God kills an animal AFTER the sin. Death has already been introduced at that time.

-------

Just for curiosity, let me ask you this: Is the death of human not all Bad too? Is the death of human the same as the death of animal?

The text actually doesn't say when God had skinned the animal, just that it indeed happened. Plus, if you want to use this as evidence of no animal death prior to the Fall, then it must be explained why the behavior of the animal does not match the claim.

 

[elopez]

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. )

That is a classic example of circular arguing. See you're trying to support a proposition (death is bad) with what is essentially the same proposition (death is evil). The point of reasoning and arguing is to shed light on the truth or falsity of a proposition by further relating it to other propositions. So if the argument does nothing more than relate x to itself, it has gained you literally nothing.

Also, plants are alive and do die. Plants also must have been dying prior to the Fall since yecs claim animals and man were on a sole vegetarian diet.

 

[Assyrian]

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.

I would have to avoid interpreting what happened to our pet dog when it was hit by a car too. He didn't sin, but he sure seemed to die.

 

[jckstraw72]

for me as Orthodox, the answer is in the Church Fathers: the entire creation was created incorrupt « Old Believing’s Blog

 

[juvenissun]

The text actually doesn't say when God had skinned the animal, just that it indeed happened. Plus, if you want to use this as evidence of no animal death prior to the Fall, then it must be explained why the behavior of the animal does not match the claim.

It does. It is done after Adam discovered that he is nude.

 

[juvenissun]

That is a classic example of circular arguing. See you're trying to support a proposition (death is bad) with what is essentially the same proposition (death is evil). The point of reasoning and arguing is to shed light on the truth or falsity of a proposition by further relating it to other propositions. So if the argument does nothing more than relate x to itself, it has gained you literally nothing.

Also, plants are alive and do die. Plants also must have been dying prior to the Fall since yecs claim animals and man were on a sole vegetarian diet.

They are not circular. They are parallel. Or, they are the same.

 

[juvenissun]

I would have to avoid interpreting what happened to our pet dog when it was hit by a car too. He didn't sin, but he sure seemed to die.

Animals die. People ddiiee.
Can you see they are two different words? Thus, two definitions.

 

[NNSV]

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.

You raise some good questions, ones that I have asked myself.

In my opinion, when earth was created it was meant to be the physical representation of spiritual Heaven. As such, there is no killing in Heaven (or, shouldn't be) and there should be no killing on Earth, the physical image of Heaven.

Yet, as you put it, the animals' Hebrew names seem to insinuate that these animals had discernible violent actions.

The naming of the animals, and Adam's knowledge of their function I believe comes from the perfection of the creation of Adam. If we assume Eden was perfection with no death or sorrow for ANY creature, then I am inclined to believe that just like his Father, Adam paradoxically named them according to their function without necessarily seeing them in action. Again, this shows how perfect Adam was, having full inherent knowledge of God's creation, yet somewhat ignorantly innocent of this knowledge until it is called to make work (i.e. naming animals.)

If the New Jerusalem, restored to its previous perfection, there is no violence, then I am inclined to believe when God made the world there was no violence, especially before Adam fell. Maybe Adam naming the animals was to further highlight his role as a being a child of God, just like God would know the name of every star in the cosmos.

 

[elopez]

It does. It is done after Adam discovered that he is nude.

As I was saying, if you are using this as evidence as no animal death prior to the fall, then the animals name being inconsistent with this claim should be accounted for. You started to touch on the subject, but it seems like you dropped the subject.

 

[elopez]

They are not circular. They are parallel. Or, they are the same.

By definition, the argument I quoted is circular.

 

[elopez]

You raise some good questions, ones that I have asked myself.

In my opinion, when earth was created it was meant to be the physical representation of spiritual Heaven. As such, there is no killing in Heaven (or, shouldn't be) and there should be no killing on Earth, the physical image of Heaven.

Yet, as you put it, the animals' Hebrew names seem to insinuate that these animals had discernible violent actions.

The naming of the animals, and Adam's knowledge of their function I believe comes from the perfection of the creation of Adam. If we assume Eden was perfection with no death or sorrow for ANY creature, then I am inclined to believe that just like his Father, Adam paradoxically named them according to their function without necessarily seeing them in action. Again, this shows how perfect Adam was, having full inherent knowledge of God's creation, yet somewhat ignorantly innocent of this knowledge until it is called to make work (i.e. naming animals.)

If the New Jerusalem, restored to its previous perfection, there is no violence, then I am inclined to believe when God made the world there was no violence, especially before Adam fell. Maybe Adam naming the animals was to further highlight his role as a being a child of God, just like God would know the name of every star in the cosmos.

You say Adam was created perfect yet there is no scripture to indicate such, and if he were, he would have not given in to sin. This is not something I'm willing to assume, but something I would rather see you show. Where in the Bible is it outspoken that creation was perfect before the Fall?

So you're suggesting that God did not observe Adam's behavior? This too must be supported scripturally for it to hold.

 

[NNSV]

You say Adam was created perfect yet there is no scripture to indicate such, and if he were, he would have not given in to sin. This is not something I'm willing to assume, but something I would rather see you show. Where in the Bible is it outspoken that creation was perfect before the Fall?

So you're suggesting that God did not observe Adam's behavior? This too must be supported scripturally for it to hold.

There is no scriptural evidence that suggests Adam was made imperfect, but there is scriptural evidence of Adam's fall from something better, just like Lucifer's fall. But ask yourself: Does God create things that are not perfect?

It should be implicit that everything God creates is perfect as per His perfect deity. I think Sola Scriptura is a fallacy because it forces the believer to believe every possible thought process, inference and intelligent rationale concerning God can only comes from the bible, and must be quoted thereof. The bible is a basis, but we are expected to make our own deductions, meditate on them, and extrapolate them.

I think for you it rests on the basis of whether or not you believe God creates everything perfectly when He creates them. If you do believe God makes everything perfectly (as in, everything He makes initially is formed with NO flaws, full of good) then you know that everything He creates begins as a perfection. If you do not believe everything God creates is perfect to begin with, then other questions and problems come up. God calls His creation very good. This isn't because it isn't very great. In Hebrew, very is "m'od", which means "vehemently or wholly." Good in Hebrew means "tob" which means "best, beautiful, bountiful, etc."


I never said God doesn't observe Adam's behavior. I said Adam is like God, because even though He may not know what the animal's functions are, he names them according to their description/function as a paradoxical use of his inherent full knowledge of God's creation. He knew, but he didn't know. A paradox.

 

[Assyrian]

Animals die. People ddiiee.
Can you see they are two different words? Thus, two definitions.

So if ddeeaathh is what came through the fall then what is the theological problem with animals dying before or after the fall?

 

[Assyrian]

It does. It is done after Adam discovered that he is nude.

Like the way God created all the animals and birds after he said Adam was alone?

 

[Chris81]

In Genesis 3:3, God says "You shall not eat from it or touch it, least you die." The warning is clear those who eat from the tree of will die but he says nothing about bringing a complete reordering of the world such that all the living shall cursed with the experience of death.

Apparently Genesis 3:14 is used as justification for the belief that no death occurred before the Fall.

In Genesis 3:14 it states: And the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly shall you go, and dust shall you eat all the days of your life."

This is a curse that is directed specifically at the serpent, whom is a representation of Satan. Thus we are seeing God curse Satan for his evil act and not a curse of his creation. If this was God cursing actual snakes, I would ask someone to please show me a snake that eats dust.

Also it seems interesting that God casts out Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. If God had truly cursed all of his creation it would seem that the Garden would no longer be a desirable place to live yet not only does God cast them out be he guards it with a cherubim so that they may never again return.

 

[juvenissun]

So if ddeeaathh is what came through the fall then what is the theological problem with animals dying before or after the fall?

You got it. It is not a problem to me.

 

[juvenissun]

Like the way God created all the animals and birds after he said Adam was alone?

Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them:

I think we have talked about this before.

Gen 1: God makes birds. Then God makes man.
Gen 2: God brings birds (he made) to the man for names.

The reason that God needs to bring the animals to Adam because Adam is put in the Garden and animals are not.

Even goes literally, it has no conflict.

It is important to notice that God creates birds, animals (but not plants), the same way as He creates man (not sure why). But God only gives His breath to man. That is the key message of Gen 2. Gen 2 is a footnote of Gen 1. It is perfect, and is really beautiful.

 

[elopez]

There is no scriptural evidence that suggests Adam was made imperfect, but there is scriptural evidence of Adam's fall from something better, just like Lucifer's fall. But ask yourself: Does God create things that are not perfect?

It should be implicit that everything God creates is perfect as per His perfect deity. I think Sola Scriptura is a fallacy because it forces the believer to believe every possible thought process, inference and intelligent rationale concerning God can only comes from the bible, and must be quoted thereof. The bible is a basis, but we are expected to make our own deductions, meditate on them, and extrapolate them.

I think for you it rests on the basis of whether or not you believe God creates everything perfectly when He creates them. If you do believe God makes everything perfectly (as in, everything He makes initially is formed with NO flaws, full of good) then you know that everything He creates begins as a perfection. If you do not believe everything God creates is perfect to begin with, then other questions and problems come up. God calls His creation very good. This isn't because it isn't very great. In Hebrew, very is "m'od", which means "vehemently or wholly." Good in Hebrew means "tob" which means "best, beautiful, bountiful, etc."


I never said God doesn't observe Adam's behavior. I said Adam is like God, because even though He may not know what the animal's functions are, he names them according to their description/function as a paradoxical use of his inherent full knowledge of God's creation. He knew, but he didn't know. A paradox.

But again, there is no scriptural evidence of first man's perfection or you would have posted it instead of attempting to turn the tables by saying the Bible does not say he was imperfect. It doesn't matter if there is an absence of scripture to suggest otherwise since you are the one claiming that Adam is perfect, and thus the one that should be providing the scripture to support the idea. I would have to ask you to define what you mean by perfect. I believe God creates things as perfect as they can get. For example, God created man perfectly given that He did so with inherit free will. This means that Adam could not have been created any more better than how God created him, however this does not mean that Adam will be absolutely perfect, as in without flaws exactly because of his free will.

Perfect to me means entirely without any flaws or defects. So when I think of God's creation as being perfect I do not imagine perfect in the same sense that God is, since God alone grasps that perfection. Having said that I don't really think it is implicit at all. If Adam were perfect, he would have resisted the temptation to eat the fruit. But he didn't, and that was the flaw, so Adam couldn't have been perfect. I do not view Adam as being perfect but rather originally innocent.

 

[Assyrian]

You got it. It is not a problem to me.

That's what I thought your position was

Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them:

I think we have talked about this before.

Gen 1: God makes birds. Then God makes man.
Gen 2: God brings birds (he made) to the man for names.

The reason that God needs to bring the animals to Adam because Adam is put in the Garden and animals are not.

Even goes literally, it has no conflict.

The Hebrew is quite clear God made the animals then rather than bringing ones he had made earlier. What I was interested in though is the way you take the flow of the narrative to show God got the animals skins after Adam and Eve saw they were naked, which contradicted you attempt in earlier discussions to claim the animals were created previously.

It is important to notice that God creates birds, animals (but not plants), the same way as He creates man (not sure why). But God only gives His breath to man. That is the key message of Gen 2.

They are not that different.
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree
Gen 2:19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field
But I do agree the big difference between the creation of man and animals is the breath or spirit he gives man. We see this in Ecclesiastes too Where the spirits of animals return to the dust when they die but our spirit returns to God who gave it.

Gen 2 is a footnote of Gen 1. It is perfect, and is really beautiful.

I really don't know where creationists get this from the text. It has all the marks of being a completely separate narrative, without the slightest hint in the text that it was meant as a footnote.