Animal death before the Fall.

[Chris81]

labels are offensive. It almost appears that those with that belief are mocked in subtle ways, and appears may possibly be unwelcome on this thread.

i don't believe mocking, in any form, has any place on a thread with Christians.

While labels can be offensive and can be used to mock, the label in of itself is not necessarily offensive. Many people in this forum freely identify themselves as Young Earth Creations, Old Earth Creationists, and believers in Theistic Evolution.

It is very true that the beliefs of the YECs are being called into question and that is in part what we do in these forums. This is a debate and I would hope that YECs would feel welcome to share and defend their beliefs. Otherwise this thread would be nothing more than a monologue.

I completely agree that mocking in any form should play no part in our conversations and debates on these forums especially among those that call themselves Christians.

 

[brinny]

i appreciate what you posted. Thank you. We are all learning and being taught of the Holy Spirit, God's Word. It is a precious thing. Dialogue is a good thing.

Thank you for your respectful, gracious response.

 

[Chris81]

i appreciate what you posted. Thank you. We are all learning and being taught of the Holy Spirit, God's Word. It is a precious thing. Dialogue is a good thing.

Thank you for your respectful, gracious response.

 

[brinny]

thou art a blessing, sir.

 

[theFijian]

Is God not perfect? Would He create anything un-perfect? In reference to the word "good", what did Jesus mean when He said there is none good but the Father?

This exploration of the word "good" should continue, don't you agree? We're just touching the surface, amen?

I agree, yet you seem to want to force a particular meaning on the word which the text of Genesis 1 does not warrant. I've already explained the meaning of the Hebrew words translated as 'good' used in Genesis 1, shall I post them again?

 

[Jazer]

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?

That would be a referance to Romans 5 12 "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—"

2:12 "But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed"

We know that the Brute Beasts perished before Adam. But Adam and his decendents were different. He was not a hunter - gatherer, he produced food. Before Adam there was no sin in the world or death though sin.

 

[lucaspa]

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.

No, it doesn't deny evolution because we are only talking 18 generations. Evolution requires at least 10 times that. What's more, according the the argument of no animal death, evolution would not be happening. Most of evolution happens due to natural selection and, with every animal surviving and reproducing, there would be no competition for scarce resources and therefore no natural selection.

Of course, after a while the number of mantids would be greater than the food supply, so you would have starvation ... to death. Oh wait, there's no death. Which means, I guess, that even if they didn't have anything to eat, they would be fine.

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.

Sorry, but that is unbiblical. The punishments for Adam and Eve's disobedience are given in Genesis 3:19. They are very limited. If you are going to insist on such a big change, then you are saying the Bible is wrong.

 

[Verticordious]

Is God not perfect? Would He create anything un-perfect? In reference to the word "good", what did Jesus mean when He said there is none good but the Father?

This exploration of the word "good" should continue, don't you agree? We're just touching the surface, amen?

I agree that God saying creation was "good" is no different than saying it was "perfect" in this context, however, perfect is a relative description not an absolute description. Blue would be the example of an absolute description. If I say something is blue we know exactly what that means, it means the wavelength of the photons being emitted from an object have a wavelength of ~460nm. Tall, however, is a relative description. Saying something is tall without any context is meaningless. How tall is tall? 5 ft? 10ft? 50ft? 1000ft? 25000ft? It depends on the context. People? 6ft is tall. A mountain? 23000 ft. Tall means that something is of greater height than average.

If something is absolute, that means it doesn't change depending on the situation. Blue is always the same range of wavelength of light, it doesn't change. Tall, however, does change depending on a situation. A 7ft person would be considered tall, but a 7ft building would be considered short. Likewise, perfect also depends upon the situation. The perfect car for a college student would be a cheap, used model with very basic features and good gas mileage. However, such a car would not be perfect for a business trying to impress clients. A business trying to impress investors and clients would want an expensive and sporty car that is new or very close to new with lots of luxury features. Something can be perfect in one situation, and completely inappropriate in another. Perfect simply means that it serves its intended purpose.

The world is perfect because it serves exactly the role God wanted it to serve. God has always intended for things like death and pain to exist. They are necessary traits of the universe. The universe would have to be completely different in order to not have any of these alleged "imperfections" while still supporting life. Earth was never meant to be Heaven, it was meant to be a place where humans could experience both good and evil and make a choice to obey or disobey God, and it does that very well, perfectly in fact.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Why do we think there was no animal death before the Fall of Man?

Well, consider these verses:-
Gen 1:29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
Gen 1:30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

 

[random person]

Of course there was death of animals. What would be the point of creating immortal animals and giving them reproductive organs? For example, a male ram knocks its competitor down a cliff of 200 feet, are you telling that defeated male ram would rise back up off the ground and brush himself off, and live another day to find another mate? Creeeepy! Or would mother nature take over with decomposure and scavengers?

There was death. Genesis is a metaphor, a poetic poem, like a psalm.

What death that was introduced into the Garden was spiritual death. Adam and Eve lost their fellowship with God due to sin and they also lost their salvation that is their spirits also wouldn't be rejoined with God in Heaven after physical death.

See, what Adam and Eve had was fellowship with God, a relationship with God, and heaven in the hereafter upon their deaths.

 

[random person]

Without animal death and predation, there is NO ecological balance.

What is to challenge overgrowth of forestry and vegetation? Herbivores among many other factors.

What is to challenge over population of Herbivores and deforestation? Carnivores among many other factors.

What is to challenge over population of Carnivores and over predation? Other Carnivores among many other factors.

And, ahem, plants obviously weren't immortal, were they? They died didn't they?