Death before the Fall - round 2!

[shernren]

Since the death before the Fall issue was brought up again a little while back we should discuss this in a separate thread. How do YECs answer the following questions?

1. Did the Carnivora exist before the Fall, and how?
2. Was there animal reproduction and animal life-cycle growth before the Fall, and if there was, how were animal populations controlled?
3. Were there natural disasters like earthquakes, volcanoes, hailstorms and tsunamis before the Fall?
4. Why did animals eat before the Fall?

 

[TheBear]

Oh no!

Not the dreadded and false doctrine of 'The Fall' again.


Make it go away!

 

[shernren]

Oh dear, it seems like my questions aren't attracting any answers. I'll post an open insult and see what happens then.

Reductio ad absurdum:

Question: is animal death ethically wrong or ethically correct?

If it is ethically wrong, then all Christians must:
- be vegetarian
- not use animal products
- not kill pests
- denounce ecological measures that include culling or fatal animal experimentation
- combat animal hunger and starvation
- etc. etc.

If it is ethically right, then it is not incompatible with a perfect world, and therefore death before the Fall is not a logical impossibility.

Note there has to be a universal standard of ethicality based on the character of God, and since God has not changed in the Fall, neither have His standards of ethicality.

Responses? Or are all YECists here vegans who boycott exterminators?

 

[GenemZ]

Since the death before the Fall issue was brought up again a little while back we should discuss this in a separate thread. How do YECs answer the following questions?

Why do you limit to only YEC's answering? That may be your problem in seeking results. Do you want an answer? Or, just what they think?

1. Did the Carnivora exist before the Fall, and how?

They existed long before the creation of Adam. Dinosaurs, and then after them, mammals like the saber tooth tiger.

2. Was there animal reproduction and animal life-cycle growth before the Fall, and if there was, how were animal populations controlled?

Scientific evidence I do not have in front of me. But, I believe there were droughts and natural disasters that wiped out huge portions of animal life, and there were predators to keep populations in check.

3. Were there natural disasters like earthquakes, volcanoes, hailstorms and tsunamis before the Fall?

Yes. It was a series of creations which acted as grade levels for the angels in learning about God and life.

4. Why did animals eat before the Fall?

They gave it no thought. It was for pleasure. All of living was. It was an enjoyable experience to eat. No one stuffed themselves because all the food was balanced and fully nutritious, and there was no fear of starvation around the corner. Yet, food and eating was a link. A shadow representation, to the reality of all creation's dependence on God for our lives.

This is just a very basic intro. You wish to develop it?

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

Oh dear, it seems like my questions aren't attracting any answers. I'll post an open insult and see what happens then.

Reductio ad absurdum:

Question: is animal death ethically wrong or ethically correct?

If it is ethically wrong, then all Christians must:
- be vegetarian
- not use animal products
- not kill pests
- denounce ecological measures that include culling or fatal animal experimentation
- combat animal hunger and starvation
- etc. etc.

Jeepers creepers! God commanded the slaughtering of animals in the Temple. The priests were to eat the meat of certain sacrifices as their means for sustenance.

Leviticus 6:25-26 niv
"Say to Aaron and his sons: 'These are the regulations for the sin offering: The sin offering is to be slaughtered before the LORD in the place the burnt offering is slaughtered; it is most holy. The priest who offers it shall eat it; it is to be eaten in a holy place, in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting."

Just do a search throughout the Law. The priests were to eat the meat of various sacrificed animals. We do not see any commands to place a carrot on the alter and slice it. Do we?

Jesus ate lamb. It is a required part of the Passover meal. And, Jesus cooked and served fish!

John 21:10-13 niv
"Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish you have just caught."
Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore.

It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn. Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast." None of the disciples dared ask him, "Who are you?" They knew it was the Lord. Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish."

Yummmmm! That must have been great fish!

And, the Lord had created fish with some vital nutrients that are excellent for our health!

If it is ethically right, then it is not incompatible with a perfect world, and therefore death before the Fall is not a logical impossibility.

Death before the fall of Adam (in this creation) did not exist in this creation. Yet, in prior creations death was everywhere to be found. Satan knew what the word "death" meant when Adam was told not to eat. I suspect Satan thought Adam and Eve would have died on the spot if he got them to eat. But, God spoke of spiritual death concerning Adam. Physical death was only a result, and came much later.

Note there has to be a universal standard of ethicality based on the character of God, and since God has not changed in the Fall, neither have His standards of ethicality.

God does not change. But God does change our realities, depending on the circumstances. He has always done that. He can bless. And, he can curse. He does not change. Our realities do.



Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[shernren]

Well I "limited" the response to YECs because to me, TEs shouldn't have a problem with death before the Fall. Some believe that the Fall was not a historical event. Others, like me, believe that it was, but still don't see a problem with animal death in a perfect natural world. However YECs would take issue with this, since one of their justifications against evolution would be that it would require death before the Fall which should not happen in a perfect world, according to them.

So what I am trying to find from them is, why do you think there shouldn't be animal death in a perfect world?

 

[TwinCrier]

I am YEC and I have no problem with killing animals.
1} the scripture doesn't say but I imagine not. Of course evoultuion would require the proper teeth to develop so it would be a million some odd years for that to happen. One of the first things God did after the fall was kill animals to make coverings for Adam and Eve.
2} There isn't much need to population control when you aren't speaking of millions of years. Adam did seem to notice the male/female pairings when he was naming the animals as in Gen 2:20 so there may well have been mating going on.
3} It's not mentioned in Genesis of any disasters. Not much mention of Tsunamis else where in the book as I recall... well, except for that whole global flood thing.
4} I'm sure Purina had buffalo chow and llama chow available....
But seriously, it's not mentioned in the bible and I don't see what that has to do with creation. I'm pretty sure it wasn't forbidden fruit though.

 

[GenemZ]

Well I "limited" the response to YECs because to me, TEs shouldn't have a problem with death before the Fall. Some believe that the Fall was not a historical event. Others, like me, believe that it was, but still don't see a problem with animal death in a perfect natural world. However YECs would take issue with this, since one of their justifications against evolution would be that it would require death before the Fall which should not happen in a perfect world, according to them.

So what I am trying to find from them is, why do you think there shouldn't be animal death in a perfect world?

Are you aware of the much maligned GAP theory? YEC's hate it, because it refutes TE's, and still shows that the Bible makes perfect sense when one looks at creation. YEC's just do not want to hear it. I think they thrive on two things. Wanting to be right. And, frustrating anyone who does not see it their way. At least, that's what I have been exposed to over the years.



Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[TwinCrier]

Yes, it's frustrating, but then I just pray to God for patience. When we all get to heaven Adam can straighten this whole thing out for us. Likewise I think TEs get frustrated at the unending devotion to a literal interpretation of the bible. I know I have no intention of altering my faith and beliefs because of the repeated rhetoric with large words and even larger numbers. None of that intimidates me though.

 

[shernren]

I'm confused, TwinCrier ... do you think there was animal death before the Fall, anyway?

If evolution could develop an entire Carnivora family in 4000++ years isn't that a great testament to the reality of "macroevolution"?
If God only designed the Earth to hold a few million animals, without any provision for killing them off when they over-populated, isn't that equivalent to saying God was just setting up a perfect world for the Fall?
And if there is no predation, no life-cycle growth, and no reproduction there is no need for animals to move and thus no need for animals to eat.

 

[SBG]

Mind you that everything you are saying about "what if man didn't fall..." is purely speculation that the Bible is silent on. Yet, you want answers from YECs to something God has not given.

1. Did the Carnivora exist before the Fall, and how?

The Bible doesn't say. It does speak about plants being given as food, never does it say animals are given as food in the pre-fallen world.

2. Was there animal reproduction and animal life-cycle growth before the Fall, and if there was, how were animal populations controlled?

God commanded animals and Adam and Eve to reproduce in Genesis 1-2. If you need verses to better understand this let me know, but I am assuming you are aware of these.

Again, the Bible doesn't talk about population control in a pre-fallen world. You want answers that the Bible doesn't answer because it seems - by speculation - that it never got that far in a pre-fallen world to be a problem.

3. Were there natural disasters like earthquakes, volcanoes, hailstorms and tsunamis before the Fall?

Again, the Bible doesn't say there was natural disasters as you describe in a pre-fallen world.

4. Why did animals eat before the Fall?

I would assume animals eat because they are hungry, but the Bible doesn't explain this either.

It seems you want answers to things that the Bible is silent on. Is this the point you want to make? That the Bible is silent on these?

Let me ask you a question. How many days does the Bible say God used to create the world? Is the Bible silent on this or does it say in six days God created all that is in the universe?

 

[GenemZ]

I'm confused, TwinCrier ... do you think there was animal death before the Fall, anyway?

If evolution could develop an entire Carnivora family in 4000++ years isn't that a great testament to the reality of "macroevolution"?
If God only designed the Earth to hold a few million animals, without any provision for killing them off when they over-populated, isn't that equivalent to saying God was just setting up a perfect world for the Fall?
And if there is no predation, no life-cycle growth, and no reproduction there is no need for animals to move and thus no need for animals to eat.

You seem to want to play one theory against the other. Yet, I offered you an answer which you seem to want to ignore. As if you are more interested in a challenge of ideas , rather then seeking a resolve. YEC's and TE's are like the Hatfields and McCoys to me. A never ending feud based upon one incorrect bias against another.

May I suggest you take a deep look at the following?

http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html

If you do, you will be able to see why arguing YEC, or TE, makes no sense if you see what the Bible is saying in the original languages.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Are you aware of the much maligned GAP theory?

Yup! I was a gap theorist for about two years. It was my stopgap measure when I had come to believe that YEC was wrong but still thought TE was out of the question.

I still think it's the origins view with the most tantalizing story. Satan corrupting the first creation and all that is just like something Tolkien would write! And no, I'm not mocking. While I no longer think it's true, I still like the story, and if I couldn't be TE for some reason, I'd probably go back to Gap.

It seems you want answers to things that the Bible is silent on. Is this the point you want to make? That the Bible is silent on these?

The Bible is also silent on whether animals died before the Fall. One can only make the Bible speak to that question by applying verses that speak about humans to animals.

What the Bible is not silent about is that animal death can indeed be called "good" by God. In Psalm 104 God calls prey for a lion and other food a good thing from God's own hand. In Job 39 God even points to the silly ostrich that abandons her young as evidence of his handiwork. One should be careful about declaring aspects of God's creation to be evil or a result of corruption when God himself uses those aspects to demonstrate his glory.

Let me ask you a question. How many days does the Bible say God used to create the world? Is the Bible silent on this or does it say in six days God created all that is in the universe?

In Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11, six days. In Genesis 2:4, one day. According to Hebrews 4, the seventh day is God's rest that we can still enter today.

 

[GenemZ]

Yup! I was a gap theorist for about two years. It was my stopgap measure when I had come to believe that YEC was wrong but still thought TE was out of the question.

I still think it's the origins view with the most tantalizing story. Satan corrupting the first creation and all that is just like something Tolkien would write! And no, I'm not mocking. While I no longer think it's true, I still like the story, and if I couldn't be TE for some reason, I'd probably go back to Gap.

If you no longer think its true? Why? The one thing we are told that is a lie, is that this theory was created to counter TE. It was not. First century scholars (and earlier) who saw what the Hebrew was saying were seeing the foundation for this theory long before Darwin was born. It was not created to counter evolutionary theory. It was first taken very seriously at the time of Darwin for the need for this doctrinal teaching had become apparent.

I would suggest taking a read at the following link. See how YEC's lie when they say this theory ws created in response to the Darwinian attack on the Bible.

http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/chap1.html

This understanding was already known at the time of Jesus! It was not seen as a vital teaching that needed everyone to know about. Scholars saw it. No one saw a deep need to expound on it, for past worlds were not yet discovered and recognized by man. It was simply something that scholars pondered the meaning of.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[shernren]

Mind you that everything you are saying about "what if man didn't fall..." is purely speculation that the Bible is silent on. Yet, you want answers from YECs to something God has not given.

I admit there will be some degree of fudge here, but I do believe that we can agree on the following:

1. The world was not meant to be fallen, or alternatively it would have continued to be a viable world if it was not fallen. I think that without animal death it would not have been a viable world for long.
2. The physical realities of the unfallen world were probably similar or even identical to the physical realities of the fallen world. By "physical realities" I mean fundamental quantum forces and basic physics, in particular the work-energy theorem and mass-energy conservation - since a viable world without animal death would probably have to violate one or the other...

1. Did the Carnivora exist before the Fall, and how?

The Bible doesn't say. It does speak about plants being given as food, never does it say animals are given as food in the pre-fallen world.

Nor does it say anything about air being given for breathing, or water for drinking ... but having said that, the inclusion of plants and omission of animals is interesting, but by itself it says nothing to me, especially given all the evidence against. Meanwhile, if the Carnivora didn't exist before the Fall, it means that an entire family of mammals came into existence and aligned themselves perfectly with their ecosystems worldwide within 6000-10000 years. This is a far stronger case for evolution than the most die-hard evolutionist would dare to suggest.

2. Was there animal reproduction and animal life-cycle growth before the Fall, and if there was, how were animal populations controlled?

God commanded animals and Adam and Eve to reproduce in Genesis 1-2. If you need verses to better understand this let me know, but I am assuming you are aware of these.

Again, the Bible doesn't talk about population control in a pre-fallen world. You want answers that the Bible doesn't answer because it seems - by speculation - that it never got that far in a pre-fallen world to be a problem.

The thing is, I am assuming that God wanted the world to be un-fallen. Sometimes when I hear YECs speaking about no animal death before the Fall, I get the picture in my mind of God going "Adam, go on and eat that fruit and let Me bring in animal death - or else the rodents shall inherit the earth..." that pretty much sums up my objections. A population which has reproductions without deaths will reach an infinite population in infinite time, unless you want to violate mathematics while you're at it.

3. Were there natural disasters like earthquakes, volcanoes, hailstorms and tsunamis before the Fall?

Again, the Bible doesn't say there was natural disasters as you describe in a pre-fallen world.

Yeah. It doesn't say there weren't any either. So how do we decide?

4. Why did animals eat before the Fall?

I would assume animals eat because they are hungry, but the Bible doesn't explain this either.

But why would animals get hungry? I guess I was a bit disingenuous in asking the question this way. You see, if there is no animal death, there is no predation. And if there is no animal death, the only way to have a indefinitely finite population is to have limited or no reproduction, which would mean limited or no growth. So why would animals have to move? They don't prey, they aren't preyed upon, they can't reproduce forever and they can't grow forever.

It seems you want answers to things that the Bible is silent on. Is this the point you want to make? That the Bible is silent on these?

Well, actually, that's a good point. Does the Bible really say anywhere that there was no animal death before the Fall? I mean, we can assume that the unfallen world was perfect, but what does "perfect" mean? I believe the Bible doesn't really say. And where the Bible is silent we are to use common sense: that's why since the Bible is silent on what I should eat for breakfast, I pour milk on my cereal instead of coffee. Since the Bible is silent on animal death before the Fall, my common sense tells me that there probably was some.

 

[SBG]

The Bible is also silent on whether animals died before the Fall. One can only make the Bible speak to that question by applying verses that speak about humans to animals.

I agree that it is silent on this. So one cannot truly say animals did or didn't die before the fall. We have to remember that the animals were created with a different purpose than man. Animals were not God's companion to walk and talk with, man was/is.

What the Bible is not silent about is that animal death can indeed be called "good" by God. In Psalm 104 God calls prey for a lion and other food a good thing from God's own hand. In Job 39 God even points to the silly ostrich that abandons her young as evidence of his handiwork. One should be careful about declaring aspects of God's creation to be evil or a result of corruption when God himself uses those aspects to demonstrate his glory.

What you have to remember is that first you are speaking about post fall life. Second, there was a difference between pre fall and post fall life. Otherwise, what did God really restrict Adam and Eve from if life as not different at all? And why did God curse the ground of the earth if it was already as it is after the fall? Things changed because of the fall, the entire way of life changed.

Now, we must also realize God is Sovereign over all things. Rules that apply to mankind do not apply to God because He is Sovereign. I have seen you say make the assumption that because God killed an animal for clothing for Adam and Eve that killing an animal is not evil or sinful. You then go on with this and state that it is not sinful to kill animals therefore animals could have been killed before the fall of mankind.

Let's try the same example with a different view. God can kill people. He has, does and will. So, is killing people sinful for mankind? Is it ok for me to murder someone because they don't follow me? No, it is sinful to do such a thing.

So what do we learn from this? That God is Sovereign over all things. That He can do things, we cannot because they would be sinful for us to do them, but not for Him to do them. God can condemn, so therefore are we also to condemn people? No. That is sinful.

God has set rules for us to live by. They are His rules and He is above His rules. If not, then because murder is a sin for us, then when God kills it is also sinful for Him. Condeming people is sinful for us, so therefore when God condemns it is sinful for Him.

This is the problem I see very often with Christians and non-Christians alike. We tend to equate what is right/wrong for us to be the same for God. If you are a parent and you set boundries for your child, do you need to obey those boundries as well? How about you tell your child to go to bed at 9pm, do you need to go to bed at 9pm as well? No.

In Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11, six days. In Genesis 2:4, one day. According to Hebrews 4, the seventh day is God's rest that we can still enter today.

Can you explain to me how Genesis 2:4 speaks of creation in one day? This is what I see in Genesis 2:4:

"This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-"

That is the NIV take on it and presume you are looking to something more like the NAS version:

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven."

If so this is what you are looking at, then I would ask you when did God create the heavens and the earth? Was that in day 1? In day 2 and on He created the things within the heavens and the earth, right?

 

[SBG]

I admit there will be some degree of fudge here, but I do believe that we can agree on the following:

1. The world was not meant to be fallen, or alternatively it would have continued to be a viable world if it was not fallen. I think that without animal death it would not have been a viable world for long.

I agree that God didn't want mankind to become fallen and if Adam and Eve did not sin then the world would be viable.

I don't agree with you though about no animal death = not viable. Your statement first off is based on your speculation of what it might be like. We cannot say what it would be like, we don't know. We should though, trust that God would have taken care of it.

2. The physical realities of the unfallen world were probably similar or even identical to the physical realities of the fallen world. By "physical realities" I mean fundamental quantum forces and basic physics, in particular the work-energy theorem and mass-energy conservation - since a viable world without animal death would probably have to violate one or the other...

This again is pure speculation. We can assume this, but you nor I will ever truly know. Since we won't know, why should spend time speculationg on it when there are more important issues at hand?

Nor does it say anything about air being given for breathing, or water for drinking ... but having said that, the inclusion of plants and omission of animals is interesting, but by itself it says nothing to me, especially given all the evidence against. Meanwhile, if the Carnivora didn't exist before the Fall, it means that an entire family of mammals came into existence and aligned themselves perfectly with their ecosystems worldwide within 6000-10000 years. This is a far stronger case for evolution than the most die-hard evolutionist would dare to suggest.

For me the inclusion of plants and omission of animals for food says a lot. It sets forth what Adam could eat, but it doesn't say he couldn't eat the animals so again, we don't know. We can only assume.

One thing that supports my assumption that the animals were not carnivorous at this time is that they all came together to be named by Adam. Natural instincts would not allow predator and prey to be present together at the same time without death taking place. Also, Adam would be prey to some of those animals present, if per say a lion was present or a bear.

There are passages within the Bible that do suggest that sin not only affects man, but also everything else. Take Romans for example where Paul teaches that all of creation - all of creation would be everything that was created, including animals and plants - groan to be set free from bondage. We know from context that this bondage is sin. Man brought sin into the world and it has affected everything, not just man.

The thing is, I am assuming that God wanted the world to be un-fallen. Sometimes when I hear YECs speaking about no animal death before the Fall, I get the picture in my mind of God going "Adam, go on and eat that fruit and let Me bring in animal death - or else the rodents shall inherit the earth..." that pretty much sums up my objections. A population which has reproductions without deaths will reach an infinite population in infinite time, unless you want to violate mathematics while you're at it.

How do you know or not know that the fruit supplied all that Adam needed? That the fruit within the Garden was like nothing we see today? Secondly, how do you know that God wouldn't keep population in check? It is said in Psalms that it is God who blesses people with children. God can also make women barren. He is all powerful.

In your statement above you are assuming that God is not playing a role in the world that is unfallen. God is always playing a role and would be even if Adam and Eve did not sin.

Yeah. It doesn't say there weren't any either. So how do we decide?

Why do you need to decide on this? Can we accept that we just don't know? That God would have done whatever He chose and it would have been just?

But why would animals get hungry? I guess I was a bit disingenuous in asking the question this way. You see, if there is no animal death, there is no predation. And if there is no animal death, the only way to have a indefinitely finite population is to have limited or no reproduction, which would mean limited or no growth. So why would animals have to move? They don't prey, they aren't preyed upon, they can't reproduce forever and they can't grow forever.

I suspected that there was more to the question than asked. I think again, you are seeing a pre-fallen world in the eyes of a fallen world thinking they would be either the same or very similiar. This is perfectly understandable. We are limited in our thinking and knowledge. That is why faith/trust is so important.

Why would man move? Maybe because he chose to? This is an odd question to me as it seems you are looking for me to answer from the perspective of one of which I cannot have. I honestly don't know what it would have been like if there was no sin. Revelation gives us some insight into what it will be like, which if we allow the authors to give the meaning to the text, we will understand that the restoration of the world, where God brings in a new heaven and earth is what it was originally meant to be like. Otherwise, the authors would not talk about God restoring this world. There has to be a previous point for God to restore to.

Well, actually, that's a good point. Does the Bible really say anywhere that there was no animal death before the Fall? I mean, we can assume that the unfallen world was perfect, but what does "perfect" mean? I believe the Bible doesn't really say. And where the Bible is silent we are to use common sense: that's why since the Bible is silent on what I should eat for breakfast, I pour milk on my cereal instead of coffee. Since the Bible is silent on animal death before the Fall, my common sense tells me that there probably was some.

The Bible points to what it will be like when we walk with Jesus that there will be no predation of animals. I would assume this too means no animal death. This is part of the restoration. So, I think we can assume that God restores the animals to how they were intended to be.

What does perfect mean? Depends on whose point of view you are looking for. I think our view of perfect would not be the same as God's view of perfect. This is because even our best parts of us, are stained with sin.

Since the Bible is silent on animal death before the fall in Genesis, it is not then ok for you to say there was. One really ought to look at how God will restore things to better understand how things were. If you cannot find your answers there, then you don't just assume an answer because you want to. You rather say you don't know. I think that is a common error of many Christians.

 

[TwinCrier]

I'm confused, TwinCrier ... do you think there was animal death before the Fall, anyway?

No.

If evolution could develop an entire Carnivora family in 4000++ years isn't that a great testament to the reality of "macroevolution"?
If God only designed the Earth to hold a few million animals, without any provision for killing them off when they over-populated, isn't that equivalent to saying God was just setting up a perfect world for the Fall?
And if there is no predation, no life-cycle growth, and no reproduction there is no need for animals to move and thus no need for animals to eat.

I don't believe in Macroevolution. No, God didn't set us up for the fall. Some people do believe that, but I don't. I believe there is God's perfect will, then there is God's permissive will, where He changes things to make the best out of our screw-ups. There is no reason to believe that God wanted all life to remain within the confines of the original "garden" wherever that may have been. I don't understand your last statement at all. Animals being able to move and eat is common in both evolution and creation theories.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

I have seen you say make the assumption that because God killed an animal for clothing for Adam and Eve that killing an animal is not evil or sinful. You then go on with this and state that it is not sinful to kill animals therefore animals could have been killed before the fall of mankind.

That wasn't me. I agree with you that God can do things that would be sinful if done by humans. However, in clothing Adam and Eve, God seemed to be demonstrating what they should do. In other words, God didn't kill each animal to clothe each descendent of Adam and Eve. They followed the pattern God provided to make their own clothes. And so, I don't think God would provide a pattern for them that would be evil if they copied it.

Can you explain to me how Genesis 2:4 speaks of creation in one day? [...] That is the NIV take on it and presume you are looking to something more like the NAS version:

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven."

Any fairly literal translation will do. The Hebrew word yom is present in the verse, regardless of whether certain English versions choose to translate it.

If so this is what you are looking at, then I would ask you when did God create the heavens and the earth? Was that in day 1? In day 2 and on He created the things within the heavens and the earth, right?

According to Genesis 1, God names what he made on day 2 the heavens (shamayim) and what he made on day 3 the earth ('erets). In Genesis 2:4, it talks about the day when Yahweh made the heavens (shamayim) and the earth ('erets).

One thing that supports my assumption that the animals were not carnivorous at this time is that they all came together to be named by Adam. Natural instincts would not allow predator and prey to be present together at the same time without death taking place. Also, Adam would be prey to some of those animals present, if per say a lion was present or a bear.

If you follow that reasoning, it would mean that animal death did not start with the Fall, since all the animals also came to Noah and did not harm him.

There are passages within the Bible that do suggest that sin not only affects man, but also everything else. Take Romans for example where Paul teaches that all of creation - all of creation would be everything that was created, including animals and plants - groan to be set free from bondage. We know from context that this bondage is sin. Man brought sin into the world and it has affected everything, not just man.

Agreed, but there's no reason to think this bondage includes animal death. All creation is affected because creation is under humanity's dominion (see Genesis 1:26-28; Psalm 8:4-8). Just as a corrupt king can ruin a kingdom, so too sinful humans can put all of creation in bondage.

Why do you need to decide on this? Can we accept that we just don't know?

That would be great, but one of the most frequent arguments of YECs is that evolution and an old earth can't be true because it places death (meaning animal death) before the Fall. If that argument didn't come up so frequently, you probably wouldn't see threads like this.

the restoration of the world, where God brings in a new heaven and earth is what it was originally meant to be like. Otherwise, the authors would not talk about God restoring this world. There has to be a previous point for God to restore to.

I believe that in the end all of creation will gain far more than it lost. The end will be more than a return to the conditions at the beginning, and that may be why God thought it worth the price to go through the whole ordeal.

The Bible points to what it will be like when we walk with Jesus that there will be no predation of animals. I would assume this too means no animal death.

Verse please?

One really ought to look at how God will restore things to better understand how things were.

But that assumes that God's ultimate goal is only to set things back to the way they were before. I think God's plans are far greater.

 

[SBG]

That wasn't me. I agree with you that God can do things that would be sinful if done by humans. However, in clothing Adam and Eve, God seemed to be demonstrating what they should do. In other words, God didn't kill each animal to clothe each descendent of Adam and Eve. They followed the pattern God provided to make their own clothes. And so, I don't think God would provide a pattern for them that would be evil if they copied it.

Ok, my apologies. I thought that could have been you.

Well based of what you wrote, let me ask you this then: why didn't God kill the animal before the fall if it was ok to do so then? Why is the first recording of death, after the fall?

I too think this is a pattern and very significant one in the sense of when this takes place: after the fall. As I previously said, things drastically changed because of sin.

Any fairly literal translation will do. The Hebrew word yom is present in the verse, regardless of whether certain English versions choose to translate it.


According to Genesis 1, God names what he made on day 2 the heavens (shamayim) and what he made on day 3 the earth ('erets). In Genesis 2:4, it talks about the day when Yahweh made the heavens (shamayim) and the earth ('erets).

Well according to Genesis 1:1, which is part of day 1, God did create the heavens and the earth on that day. Genesis 1:2 talks of the earth as being void of anything because God has yet to create what is on and in the earth. Just as God has not created what is in the heavens, but the heavens have been created. He just seperates them later on and names them accordingly.

If you follow that reasoning, it would mean that animal death did not start with the Fall, since all the animals also came to Noah and did not harm him.

Actually, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be animal death. It just means that animals wouldn't have that nature in them to hunt and kill other animals. Man did kill animals for sacrifices and for clothing and food. So animal death would still be there. Remember the pattern you discussed just in the paragraph above?

Agreed, but there's no reason to think this bondage includes animal death. All creation is affected because creation is under humanity's dominion (see Genesis 1:26-28; Psalm 8:4-8). Just as a corrupt king can ruin a kingdom, so too sinful humans can put all of creation in bondage.

I wasn't saying this bondage includes animal death. What I am saying is that this bondage can include the nature animals have to now kill each other. YOu know we have that nature too. If anyone doesn't believe it, look at history and see how often we kill each other. Or just turn on the evening news.

That would be great, but one of the most frequent arguments of YECs is that evolution and an old earth can't be true because it places death (meaning animal death) before the Fall. If that argument didn't come up so frequently, you probably wouldn't see threads like this.

Death before the fall - from a YEC perspective - is not solely based on animal death. It is based on the fact that in order for man to evolve to the state we are in now, there had to have been numerous mutations that would not arise over night. Hence, the evolutionists need for time. You are aware that this theory that earth is extremely old from a science perspective came about with Darwin. Before him, it was commonly believed that the earth was young. Since the dawn of evolution, the belief of an old earth has come to be accepted because of evolution. They are mutually exclusive and necessary.

Now, back to what I was saying is that human death had to have occured in order for Adam and Eve to evolve to the point that they would have been in a "pre-fallen" world. That is unless, one doesn't subscribe to human evolution but rather to human creationism. But that would go against common descent and as Gluadys has previously stated, if you accept evolution you have to accept every piece not just part of it.

So, with evolution of the human species, there has to have been death, because the length of time for man to evolve to the state Adam and Eve were would take quite a long time. Longer than a human life span is.

I believe threads like this are to deviate one from going after the heart of the matter, human death.

I believe that in the end all of creation will gain far more than it lost. The end will be more than a return to the conditions at the beginning, and that may be why God thought it worth the price to go through the whole ordeal.

I agree with you. Creation will gain more than it had, but again this could be speculation as well. But realize, even if we will gain more than was originally intended in 'pre-fallen' days, it will still be restored. To restore something means to bring it back to what it was, it doesn't exclude it from being even better than it was. It must be atleast as good as it was.

Verse please?

Certainly. Isaiah was a great prophet and he spoke about the times of the coming judgement where Jesus judges and the time after His judgment.

Isaiah 11:6
Isaiah 65:25

Notice too in these verses what the lion eats. Notice also that the final fulfillment of the prophecy in Genesis 3 is completed with the serpent.

But that assumes that God's ultimate goal is only to set things back to the way they were before. I think God's plans are far greater.

Not only will He set them back to how it was intended to be, but He will make it even better. So I think we agree.