Death before the Fall - round 2!

[Marshall Janzen]

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?

Why is the first thing eaten in the Bible the forbidden fruit if eating was okay?

To directly answer your question, God didn't clothe Adam and Eve before this point because they were not yet aware or ashamed of their nakedness. The reason for killing the animal only came about after they sinned. The account has a logical progression and does not describe things that are not the point. Otherwise, I'm sure we'd read about Adam and Eve feasting on other food before trying out the forbidden fruit.

Also, note how the death of the animal is not even explicitly mentioned. It just says that God made garments of skin. Obviously that would require killing an animal, but the author doesn't even report that detail. It seems to be completely unimportant to him, which is surprising if this is the huge turning point for how God treats animal life.

Well according to Genesis 1:1, which is part of day 1, God did create the heavens and the earth on that day.

You're assuming that Genesis 1:1-2 are parts of day 1 as opposed to an introduction that provides a summary and the starting conditions. I don't think that assumption is correct. We can discuss this in a separate thread if you want to go into this in detail.

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.

In other words, we could not determine whether animal death was there based on whether Adam was able to name all the animals. That was my point.

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.

This would mean that some animals are in less bondage than others, since only some are carnivorous. I think all animals and all of creation is in bondage due to being under a corrupt ruler (humanity). I doubt this has anything to do with their eating habits.

You are aware that this theory that earth is extremely old from a science perspective came about with Darwin.

No. It came about before Darwin. The full extent of the earth's age (4.5 billion years instead of just millions of years) was not discovered until quite a while after Darwin.

Since the dawn of evolution, the belief of an old earth has come to be accepted because of evolution.

No. An old earth is accepted because of the evidence for it.

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.

You're assuming that humans existed for generations before any of them sinned. Many TEs do not believe that. Those that do (as well as many who don't) believe it was spiritual death that started with sin. I'm one of the oddball TEs who thinks human physical death might have started with sin as well, even though it's tough to prove such a claim from Scripture.

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.

Yes, common descent includes humans. That does not mean that pre-humans were human, though, so there's no need to believe that humans died before they sinned.

Also, many TEs believe God did something special to endow humanity with a spirit. Some believe a very small population of hominids was separated and providentially guided to humanness. Glenn Morton has a unique view with a very distinct Adam and Eve who still are related to the rest of life through common descent. In any of these cases there would be a distinct line between human and non-human, though the line would not be clear from fossils. Anyway, there's lots of speculation on how humanity came to be created in God's image, mainly because the evidence from creation and the testimony from Scripture allows for many possibilities.

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.

That would mean that those who had not yet evolved to this point (whatever it was) would not be human.

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

My own experience has been that animal death is more often raised as a problem of old earth theories than human death.

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.

In that case, you have no basis for claiming that any element of Paradise was also present in Eden. If animals will become immortal in the future, there's no basis to say whether this would be a restoration to Edenic conditions or something even better than Eden.

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.

Those verses aren't describing the same time. In Isaiah 65, it is describing a time when human death still occurs (see verse 20). If you take the imagery literally, this means that animal death and predation will be wiped out before human death! Much more likely is that the imagery reflects peace, and taking it literally is as big of a mistake as taking verses about trees clapping their hands literally. Nature is often personified by Isaiah and other prophets.

 

[shernren]

Granted, SBG, maybe the problem is that I am simply too unimaginative to come up with a solution for a viable biosphere without animal death. But having said that, I must qualify that within the best of my reasoning capacities I don't see any invalidity for animal death before the Fall, and I don't see animal death as incompatible with a perfect world. The thing is, with animal death, it is possible for animal populations to reach dynamic equilibrium, where the amount of death is roughly equal to the amount of births and so the population can stay at a constant size while consistent growth occurs. However without animal death there can be only a static equilibrium where nothing grows, nothing eats and nothing reproduces.

Or, God could make 1+1=1. That's really the only way out I am imaginative enough to come up with.

TwinCrier: I guess I'm not making myself clear. See, if animals can't die, then based on animal population reasonings like the one above, animals can't reproduce forever and animals can't grow forever. Now, why do animals move in today's world?

- to find food
- to find prey
- to avoid being prey
- to find reproductive mates and to reproduce

However in the pre-Fall world without animal death, which of these reasons would still apply?

 

[SBG]

Why is the first thing eaten in the Bible the forbidden fruit if eating was okay?

Is it the first thing eaten? We don't know. Same with animal death, we don't know. We can only speculate, either for or against. Either is an equal speculation and neither is greater than the other. Isaiah suggests somethings that should be kept in consideration, such as the lion eating straw for food.

To directly answer your question, God didn't clothe Adam and Eve before this point because they were not yet aware or ashamed of their nakedness. The reason for killing the animal only came about after they sinned. The account has a logical progression and does not describe things that are not the point. Otherwise, I'm sure we'd read about Adam and Eve feasting on other food before trying out the forbidden fruit.

As you said, the reason for God killing the animal was because of the result of sinning. Did God kill an animal before then? I couldn't say to be sure, but I can speculate that He did not.

Also, note how the death of the animal is not even explicitly mentioned. It just says that God made garments of skin. Obviously that would require killing an animal, but the author doesn't even report that detail. It seems to be completely unimportant to him, which is surprising if this is the huge turning point for how God treats animal life.

Of course animal death is not mentioned explicity, nor is even the killing of the animal mentioned explicity. The focus here is that Adam and Eve now have knowledge of shame and God comes and gives them Grace. Even after they sin against Him, He has Grace, mercy and forgiveness for them. I believe this is the focus of this piece of text, not the death of the animal.

This further points to humans being God's primary concern here on earth, not animals.

You're assuming that Genesis 1:1-2 are parts of day 1 as opposed to an introduction that provides a summary and the starting conditions. I don't think that assumption is correct. We can discuss this in a separate thread if you want to go into this in detail.

I am assuming this because in Genesis 1:1 it states God created. Genesis 1:2 talks about God surveying what He has thus far created. In verse six it continues with the waters that have already been created in verse 1 where God now separates them.

If you are assuming Genesis 1:1-2 are starting conditions, but not yet created, then where did that water come from in verse 6? If you take verses 1-2 as something He actually created, then you have the answer, but if you don't take it as something He did create on that day, where did those waters come from? He obviously created them, but when and where are they? Did He create the waters on day 1, and on day 2 He separated them? Where the waters on earth or somewhere else? If they were on earth and He hasn't created earth, how do you answer that?

My point here is, that the author is conveying to his audience that God did create the heavens and the earth on day 1. Do you care to understand what the author wants to convey or are you more interested in putting your own meaning into this?

In other words, we could not determine whether animal death was there based on whether Adam was able to name all the animals. That was my point.

My original statement was direct at animals being carnivorous. If they were before the fall, then Adam would not been able to name them as it is written. For it says God brought all the animals to him to name on day 6. If those animals were together and they were carnivorous, they very well would have killed one another.

This would mean that some animals are in less bondage than others, since only some are carnivorous. I think all animals and all of creation is in bondage due to being under a corrupt ruler (humanity). I doubt this has anything to do with their eating habits.

So does it follow that I am in less bondage than a murder because I have not nor will I kill anyone? No. But murder is a factor of sin, is it not? And sin can affect people in more than 1 way and I would say that it is very possible that sin can affect creation in more than 1 way.

No. It came about before Darwin. The full extent of the earth's age (4.5 billion years instead of just millions of years) was not discovered until quite a while after Darwin.

Not as a science. It was a philosophy of the Greeks at the time of Paul that the earth was very ancient. All early Church fathers agreed that the earth was young. Not one disagreed on this.

No. An old earth is accepted because of the evidence for it.

We can find evidence for virtually anything we desire.

You're assuming that humans existed for generations before any of them sinned. Many TEs do not believe that. Those that do (as well as many who don't) believe it was spiritual death that started with sin. I'm one of the oddball TEs who thinks human physical death might have started with sin as well, even though it's tough to prove such a claim from Scripture.

Paul open states that it is physical death that is the result of sin and sin is the separation between mankind and God. If one cares what the author was trying to convey then this is what you come up with. If one rather push their own meaning on the text, then you can come up with any interpretation that you want.

Yes, common descent includes humans. That does not mean that pre-humans were human, though, so there's no need to believe that humans died before they sinned.

I see this will probably be a never ending battle. Anyways none of this is based on Scripture but on man's desire to prove that this world can exist without a God. I am not saying that is your desire, but that is what evolution is to so many people.

Also, many TEs believe God did something special to endow humanity with a spirit. Some believe a very small population of hominids was separated and providentially guided to humanness. Glenn Morton has a unique view with a very distinct Adam and Eve who still are related to the rest of life through common descent. In any of these cases there would be a distinct line between human and non-human, though the line would not be clear from fossils. Anyway, there's lots of speculation on how humanity came to be created in God's image, mainly because the evidence from creation and the testimony from Scripture allows for many possibilities.

Do you have Scriptural support for this teaching or is this just all speculation based off of a need to believe in evolution?

That would mean that those who had not yet evolved to this point (whatever it was) would not be human.

My own experience has been that animal death is more often raised as a problem of old earth theories than human death.

In that case, you have no basis for claiming that any element of Paradise was also present in Eden. If animals will become immortal in the future, there's no basis to say whether this would be a restoration to Edenic conditions or something even better than Eden.

Eden was paradise. I have no idea if animals will become immortal, nor have I said they would. I believe what I have been saying all along is that all we can do is speculate on this because the Bible is silent. Honestly, I don't even know why this is an issue. It seems there are people who rather argue about speculation that Bible is silent on instead of the real issues.

Those verses aren't describing the same time. In Isaiah 65, it is describing a time when human death still occurs (see verse 20). If you take the imagery literally, this means that animal death and predation will be wiped out before human death! Much more likely is that the imagery reflects peace, and taking it literally is as big of a mistake as taking verses about trees clapping their hands literally. Nature is often personified by Isaiah and other prophets.

If you look to Isaiah 65:17 it says God will create a new heaven and a new earth. This is after judgment if we are following a chronological order found in Revelation. So this does have everything to do with after God has restored and brought a new heaven and earth. This passage as well as the few verses in chapter 11 talk about the same time. It also talks about children and animals being able to freely be near one another. Animals that are considered predators today. So things will change in how the animals are.

I agree it is talking about peace, but when it talks about the peace between a child and an asp where the asp does not harm the child, it is saying something about animals. Again, we have to look at this from the perspective of what is the author trying to convey to the reader. If you rather put your own meaning into the text, what is the point to even debating this because you can change the meaning of the text anytime you see fit. I am not saying you are doing this, but I am rather trying to show the importance of putting your ideas aside and trying to understand what the author is trying to say instead. That has to be our focus when reading the Bible so that we can actually learn something.

 

[SBG]

Granted, SBG, maybe the problem is that I am simply too unimaginative to come up with a solution for a viable biosphere without animal death. But having said that, I must qualify that within the best of my reasoning capacities I don't see any invalidity for animal death before the Fall, and I don't see animal death as incompatible with a perfect world. The thing is, with animal death, it is possible for animal populations to reach dynamic equilibrium, where the amount of death is roughly equal to the amount of births and so the population can stay at a constant size while consistent growth occurs. However without animal death there can be only a static equilibrium where nothing grows, nothing eats and nothing reproduces.

Or, God could make 1+1=1. That's really the only way out I am imaginative enough to come up with.

I think the problem is is that you are making a lot of assertions based on the world today when view a world without sin. The fact is they are not the same. We were not there, we don't have a detailed record of what it was like, so all we can do is speculate. For me, I look to the Bible to give me further answers of what it will be like when Jesus returns and judges. There passages within the Bible that tell us the condition of the world and what it will be like after all of this is completed. I believe we can safely assume that what it will be in the time of Christ's return will be similiar to what it was like before sin corrupted the world.

You have a bias towards evolution and that is how you see the world working. Because of that, you look to a pre-fallen world and assume it works the same way. First off, you have decided against the authors meaning in Genesis as far as a six day creation. Second, you have believed what the scientists have told you instead. Please keep in mind that I am not speaking against this, except the way you put your meaning into the text rather than understanding the authors meaning. You cannot deny that the author is trying to convey to his reader that God did create in six days. Unless you are going to state you are blind and cannot see it therefore it isn't true, you will see that that is what the author states. You then look to the world at how it works now in sin, through the eyes that reject a six day creation and accept a long period of creation and assume that how it is now is basically how it was before sin. This flawed on many levels.

You furthermore exclude God from keeping the pre-fallen world in order as well as the population.

I don't mean any disrespect but this is all speculation and assumptions based off of evolution, not Scriptural references nor the authors intended meaning in Genesis.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

I have no idea if animals will become immortal, nor have I said they would. I believe what I have been saying all along is that all we can do is speculate on this because the Bible is silent. Honestly, I don't even know why this is an issue.

Animal death is part of the topic of this thread, and if animals didn't die they would be immortal. Everybody is free to participate here as they see fit. If you do participate, your claims about animal death will be scrutinized and compared to Scripture and creation itself. Perhaps if more YECs see how hard it is to build a compelling case for animal death starting with the Fall, they'll be less likely to raise the assertion that this is a problem for other views of creation.

My original statement was direct at animals being carnivorous. If they were before the fall, then Adam would not been able to name them as it is written.

Okay, so you're claiming animals weren't carnivorous in Eden or when Noah brought them onto the ark. What post-flood event do you think was responsible for the beginning of carnivorous activity?

So does it follow that I am in less bondage than a murder because I have not nor will I kill anyone? No. But murder is a factor of sin, is it not?

Yes, murder is sin. Predation by animals is not murder nor sin. Hunting is not murder, and within certain bounds I do not believe it is sin. Because predation is not sinful, whether a creature is carnivorous does not show how or if it is in bondage.

Paul open states that it is physical death that is the result of sin and sin is the separation between mankind and God.

Verse for the "physical death" reference please?

Do you have Scriptural support for this teaching or is this just all speculation based off of a need to believe in evolution?

What you were referring to wasn't a "teaching". It was indeed speculation and I claimed as much. As I said, "there's lots of speculation on how humanity came to be created in God's image, mainly because the evidence from creation and the testimony from Scripture allows for many possibilities."

If you look to Isaiah 65:17 it says God will create a new heaven and a new earth. This is after judgment if we are following a chronological order found in Revelation. So this does have everything to do with after God has restored and brought a new heaven and earth. This passage as well as the few verses in chapter 11 talk about the same time.

You are claiming that Isaiah 65:17-25 describes heaven?

Isaiah 65:20: "No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his days; for the youth will die at the age of one hundred and the one who does not reach the age of one hundred will be thought accursed."

That's not my view of what heaven will be like.

I agree it is talking about peace, but when it talks about the peace between a child and an asp where the asp does not harm the child, it is saying something about animals.

So, is this verse telling us something about mountains and trees?

Isaiah 55:12: "For you will go out with joy and be led forth with peace; the mountains and the hills will break forth into shouts of joy before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands."

That verse seems to describe mountains and trees joining in joy the same way Isaiah 11:8 describes cobras and adders joining in peace. I'd say both are symbolic and tell us nothing about the pre-Fall nature of mountains, trees, cobras or adders.

---

Anyway, I agree with you that from the Bible alone we don't know for sure if animals died before the Fall. (From creation itself the answer is pretty clear, but I won't get into that.) What the Bible does tell us is that God made animals that treat their young harshly (Job 39:16-17) and animals that eat other animals (Psalm 104:20-28). God provided manna and quail in the wilderness, he provides our daily bread and meat today, and someday he will provide a feast of choice meat (although it may be symbolic) even at a time when death has been swallowed up (Isaiah 25:6-8). To say that animal death or predation is evil or a result of sin goes against the plain reading of a lot of passages in Scripture.

Do you care to understand what the author wants to convey or are you more interested in putting your own meaning into this?

I could just as easily ask you the same thing.

 

[SBG]

Animal death is part of the topic of this thread, and if animals didn't die they would be immortal. Everybody is free to participate here as they see fit. If you do participate, your claims about animal death will be scrutinized and compared to Scripture and creation itself. Perhaps if more YECs see how hard it is to build a compelling case for animal death starting with the Fall, they'll be less likely to raise the assertion that this is a problem for other views of creation.

I was not objecting to anyone’s participation in this thread. I just think that this argument is useless because any side you choose is still a side of speculation. So, neither side is greater than the other if the Bible is silent on the animal death before the fall of mankind.

Okay, so you're claiming animals weren't carnivorous in Eden or when Noah brought them onto the ark. What post-flood event do you think was responsible for the beginning of carnivorous activity?

Again, you ask questions that the Bible is silent on as if I have a Biblical answer to give. I don’t and I have said repeatedly that this is all speculation because of the Bibles silence.



Now, one can make speculation on the fact that in one day God brought all the animals together for Adam to name. If the animals were predators then either God restricted their instincts, or they were not predators at that time. Those are the only two choices I see for it being possible that the animals all came together without one killing another. Same can be said about Noah’s time.

Yes, murder is sin. Predation by animals is not murder nor sin. Hunting is not murder, and within certain bounds I do not believe it is sin. Because predation is not sinful, whether a creature is carnivorous does not show how or if it is in bondage.

Ok. Animals seem to not have killed each other on day six when Adam named them. Animals seem to not have killed each other while on the ark for a year. Something about them was different, namely predation.



I think something about animals changed since the fall. Adam named the animals, they weren’t afraid him, as many are afraid of us today. Something about them was different. I am assuming that predation has caused the fear in animals to run from what they think might be their predator, or to attack what they think might be their prey.



From what the Bible very briefly talks about, we don’t see this as part of the instincts within those animals. Also, we see in Isaiah, where he talks about the new heavens and earth, children are playing with animals, lions are eating straw; lambs are lying with wolves, etc. Obviously, something has now changed about animals. I am speculating that they have returned to how they were before the fall.



And if they have changed and are no longer being predators but living peacefully instead with predators and prey alike, then that says something about predation.



This then leads me to a possible conclusion that predation has come about due to sin within the world.



I think this is a logical conclusion, but again, the Bible doesn’t speak specifically about this before the fall. But, if choose to understand the author, Isaiah’s meaning, then we will realize that animals will live peacefully with man and all of the other animals. For it says in Revelation, concerning the same time Isaiah is talking about in chapter 65, that there will be no more death.



Paul says the last enemy defeated is death. Do you think only part of death is defeated or all of death is defeated? I see Paul clearly speaking about all of death.

Verse for the "physical death" reference please?

Romans 5:12,14,17,21



All of these use the word thanatos which means physical death. If you don’t believe me, read Romans 6:3 and Mark 10:33 and Philippians 2:8 to see the usage.



Honestly, this isn’t a new teaching, but rather Classic Christian Theology that sin separates us from God and physical death is the result of sin entering the world and the second death, which is spiritual, is the result of not repenting of our sins.



This is not some new branch of Christian teaching. Have you ever seen the two mountains with the Cross in the middle to bridge the gap? And within that gap it is called sin, which is what separates us from God. Have you ever seen that?



Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death,” (thanatos)

1 Corinthians 15:21

1 Corinthians 15 – one ought to really read this as it is very important doctrine of the resurrection of the body.

1 Corinthians 15:26 “The last enemy to be destroyed is death.” (thanatos)



Genesis 2: 17

“but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." ( die = muwth)



The only definition for muwth is physical death. Sin is the separation from God, the not permanent spiritual death.



1 Corinthians 15:56

“The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.” (thanatos)

2 Corinthians 1:9

“Indeed, in our hearts we felt the sentence of death. But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead.” (thanatos)



I can go on with Paul’s teachings covering everyone of his letters.

What you were referring to wasn't a "teaching". It was indeed speculation and I claimed as much. As I said, "there's lots of speculation on how humanity came to be created in God's image, mainly because the evidence from creation and the testimony from Scripture allows for many possibilities."


You are claiming that Isaiah 65:17-25 describes heaven?

Isaiah 65:20: "No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his days; for the youth will die at the age of one hundred and the one who does not reach the age of one hundred will be thought accursed."

That's not my view of what heaven will be like.

Maybe that is the problem. It seems you are imposing your meaning into the text instead of allowing the author to tell you what he means.



Now, if are to take Isaiah 65:20 in context, then let us look to Isaiah 65:17 to see what the verses that follow it are talking about.



Isaiah 65:17

“Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.”



We see here that Isaiah is talking about the time when God creates the new heavens and the new earth. Isaiah 65:20 is still talking about what it will be like then. If you don’t understand Isaiah 65:20, you don’t just reject it and say he isn’t talking about life with new heavens and a new earth. To do so, is to reject the authors intended meaning and then impose your own into the text. If you do that, then the Bible becomes useless for you because you can impose any meaning you choose for any verse.



So, one must look to Isaiah 65:20 and see what he was trying to say. We can do this numerous ways. Understand the times he lived and how he wrote, by reading all of Isaiah. We can look elsewhere in Scripture that talks about the same time as Isaiah is in chapter 65, such as Revelation 21.



This still may leave us with what did Isaiah mean about people dying, when Revelation 21 says there will be no more death and Paul teaches death is the last enemy destroyed by God. But, if we have yet to understand, we don’t just simply reject it or impose our own meaning upon the text. We rather leave it as ‘I don’t know.’

So, is this verse telling us something about mountains and trees?

Isaiah 55:12: "For you will go out with joy and be led forth with peace; the mountains and the hills will break forth into shouts of joy before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands."

That verse seems to describe mountains and trees joining in joy the same way Isaiah 11:8 describes cobras and adders joining in peace. I'd say both are symbolic and tell us nothing about the pre-Fall nature of mountains, trees, cobras or adders.

So, your interpretation is that because Isaiah 55:12 might be figurative, that Isaiah 11:8 then must also be figurative? That is like saying John 15:1 might be figurative so John 14:6 is also figurative.



And also note, that I was not talking about pre-fallen world being where children are playing with asps, but rather saying that is what Isaiah says it will be like in the new heavens and the new earth. We can then speculate that it might have been the same with Adam and the animals.

---

Anyway, I agree with you that from the Bible alone we don't know for sure if animals died before the Fall. (From creation itself the answer is pretty clear, but I won't get into that.) What the Bible does tell us is that God made animals that treat their young harshly (Job 39:16-17) and animals that eat other animals (Psalm 104:20-28). God provided manna and quail in the wilderness, he provides our daily bread and meat today, and someday he will provide a feast of choice meat (although it may be symbolic) even at a time when death has been swallowed up (Isaiah 25:6-8). To say that animal death or predation is evil or a result of sin goes against the plain reading of a lot of passages in Scripture.

You saying that creation is clear that there was animal death before the fall is to assume that you know when in time the fall took place. It is like saying, the fall took place at point Y in time and animal death is clearly seen at point X in time.



There is no evidence in creation that tells when in time the fall actually occurred. Do you have some sort of non-Biblical evidence that shows us when the fall of mankind happened? I have never seen nor heard of this.



This seems to be again, an attempt to impose your meaning into the text.



Job 39:16-17 you will notice that it says God did not give wisdom to the ostrich. It does not say God made the ostrich to treat their young harshly. This would be like saying God created us with the ability to choose, therefore God created us to sin against Him.



Psalm 104:20-28

“The lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God.”



David lives a great deal of time after the fall of mankind. The world has already changed significantly because of sin. If God chooses to give the lions food, it is God’s right to do so and He is not subject to anyone’s judgment.



We have to remember that God is Sovereign over all things. That means the rules He has imposed on mankind to do apply to Himself.



I think it is your assumption that because lions are eating food and God gave them the food to eat, that this is how God originally created things before sin. That is a large assumption and also is assuming that things have not changed since the pre-fallen world. That sin has not had its consequences on this world and everything in it.



Paul teaches that sin has touched and tainted everything in this world. Romans teaches this; that creation (everything God has created) yearns to be free from bondage and that bondage is sin. And when we look to chapters in the Bible that talk about a time that God has freed the world from sin, like Isaiah 65:17-25, Isaiah 11:5-9 and Revelation 21 we see that animals are peaceful, not killing their normal prey.



Isaiah 25:6-8

“On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare
a feast of rich food for all peoples,
a banquet of aged wine—
the best of meats and the finest of wines.”



That is just verse 6, which I believe you are specifically speaking about. Just because I think animals were not meant to kill each other, predation, doesn’t mean that animals were not created for food for man.



Again the Bible is silent on this as well. Some translations of the Bible call fruit meant. So, this could be animal meat or something else. We will have to wait and see.



Again, this is all speculation, but I think we can see from the Bible that something has changed with the animals. I think that is predation.

I could just as easily ask you the same thing.

Well, I think that you have, in the above, imposed your meaning onto the Scripture. But, you are not the only one who does so, everyone does so at times, including myself. But, we each need to keep in mind that we should not impose our meaning on the text, but rather look for the authors intended meaning that he wanted to convey to the his audience.



Now, do you think the author of Genesis wanted to convey to his audience that Genesis 1-3 or even 1-11 was just another myth, like the ones there were circulating around the time? Since Genesis is divinely inspired by God, do you think it was God’s intention that He wanted another myth to circulate about Himself?



I think it was God’s intention to inspire the author to break the trend and speak of truth in a fashion that was not like the other accounts. I think the author’s intended meaning of Genesis 1-11 was to tell of man’s real origins in how God related it to Him to write.



I just don’t see God replicating another myth to be part of the many myths that were being told. The other myths speak of a god or gods as being the great one as well. So why would God do the same, where it can be confused with the rest?



And for me, that is not it. The writing in Genesis 1-11 does not look like the writing of a myth. I have been reading the Atrahasis epic and the Enuma Elish. The style of these are very much different than the style of Genesis 1-11. One thing that is a commonality is the fact that these ancient writings will tell a quick over view of many things and then start in on the detail of one or two that was spoken about in the larger section. That part seems very much like Genesis 1-2. But the wording and the style of how it is told just do not seem similar to Genesis 1-11. To me, there is a big difference and I believe that is because they are different genres.



But anyways, we all need to look for what the author intended to say rather than impose our meaning into the text.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

So, neither side is greater than the other if the Bible is silent on the animal death before the fall of mankind.

Just because the Bible is silent about whether animals died before the Fall does not mean the Bible is silent about whether animal death and predation is bad or caused by sin. On that issue, the Bible does speak.

Now, one can make speculation on the fact that in one day God brought all the animals together for Adam to name.

Just a minor point: it doesn't say that God brought the animals together. It's just as literal a reading to say that Adam named each animal individually, and after he was done with one, another animal was brought to him.

Animals seem to not have killed each other while on the ark for a year. Something about them was different, namely predation. [...] I think something about animals changed since the fall.

The problem is that even in a YEC timeline, the Fall was already an ancient event by the time of the flood.

Also, we see in Isaiah, where he talks about the new heavens and earth, children are playing with animals, lions are eating straw; lambs are lying with wolves, etc. Obviously, something has now changed about animals.

That's only as obvious as the fact that mountains and trees have changed because they can no longer sing and clap their hands.

This then leads me to a possible conclusion that predation has come about due to sin within the world.

If that were the case, then why would God call the result of sin a good thing? God says that all the foods he provides to his creatures, including prey for hungry lions, are "good things" from his hand (Psalm 104:21-28). Unless you want to argue that sin changed what God considers good, this appears to be inconsistent with the idea that predation is a result of sin.

For it says in Revelation, concerning the same time Isaiah is talking about in chapter 65, that there will be no more death.

It is your own interpretation that Revelation is speaking of the same time as Isaiah 65. You may be right, but it is an interpretation. In order to uphold that interpretation, you're willing to ignore verse 20 that speaks of human death still occurring at that time.

Paul says the last enemy defeated is death. Do you think only part of death is defeated or all of death is defeated?

I think the entirety of death-the-enemy will be defeated. This does not include plant death or animal death.

Verse for the "physical death" reference please?

Romans 5:12,14,17,21

All of these use the word thanatos which means physical death. If you don’t believe me, read Romans 6:3 and Mark 10:33 and Philippians 2:8 to see the usage.

While I do agree with you that Romans 5 refers to physical death of humans, thanatos is also used to speak of death that is not physical death (see John 5:24, 8:51; Romans 7:24; 1 John 3:14; Revelation 2:11). Regardless, from a quick scan, I couldn't find a single occurrence of thanatos that clearly referred to animal death. I have no doubt the word could also be used of animals, and maybe there's a mention I didn't notice, but generally when thanatos is used without qualifier, it refers to human death alone.

Honestly, this isn’t a new teaching, but rather Classic Christian Theology that sin separates us from God and physical death is the result of sin entering the world and the second death, which is spiritual, is the result of not repenting of our sins.

No, nothing new about that. What is relatively new is the YEC twist that human sin caused animal death. Such an idea contradicts Romans 5:12 that says that death "spread to all men, because all sin" and instead has death spreading to creatures that did not sin. A far plainer interpretation is that death affected exactly what Paul said it affected -- humans. Animals and plants may die, but that is not the sort of death that is being referred to.

Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death,” (thanatos)

Exactly. And sin is something that humans do, not animals. The YEC interpretation of animal death starting with the Fall tries to claim that animals in Eden received the wages for what Adam did, in direct contradiction to this verse and others like it.

Genesis 2: 17

“but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." ( die = muwth)

That's the NIV, which smoothes over one detail. The passage literally says, "for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die" (NASB). The Hebrew word for "day" there with the NIV obscures is yom, the same word used for the days of Genesis 1. This verse remains the main reason I'm still on the fence about whether human physical death started with sin; clearly Adam didn't physically die on the day he ate from the forbidden tree. He did spiritually die that day, though.

Isaiah 65:17

“Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.”

We see here that Isaiah is talking about the time when God creates the new heavens and the new earth. Isaiah 65:20 is still talking about what it will be like then. If you don’t understand Isaiah 65:20, you don’t just reject it and say he isn’t talking about life with new heavens and a new earth. To do so, is to reject the authors intended meaning and then impose your own into the text.

The problem is that I don't see how it's possible to misunderstand Isaiah 65:20. It's clearly talking about people living full, but finite lives. If you have a different take on it, what is it, and how do you reconcile your approach with the author's intended meaning? Do you just take this figuratively, and if so, why not take verse 25 figuratively as well? Do you think that Isaiah didn't have all the details about the new heavens and new earth, and later revelation would provide more details? If Isaiah's details about human death were incorrect then maybe his details about tame animals were incorrect too. After all, human death is by far the more important issue. Whatever way you explain away verse 20, it also destroys your reason for taking verse 25 so literally.

You saying that creation is clear that there was animal death before the fall is to assume that you know when in time the fall took place.

Yes. According to the Bible, it took place when there were humans. That's all the precision one needs to see that creation itself shows that animal death happened before this point.

Job 39:16-17 you will notice that it says God did not give wisdom to the ostrich. It does not say God made the ostrich to treat their young harshly.

No, I never claimed God made the ostrich do this. In Job, God says that he didn't give much wisdom to the ostrich and because of this she acts this way. All this means is that behaviour in nature that may seem cruel to our sensibilities is not due to sin but to the way God chose to create.

If God chooses to give the lions food, it is God’s right to do so and He is not subject to anyone’s judgment.

And if God chooses to call that food (including prey for a lion) a good thing from his hand, we'd do well to not call predation a result of sin. Romans 14:16 tells us to "not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil." How much less should we allow what God has said is good be spoken of as evil!

I think it is your assumption that because lions are eating food and God gave them the food to eat, that this is how God originally created things before sin.

All I'm assuming is that God didn't change due to the Fall, and so if God can call something a good thing today, I have no basis for claiming it was a bad thing in the distant past. There are many accommodations to human sinfulness in the Bible, including things like divorce, but God never called divorce "good". Even if animal death and predation were an accommodation to our sinful world, we should be about as willing to eat steak as we are to get a divorce. It is only because I believe animal death is a natural and good part of God's creation that I can eat meat with a clear conscience.

Paul teaches that sin has touched and tainted everything in this world. Romans teaches this; that creation (everything God has created) yearns to be free from bondage and that bondage is sin.

Yes, and nowhere is that bondage described as animal death or predation. As we've already covered, I believe all of creation is in bondage because God subjected it to our dominion, and due to our sinfulness, we are a corrupt ruler.

Isaiah 25:6-8

“On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare
a feast of rich food for all peoples,
a banquet of aged wine—
the best of meats and the finest of wines.”



That is just verse 6, which I believe you are specifically speaking about. Just because I think animals were not meant to kill each other, predation, doesn’t mean that animals were not created for food for man.

Verse 8 goes on to describe that this is a time when God "will swallow up death forever." So, this contradicts the idea that the "death" to be swallowed up includes animal death. Even if the imagery of the feast is not literal, it is still unlikely that God would symbolize his providence with a feast of meat if animal death was the result of sin.

Some translations of the Bible call fruit meant. So, this could be animal meat or something else.

That is a different issue. This verse is translated as speaking of meat in modern translations as well, not just ones that use the word "meat" in its older sense. In the KJV, one translation that does use "meat" in the wider sense, it says "a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow". That leaves no doubt that it's referring to meat from animals.

---

I won't reply to your comments about the genre of Genesis here because I don't want to get too far off-topic (since so far this thread still is on topic). But, I'd be happy to discuss that with you in a different thread.

 

[TheBear]

Thank you, Mercury.

You just saved me a lot of work.

 

[SBG]

Just because the Bible is silent about whether animals died before the Fall does not mean the Bible is silent about whether animal death and predation is bad or caused by sin. On that issue, the Bible does speak.

I have tried to convey to you, that all of this is speculation. The verses you speak of are post-fall, they are not pre-fall. Things have changed.



Secondly, God is Sovereign. His rules upon man do not apply to Him. So if God gives the lion food, then it is not a sin because He is God. If God kills a man for not following Him, it is not a sin, because He is God. But…if a man kills another man for not following him, that is a sin. This needs to be understood: God is Sovereign.

Just a minor point: it doesn't say that God brought the animals together. It's just as literal a reading to say that Adam named each animal individually, and after he was done with one, another animal was brought to him.

Ok, my mistake. It does say God brought to Adam all the animals to see what Adam would name them. This happened in 1 day. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to think that the animals we see today that are predators and prey would have been near each other. Secondly, Adam was there with those animals. Neither of the animals attacked him nor ran from him that we know.

The problem is that even in a YEC timeline, the Fall was already an ancient event by the time of the flood.

Well if predation had already set in, then the second option I stated where the Lord made them not prey on each other.

That's only as obvious as the fact that mountains and trees have changed because they can no longer sing and clap their hands.

If this is a type of ridicule or something, then there is no point of continuing a conversation.

If that were the case, then why would God call the result of sin a good thing? God says that all the foods he provides to his creatures, including prey for hungry lions, are "good things" from his hand (Psalm 104:21-28). Unless you want to argue that sin changed what God considers good, this appears to be inconsistent with the idea that predation is a result of sin.

Why does call our walk with Him a good thing? Even in our walk with Him, we sin. Even in sin, we can do good things, but those good things are tainted with sin.



Now, I wasn’t saying that the animals were acting in sin but that predation came about because of man’s sin. Man’s sin has affected all of creation. As I have said several times now, Paul teaches this.

It is your own interpretation that Revelation is speaking of the same time as Isaiah 65. You may be right, but it is an interpretation. In order to uphold that interpretation, you're willing to ignore verse 20 that speaks of human death still occurring at that time.

I am not ignoring verse 20. Did I say I was? I don’t see the need for this accusation. It just weakens ability to persuade.



I do not reject Isaiah 65:20, nor do I say what I think it means. Honestly, I don’t know exactly what Isaiah is exactly speaking about, but I do know that in context this goes with the new heavens and the new earth. I am trying to understand his meaning by this and I will not impose my own meaning on it. So I don’t know exactly what Isaiah means, I can speculate, as this seems to be the popular thing to do in this thread, but I don’t honestly know. And I don’t have a problem admitting I don’t know.

I think the entirety of death-the-enemy will be defeated. This does not include plant death or animal death.

Do you have verses that say plants and animals will still die in the new heavens and the new earth or is this just speculation?

While I do agree with you that Romans 5 refers to physical death of humans, thanatos is also used to speak of death that is not physical death (see John 5:24, 8:51; Romans 7:24; 1 John 3:14; Revelation 2:11). Regardless, from a quick scan, I couldn't find a single occurrence of thanatos that clearly referred to animal death. I have no doubt the word could also be used of animals, and maybe there's a mention I didn't notice, but generally when thanatos is used without qualifier, it refers to human death alone.

I wasn’t looking to support the animal death, but rather answering your question to provide verses that talk about physical death in mankind as a result of sin.



I don’t know how many times I will need to say that animal death, whether it did happen or not in a pre-fallen world is purely speculation.

No, nothing new about that. What is relatively new is the YEC twist that human sin caused animal death. Such an idea contradicts Romans 5:12 that says that death "spread to all men, because all sin" and instead has death spreading to creatures that did not sin. A far plainer interpretation is that death affected exactly what Paul said it affected -- humans. Animals and plants may die, but that is not the sort of death that is being referred to.

I hope that it is not your objective to paint me with the same brush because I have continuously said that animal death before the fall is pure speculation.



But one must keep in mind Paul’s teaching that all of creation groans to be set free from bondage. That bondage is sin. So sin does affect even animals and plants. I have speculated that sin has affected the animals in the way of predation.



But again, it is speculation. That is all all of this is here concerning animal death before the fall.

Exactly. And sin is something that humans do, not animals. The YEC interpretation of animal death starting with the Fall tries to claim that animals in Eden received the wages for what Adam did, in direct contradiction to this verse and others like it.

As I said, I wasn’t saying animals are sinning but that animals are affected by sin. Fact is, all of creation was and is affected by sin. Paul teaches this very clearly in my opinion.

That's the NIV, which smoothes over one detail. The passage literally says, "for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die" (NASB). The Hebrew word for "day" there with the NIV obscures is yom, the same word used for the days of Genesis 1. This verse remains the main reason I'm still on the fence about whether human physical death started with sin; clearly Adam didn't physically die on the day he ate from the forbidden tree. He did spiritually die that day, though.

Thank you for pointing that out. Did you notice the phrase “in the day”? Look to 1 Kings 2:36-46. The same phrase is used, yet Solomon didn’t kill Shimei on that very day he disobeyed. It happened later on a different day.



Genesis 2:17

“but the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil you may not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die.”



1 Kings 2:37

“And it shall be, in the day you go out and cross the book Kidron, you shall certainly know that dying you shall die; your blood shall be on your head.”



These are transliterations from the Hebrew, as close in English as you can get to that actual meaning of the text.



Sin spiritually separates us from God. The second death permanently separates us from God.

The problem is that I don't see how it's possible to misunderstand Isaiah 65:20. It's clearly talking about people living full, but finite lives. If you have a different take on it, what is it, and how do you reconcile your approach with the author's intended meaning? Do you just take this figuratively, and if so, why not take verse 25 figuratively as well? Do you think that Isaiah didn't have all the details about the new heavens and new earth, and later revelation would provide more details? If Isaiah's details about human death were incorrect then maybe his details about tame animals were incorrect too. After all, human death is by far the more important issue. Whatever way you explain away verse 20, it also destroys your reason for taking verse 25 so literally.

I haven’t called anything Isaiah said to be incorrect. So, you are saying that if one verse has a figurative meaning then all the verses that follow have to be figurative as well? If so, then that really explains why the TEs take Genesis 1-11 as a myth.



Personally, I believe the authors often used literal speaking and figurative speaking intermixed. We see this very often today as well.



As far as how to interpret Isaiah 65:20, I have not understood yet how to interpret it properly in light of Revelation 21. It is very obvious to me that when Isaiah 65:17 starts off with saying God has created the new heavens and the new earth and when Revelation 21 starts off the same way, that these two chapters are talking about the same event.



As I said, I honestly don’t know the proper interpretation for the Isaiah 65:20 verse. I know it can be reconciled; it is God’s Word after all. I just haven’t understood it yet.

Yes. According to the Bible, it took place when there were humans. That's all the precision one needs to see that creation itself shows that animal death happened before this point.

Yes, and it is your assumption that common descent is absolute truth which you base this thinking off of. I wouldn’t call that precision, but an assumption.

No, I never claimed God made the ostrich do this. In Job, God says that he didn't give much wisdom to the ostrich and because of this she acts this way. All this means is that behaviour in nature that may seem cruel to our sensibilities is not due to sin but to the way God chose to create.

You said this “What the Bible does tell us is that God made animals that treat their young harshly”. That is what I had to go off, if you meant it or not.



Let me use your same logic:



God gave man free will. Because of that, man sinned. All this means is that God created us to be this way, sinful.



This is obviously false. So, sometime we have to stop shifting the blame on God for the way things are because of sin.

And if God chooses to call that food (including prey for a lion) a good thing from his hand, we'd do well to not call predation a result of sin. Romans 14:16 tells us to "not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil." How much less should we allow what God has said is good be spoken of as evil!


All I'm assuming is that God didn't change due to the Fall, and so if God can call something a good thing today, I have no basis for claiming it was a bad thing in the distant past. There are many accommodations to human sinfulness in the Bible, including things like divorce, but God never called divorce "good". Even if animal death and predation were an accommodation to our sinful world, we should be about as willing to eat steak as we are to get a divorce. It is only because I believe animal death is a natural and good part of God's creation that I can eat meat with a clear conscience.

I am not assuming God changed either, but creation did change. Man fell, sin came into the world, sin has affected everything in creation and that is why creation groans to be set free.



I have said numerous times that my idea on predation is just speculation. I have never said that that is how it happened, period.



Now, animal death can come about more ways than just predation. I just think that it is possible that predation is a result of bondage. But this is just speculation. I have assumed that this can possible because of what is said in Isaiah. I tend to think after Jesus has judged the world, we will be able to actually play/sit with animals that we would not have been able to in this life, like a lion. I also see where Isaiah talks about the lion eating straw for food, not another animal. This says something to me.



Now, if this discussion is just for you to jump on me because I said “it could be possible but it is just speculation” that it leaves me with the opinion that you just want to argue me and show in anyway that I wrong so therefore I am wrong about everything. I was under the assumption we were having a simple discussion about what could be or not be: speculation. And because we are talking about speculation, I don’t see any need to get upset about anything here. Several times already the words and phrasings you have chosen to use seem more like attacks. And yet we are both speculating on what may have been or what will be. I don’t see why this needs to become a heated debate.

Yes, and nowhere is that bondage described as animal death or predation. As we've already covered, I believe all of creation is in bondage because God subjected it to our dominion, and due to our sinfulness, we are a corrupt ruler.


Verse 8 goes on to describe that this is a time when God "will swallow up death forever." So, this contradicts the idea that the "death" to be swallowed up includes animal death. Even if the imagery of the feast is not literal, it is still unlikely that God would symbolize his providence with a feast of meat if animal death was the result of sin.


That is a different issue. This verse is translated as speaking of meat in modern translations as well, not just ones that use the word "meat" in its older sense. In the KJV, one translation that does use "meat" in the wider sense, it says "a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow". That leaves no doubt that it's referring to meat from animals.

Again everything you have said here is just speculation. Neither of us knows for certain, and we shouldn’t take such a stance as if we do indeed know. Nothing in Scripture talks about this specifically in a pre-fallen world.

If it was your intent to set out and say all YECs are wrong on this, fine just say it, we are all wrong. I can live with that. I was never seeking mans approval on it anyways.



With that being said, I am going to leave this as it is because nothing either of us can say proves anything about whether or not animal death happened or didn’t before the fall of man. And it seems that this is turning into something that I don’t really want to be part of anymore.



I enjoyed the conversation, thank you and may God Bless you!

 

[Marshall Janzen]

That's only as obvious as the fact that mountains and trees have changed because they can no longer sing and clap their hands.

If this is a type of ridicule or something, then there is no point of continuing a conversation.

It's not ridicule. I read Isaiah 65:25 and Isaiah 55:12 much the same way. Both are describing things in nature that are not normal, but certainly are not beyond God's power to literally accomplish. Both describe nature in a way that vividly describes the overall atmosphere of the prophecy -- peace and joy respectively. I treat both figuratively for the same reason: not because they are impossible, but because a symbolic meaning makes more sense. I don't yet understand why you think Isaiah 65:25 must be literal but it is ridiculous to think that Isaiah 55:12 could be literal.

As I said, I wasn’t saying animals are sinning but that animals are affected by sin. Fact is, all of creation was and is affected by sin. Paul teaches this very clearly in my opinion.

Yes, Paul clearly says that all creation -- rocks, plants, animals, etc. -- is affected by sin. Paul does not say that sin affects animals by causing them to die or causing them to prey on each other. That is not only speculation (as you have said), but speculation that goes against other passages of Scripture. God points to wild beasts to show his power. God is said to sustain predator-prey relationships. God sustains evil people too, but we would not say that God provides opportunities for people to sin and calls these opportunities "good things" from his hand. That is what the psalmist says about prey provided to carnivorous lions. This is why I don't think it's possible to claim that predation is a result of sin. Something caused by sin is not a "good thing".

Thank you for pointing that out. Did you notice the phrase “in the day”? Look to 1 Kings 2:36-46. The same phrase is used, yet Solomon didn’t kill Shimei on that very day he disobeyed. It happened later on a different day.

The difference is that I think God would be more capable of carrying out exactly what he promised than Solomon was. But, you could be right, and it could just be a figure of speech conveying certainty. In other words, "in the day" a person does something, it will be certain that the punishment will occur. That day, only the certainty happens; at some later point the punishment itself will happen.

I haven’t called anything Isaiah said to be incorrect. So, you are saying that if one verse has a figurative meaning then all the verses that follow have to be figurative as well?

Not at all. It's about looking at the context. If Isaiah 65 uses figurative language to talk about people (verse 20), to whom the prophecy is given, then what basis do you have to claim it couldn't possibly be figurative language when it talks about wild beasts (verse 25)? (Note that personally I don't think verse 20 is intended to be figurative, but I'm trying to follow your reasoning here.)

You said this “What the Bible does tell us is that God made animals that treat their young harshly”. That is what I had to go off, if you meant it or not.

Let me use your same logic:

God gave man free will. Because of that, man sinned. All this means is that God created us to be this way, sinful.

First, about the blue statement. Note that I said "God made animals that treat their young harshly" and not "God made animals treat their young harshly". There's a big difference, and I meant it exactly the way I said it. Similarly, to use your example, God made people who sin, but God doesn't make people sin. I believe we are responsible for our own actions.

This is obviously false. So, sometime we have to stop shifting the blame on God for the way things are because of sin.

The problem is that you are trying to shift the "blame" away from God for things God takes credit for, such as providing prey for hungry lions.

I am not assuming God changed either, but creation did change. Man fell, sin came into the world, sin has affected everything in creation and that is why creation groans to be set free.

I agree. If you're surprised by that, then I don't think you've noticed what I said in my last few posts. Our difference is that you think sin (and/or God) directly changed nature while I think God allowed sin to change nature through what sinful humans do. (If you think the curses of Genesis 3 rule out such an idea, I suggest studying other curses in the Bible to see how they often come to fruition through the actions of people -- in other words, they are often more prophecy than incantation. Many realize this about Genesis 3:15 but not about the surrounding curses.)

I have said numerous times that my idea on predation is just speculation.

Great. I have noticed that, and my responses have been to show you why I disagree with that speculation, and why I think Scripture rules out that speculation.

Many YECs do think it is more than speculation. They think that animal death or animal predation could not have happened before the Fall, and they raise this as one of the main reasons why old earth views (evolutionary or otherwise) must be rejected. Answers in Genesis is a case in point. Based on what you've repeatedly said -- that such a position is based only on speculation and not the clear teaching of Scripture -- are you willing to say that this particular argument by YECs is not a very strong one and probably shouldn't be presented in absolute terms? In other words, would you disagree with the YEC who say that those who accept animal death before the Fall are "going against Scripture"?

Keep in mind that I'm not asking you to say that old earth interpretations of Scripture are possible, and I know you have other reasons for thinking they are wrong. But, can we agree that this particular reason, since it is only speculation, isn't a very strong one?

Several times already the words and phrasings you have chosen to use seem more like attacks.

I'm sorry that anything has come across that way. I've tried to be direct and clear, and I apologize if that sometimes came across as though I was attacking you. Please PM me or mention in a thread if you feel attacked by any particular statement I make.

I enjoyed the conversation, thank you and may God Bless you!

God bless you too, SBG.

 

[Delta One]

shernren,

Had some trouble with mathematics assignments <grrrrr!> - anyone know a lot about cross product and trying to find the area of a parallelogram given two vectors in u=<i,j,k> and v=<i,j,k> format? - so I thought I'd post a few things to relieve stress, anger and so on.

Question: is animal death ethically wrong or ethically correct?

I'm not convinced that you are asking the correct question. The question that quite possibly should be asked is 'Could animal death happen in a pre-Fall world?' and according to the Bible the answer is no (physical death for everything is a direct result of man's sin and the fact that all animals were given plants to eat). Because God is a God of life and love - why would He create using death or with death in the world? Doesn't this contradict our understanding of 'love' and 'mercy'?

As for it being ethical, God gave us permission after the Flood. That and, perhaps its my bias showing through as I'm a meat eater. Mmmm, tea's ready -- chicken , God Bless aniaml death!

Bye for now,
Delta One.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

The question that quite possibly should be asked is 'Could animal death happen in a pre-Fall world?' and according to the Bible the answer is no (physical death for everything is a direct result of man's sin and the fact that all animals were given plants to eat).

Where does the Bible say that physical death for everything is a direct result of man's sin? Do you also include plant death in that "everything"? Do you dispute what Paul says in Romans 5 where he claims that "sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned"? If this is the way animal death came into the world too, does that mean that all animals sin?

Regarding animal diet, Scripture never says that animals were only given plants to eat. If Genesis 1:30 lists the only approved food sources for animals, then fish were not allowed to eat anything.

 

[shernren]

But that shows that my question about ethicality is correct. You see, you are appealing to God's "character" and saying that it would not be in God's character or definition of perfection to have animal death in a perfect world. Let me show you what I'm getting at by analogy.

Now, God is love. Hatred is not in God's character.
Because hatred is not in God's character, we denounce it as ethically wrong.
And because hatred is not in God's character, if it was found in the world, God would consider the world not perfect.

The YEC argument seems to go something like this:

Causing animal death and suffering is not in God's character.
So, if there was animal death and suffering in the world, it must not have been perfect according to God.
Therefore a perfect world cannot have animal death and suffering.

However, if causing animal death and suffering is not in God's character, then it is also ethically wrong, since the ultimate standard of ethicality is God's character, right? So, if animal death cannot be in a perfect world, then it cannot be ethically right as well! The thing is, animal death may contradict your idea of mercy and love. But does it contradict God's definition of mercy and love? It *may* not...

SBG, I really don't see what assumption I am missing out in my line of thought. (Of course, that's the ultimate irony, because I accuse you all of making hidden assumptions in the reading of Scripture .... ) Follow me here:

1. Let's say we start with a pair of rabbits. n = 2. (where n is the rabbit population)
2. They reproduce => n = 2+1 = 3.
3. As long as they keep reproducing they will add to the rabbit population. n += 1
4. Therefore if the rabbit population is to be a constant, non-infinite number, either
a. rabbits must die. n -= 1
or
b. rabbits must stop reproducing. n += 0

Possibility a. gives us a dynamic equilibrium and possibility b. gives us a static equilibrium. But possibility b. doesn't seem to be in the design of the world. And you YECs say possibility a. is out of bounds for a perfect world. My only assumptions were:

1. Rabbits reproduce.
2. When rabbits reproduce, they add 1 to the total number of the population.
3. 1 + 1 = 2

Which of these assumptions didn't hold in a pre-Fall world?

 

[SBG]

It's not ridicule. I read Isaiah 65:25 and Isaiah 55:12 much the same way. Both are describing things in nature that are not normal, but certainly are not beyond God's power to literally accomplish. Both describe nature in a way that vividly describes the overall atmosphere of the prophecy -- peace and joy respectively. I treat both figuratively for the same reason: not because they are impossible, but because a symbolic meaning makes more sense. I don't yet understand why you think Isaiah 65:25 must be literal but it is ridiculous to think that Isaiah 55:12 could be literal.

Isaiah 55:12

“For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing; and all the trees of the fields shall clap their hands.”



“the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing”

In this verse I see the wind blowing on the hills and the grass swaying back and forth. If you have ever been there to see this, you will hear the hills sing.



“and all the trees of the fields shall clap their hands”

In this verse, I see again the wind blowing in the trees, the branches swaying back and forth, looking as if they are clapping their branches together (hands).

Isaiah 65:25

“The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith Jehovah.”

I cannot see how this verse is to be taken figuratively in respect to how the Bible uses these types of images. In Scripture, every time wolf is used in a figurative sense, except in Isaiah 11:6 and this verse, it is used to say that the wolf is a man bent on destroying. Jeremiah 5:6 may not be referring to man/men, but the wolf none the less is set to destroy/ravage.

The lion could refer to many things. Lion can refer to God, Jesus, one who takes away sheep from the flock, and can refer to Satan.

I see the part that says the dust shall be the serpent’s food as the fulfillment of the prophecy in Genesis 3:14. I don’t think this can refer to Satan himself, because at this time he will be in the Lake of Fire.

Now, Isaiah 11 also talks about these same images.

Isaiah 11:6-9

“And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea.”

This goes into more detail on more animals. Then it says the child shall lead them, so this leaves me to think that the lion cannot refer to Jesus or God, because what child shall lead God? It cannot refer to Satan, he is the Lake of Fire. I seriously doubt it refers to one who will take sheep from the flock, for the world has been cleansed of sin. So, I see it as a literal lion eating literal straw like the ox.

Yes, Paul clearly says that all creation -- rocks, plants, animals, etc. -- is affected by sin. Paul does not say that sin affects animals by causing them to die or causing them to prey on each other. That is not only speculation (as you have said), but speculation that goes against other passages of Scripture. God points to wild beasts to show his power. God is said to sustain predator-prey relationships. God sustains evil people too, but we would not say that God provides opportunities for people to sin and calls these opportunities "good things" from his hand. That is what the psalmist says about prey provided to carnivorous lions. This is why I don't think it's possible to claim that predation is a result of sin. Something caused by sin is not a "good thing".

I believe God has provided opportunities for people to sin. I know this sounds strange, but I believe it is called free will. God put that Tree of Knowledge in the Garden so Adam and Eve had a choice. He gave them that opportunity. He told them not to, but He did give them the choice.

Does He call these things good, not that I am aware of. But, even in our sin, He can call things we do good, like following Jesus Christ.

Again, I am not saying that the act that the animals are doing (predation) is a sin. I am saying that it can be possible that predation came about because of sin entering the world. So the act the animals are doing isn’t sin, but the act came about because of sin. It changed how they interacted with each other and man.

It is predation that causes not only an animal to hunt another animal, but also for animals to be afraid and run from other animals that may be a predator. I think, that it can be very possible that Adam use to be able to, say, pet a lion without being attacked or eaten, but after sin, this changed. Either the lion will run, out of fear, or the lion will attack, because it is hungry. Predation causes this.

Realize what I am trying to say. Predation does not equal sin. Predation came about because of sin. It is one of the many changes that occurred because Adam and Eve sinned. I am not declaring predation good or bad, but rather a change that did happen because of sin.

Again, just my assumption from what I read in the Bible. I can be wrong.

The difference is that I think God would be more capable of carrying out exactly what he promised than Solomon was. But, you could be right, and it could just be a figure of speech conveying certainty. In other words, "in the day" a person does something, it will be certain that the punishment will occur. That day, only the certainty happens; at some later point the punishment itself will happen.

I agree God would be more capable of carrying out exactly what He promised. I just tend to think God had mercy on Adam and Eve, while still being just. Even if you don’t think that what God says “you shall die” means physical death, one has to realize that physical death did now become a factor because they could not get to the Tree of Life. So no matter which view you take of God’s Words, physical death did become part of the Judgment against Adam and Eve.

Not at all. It's about looking at the context. If Isaiah 65 uses figurative language to talk about people (verse 20), to whom the prophecy is given, then what basis do you have to claim it couldn't possibly be figurative language when it talks about wild beasts (verse 25)? (Note that personally I don't think verse 20 is intended to be figurative, but I'm trying to follow your reasoning here.)

I don’t see why if one verse uses figurative language that the follow verses must also be figurative. I just don’t follow that line of reasoning. If I did, I can claim the same things about what Jesus said in the Gospels where He used figurative language and literal language together.

As I said, I don’t really have a great explanation for Isaiah 65:20. I do think it might be part figurative and part of it is literal.

Isaiah 65:20

"Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
he who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere youth;
he who fails to reach a hundred
will be considered accursed.”

First, about the blue statement. Note that I said "God made animals that treat their young harshly" and not "God made animals treat their young harshly". There's a big difference, and I meant it exactly the way I said it. Similarly, to use your example, God made people who sin, but God doesn't make people sin. I believe we are responsible for our own actions.

When I read your statement it looks as you were saying God is the One who made the ostriches behave that way. So my apologies for misunderstanding.

The problem is that you are trying to shift the "blame" away from God for things God takes credit for, such as providing prey for hungry lions.

I don’t think that is what I am trying to do. I am trying to say that predation is one of the things that came about, within animals, after the fall of mankind. But that is just speculation.

I don’t think I said anywhere that God doesn’t provide the food for the animals, such as a hungry lion.

Before the fall, Adam and Eve didn’t need clothing because they felt no shame. So there was no need for God to take the skin of an animal and give to them for clothing.

Likewise, (I am speculating) before the fall there was no need for God to give prey for hungry lions because they knew not what it was to eat meat.

After the fall, Adam and Eve felt shame being naked. God then provided skin as clothing for them to cover themselves.

After the fall, sin spread, changed all creation, and animals began to act differently because of the sin that is in the world. So, God now provides food for them. (speculation)

I agree. If you're surprised by that, then I don't think you've noticed what I said in my last few posts. Our difference is that you think sin (and/or God) directly changed nature while I think God allowed sin to change nature through what sinful humans do. (If you think the curses of Genesis 3 rule out such an idea, I suggest studying other curses in the Bible to see how they often come to fruition through the actions of people -- in other words, they are often more prophecy than incantation. Many realize this about Genesis 3:15 but not about the surrounding curses.)

I am not surprised in the slightest that you agree. Actually, I would be surprised if you disagreed.

I think God directly changed nature, as seen in Genesis 3 by the curses God directly set in place, as well as God allowed sin to change nature. I think they are both in affect. It flows with free will. I don’t think you can pick one over the other. Genesis 3 has God directly cursing the earth, so He directly changed nature there. And I think throughout our time sin has changed nature. Honestly, I don’t see how anyone could hold to just one being true and the other being false.

Great. I have noticed that, and my responses have been to show you why I disagree with that speculation, and why I think Scripture rules out that speculation.

Well then we disagree. I don’t think Scripture rules out that animals have changed, when it comes to eating other animals. Just because animals are the way they are today, doesn’t automatically say they were the same on day six of creation.

Many YECs do think it is more than speculation. They think that animal death or animal predation could not have happened before the Fall, and they raise this as one of the main reasons why old earth views (evolutionary or otherwise) must be rejected. Answers in Genesis is a case in point. Based on what you've repeatedly said -- that such a position is based only on speculation and not the clear teaching of Scripture -- are you willing to say that this particular argument by YECs is not a very strong one and probably shouldn't be presented in absolute terms? In other words, would you disagree with the YEC who say that those who accept animal death before the Fall are "going against Scripture"?

I think many YECs do think it is speculation, but do hold to a belief of what they think it was like. Nothing wrong with that, you seem to be doing the same as well, but with the opposite belief of YECs.

If one is to argue this thoroughly then no, either position, for animal death or against animal death, is just speculation.

Yes, I would disagree, because Scripture does not specifically say one way or another. Animals may have been made to live forever, who knows, only God does. Animals may have been made for a life cycle, who knows only God does. Animal death could have been brought about in many different ways, whether old age, predation, or animals were made for man to eat as food.

As there are arguments for, there are arguments against all of these. Examples would be, Scripture doesn’t say animals were given access to the Tree of Life as well, but animals could have eaten off it, who knows. Scripture doesn’t say animals didn’t eat each other, but Scripture does show that Adam could be next to all the animals without fear of attack or without them running away from him in fear. Scripture doesn’t say animals weren’t made for food, but Scripture points to the fact that plants and fruits were given to man as food.

About the last, it is possible to live without eating meat. Vegetarians do it all the time. So, this could be evidence used to say that man was not created to eat animals.

So, what do we do, keep arguing about what we don’t know, or just admit and be humble that we don’t know and leave it at that?

Keep in mind that I'm not asking you to say that old earth interpretations of Scripture are possible, and I know you have other reasons for thinking they are wrong. But, can we agree that this particular reason, since it is only speculation, isn't a very strong one?

I didn’t think that you were asking me claim an old earth. Just like animal death, an old earth really has nothing to do with a six day creation.

I'm sorry that anything has come across that way. I've tried to be direct and clear, and I apologize if that sometimes came across as though I was attacking you. Please PM me or mention in a thread if you feel attacked by any particular statement I make.
God bless you too, SBG.

I apologize too if I have been rude. I have spent enough time on here going back and forth exchanging rude arguments for rude arguments to now be sick of them. I am not talking about this conversation, but previous ones with other people. I have grown tired of my own actions of being involved with counter evil with evil. So, I have been working on that in my own life. So, if I start to see something like that coming about, I am just going to shy away from the conversation, because it does nobody any good.

Thank you, and May God keep you and Bless you!

 

[Marshall Janzen]

In this verse I see the wind blowing on the hills and the grass swaying back and forth. If you have ever been there to see this, you will hear the hills sing. [...] In this verse, I see again the wind blowing in the trees, the branches swaying back and forth, looking as if they are clapping their branches together (hands).

If these verses are figurative (and I believe they are), they are figurative to describe the mood, not the wind conditions.

I cannot see how this verse is to be taken figuratively in respect to how the Bible uses these types of images. In Scripture, every time wolf is used in a figurative sense, except in Isaiah 11:6 and this verse, it is used to say that the wolf is a man bent on destroying.

Exactly! The wolf (and other fierce beasts) is generally a symbol of destruction. And in these verses, the wolf, the lion and the cobra are tame. This is graphically describing a time of unprecidented peace.

I don’t see why if one verse uses figurative language that the follow verses must also be figurative. I just don’t follow that line of reasoning.

You're going in circles on this one by inventing a line of reasoning nobody is using here. Last time you also claimed that I take verse 25 figuratively only because it follows another verse I think is figurative. I responded:

Not at all. It's about looking at the context. If Isaiah 65 uses figurative language to talk about people (verse 20), to whom the prophecy is given, then what basis do you have to claim it couldn't possibly be figurative language when it talks about wild beasts (verse 25)? (Note that personally I don't think verse 20 is intended to be figurative, but I'm trying to follow your reasoning here.)

Your response is not dealing with what I said. I don't even think verse 20 is figurative, so for you to claim (again) that I only take verse 25 figuratively because it follows a figurative verse shows you aren't understanding what I'm saying. My point is that if anything is figurative in this passage, it's more likely to be the description of animals than the description of people.

Genesis 3 has God directly cursing the earth, so He directly changed nature there.

"Directly cursing" does not necessarily equal "directly changing". A direct curse can have an indirect fulfillment (for instance, many of the covenant curses against Israel were fulfilled by invading armies).

Just because animals are the way they are today, doesn’t automatically say they were the same on day six of creation.

No, but it also doesn't automatically say that they were different before. As I've said before -- and I mean no ridicule with this -- I see your case for tame animals pre-Fall as about as compelling as a case for singing hills pre-Fall. One could speculate that sin shut up the hills just as it changed some animals' eating habits. One could speculate that mute hills are not as good as singing hills. I don't see anything that elevates your speculation above this. It's possible, but I see no reason to believe it.

About the last, it is possible to live without eating meat. Vegetarians do it all the time. So, this could be evidence used to say that man was not created to eat animals.

To use the same reasoning, since some animals cannot live without eating meat or eggs, that would be evidence against them being created to eat only plants.

 

[88Devin07]

You forget the world WAS NOT created any longer than 6 days. So nothing had a chance to die before the creation of man.

If you believe the Earth was created in a time longer than 6 days, then you would be questioning this. However the fact remains, the world was created in 6 days, just as it says in Genesis and Exodus. Therefore, no death before the fall.

 

[PaladinValer]

The evidence shows that the universe was however much older than a mere literal 6 days, Devin.

In addition, some species don't even last a full 24-hour period, so yes; death before the Fall.

 

[SBG]

If these verses are figurative (and I believe they are), they are figurative to describe the mood, not the wind conditions.

Ok, it seems I talked right past you. I was explaining how I see what those particular figurative statements in respects to praising God for what He has done.

Exactly! The wolf (and other fierce beasts) is generally a symbol of destruction. And in these verses, the wolf, the lion and the cobra are tame. This is graphically describing a time of unprecidented peace.

Do you see the serpent eating dust as also describing peace? And who is “they” that will neither harm nor destroy on all of God’s Holy Mountains? Are they the people or the animals? And if the animals are actually people, the children will lead the people as said in Isaiah 11?

You're going in circles on this one by inventing a line of reasoning nobody is using here. Last time you also claimed that I take verse 25 figuratively only because it follows another verse I think is figurative. I responded:

I never claimed you were taking the verse literally or figuratively. I was rather speaking in general, otherwise I would have directed at you, if I was speaking of you.

Not at all. It's about looking at the context. If Isaiah 65 uses figurative language to talk about people (verse 20), to whom the prophecy is given, then what basis do you have to claim it couldn't possibly be figurative language when it talks about wild beasts (verse 25)? (Note that personally I don't think verse 20 is intended to be figurative, but I'm trying to follow your reasoning here.)
Your response is not dealing with what I said. I don't even think verse 20 is figurative, so for you to claim (again) that I only take verse 25 figuratively because it follows a figurative verse shows you aren't understanding what I'm saying. My point is that if anything is figurative in this passage, it's more likely to be the description of animals than the description of people.

I just don’t see it that. Often things are said about people that are figurative by the prophets.



Isaiah 65:20

"Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
he who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere youth;
he who fails to reach a hundred
will be considered accursed.”



The last four lines can be talking about people, but not as people dying but rather this is how it would be view if people were to die then. But again, I don’t have the answer for the true meaning of this verse. It seems you really want to have it, and I don’t. I do view Isaiah 65:25 as talking about animals. Now, because I see that talking about actual animals, does this then mean I have to see Isaiah 65:20 talking about people actually dying? I don’t think so.

"Directly cursing" does not necessarily equal "directly changing". A direct curse can have an indirect fulfillment (for instance, many of the covenant curses against Israel were fulfilled by invading armies).

It is my belief that when God cursed the ground, it reacted right then and there. Not some years later, giving Adam and Eve some easy times without a curse after they have sinned. I believe that because God gives it as a command that is cursing it now to be. That inclines me to think that it is a direct change. Just as it is for Eve and child bearing; she didn’t have her first child before the curse actually took hold, the curse was in effect when she did have her first child. Again, God is directly changing nature. I don’t see those coming to fulfillment later throughout history.



Now, Genesis 3:14 I see as a curse to the serpent and Satan coming about later in the fulfillment of Jesus Christ. So this happened later in time, and we can see in Isaiah 65:25 the completion of this curse in the days after Judgment.

No, but it also doesn't automatically say that they were different before. As I've said before -- and I mean no ridicule with this -- I see your case for tame animals pre-Fall as about as compelling as a case for singing hills pre-Fall. One could speculate that sin shut up the hills just as it changed some animals' eating habits. One could speculate that mute hills are not as good as singing hills. I don't see anything that elevates your speculation above this. It's possible, but I see no reason to believe it.

If that is how you see, that is fine. There may come a time when you need to answer how Adam actually named the animals without them being afraid of him or trying to kill him. Or how the animals didn’t kill each other on the ark.



I just don’t think lions or bears were inclined to kill a man or another animal on the six day of creation or on the ark. So predation may have been something that was not part of the animal’s instincts in the original creation, but later came about.

To use the same reasoning, since some animals cannot live without eating meat or eggs, that would be evidence against them being created to eat only plants.

There you go, another argument to add to the many that can be made for an either or position. It is all speculation.



You can keep saying I am wrong and you have better evidence to prove you are right. I am ok with that. As I said, I am not here to seek mans approval. It is not about who is right or wrong, it is about follow Jesus Christ and being on His side instead of wanting Him on our side.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

It is my belief that when God cursed the ground, it reacted right then and there. Not some years later, giving Adam and Eve some easy times without a curse after they have sinned.

So the result of sin was immediate. God cursed creation and it immediately changed.

I just don’t think lions or bears were inclined to kill a man or another animal on the six day of creation or on the ark. So predation may have been something that was not part of the animal’s instincts in the original creation, but later came about.

So the result of sin was gradual. Animals started to prey on each other due to sin, but it happened so gradually that 1500 years after the Fall, predation still wasn't enough of a problem to cause problems on an ark full of animals.

I really don't understand your position.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

So the result of sin was gradual. Animals started to prey on each other due to sin, but it happened so gradually that 1500 years after the Fall, predation still wasn't enough of a problem to cause problems on an ark full of animals.

and 6K years later we have how many species of carnivores?
not to mention incredible numbers of species of parasites.
you are proposing a hyper evolution that is several orders of magnitude greater than anything biological science can even envision. don't you see the blatant contradictions?
This is the problem of biogeography with nightmarish proportions.
incredible that anyone would even think such stuff let alone write it down to be read....

wow...


...