Death before the fall??

[HeatherJay]

For those that believe that death did not exist AT ALL (in animals, plants, etc)before the fall of man, can you give me some scriptural references for that belief? I would very much appreciate it, thanks.

Love, Heather

 

[Jesus My Wisdom]

Good question. The plants? Hmmmmmm. I never thought of that before.

But I think we must realize too that Eden was not just a very nice park.

It was a paradise and the reality of existence there was quite likely much different than anything we can imagine.

You can't get their because it is guarded by two angels later represented by the two cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant.

But if you could, you would live forever.

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life. (Genesis 3:22-24).

Also:

" Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin" (Rom 5:12).

Now:

Cursed is the ground because of you (Gen 3:16).

However,

there was no man to cultivate the ground. (Gen 2:6).

Whatever for? Got me. Can't see why anyone would need to till the ground of an immortal garden.

Good question.

Concerning the Eden account, I try not to take it too literally. Here is why. It could be a reality we cannot understand. And the way it has been explained is about as good as can be done with human words and our limited understanding of reality.

Yet I have no idea why Adam would need to till the ground. And why did these immortal plants need water? Would they die without it? OR, is the first water the water of the flood? Don't know.

Something really worth thinking about.

JMW

 

[HeatherJay]

Right, I agree. Eden was literally heaven on earth. But there was still creation outside the Garden...and I always assumed that part of creation had some different rules governing it than did the Garden itself (just like Heaven and Earth today, I assume, are governed by different rules). I ask because I've seen lately quite a few people that believe that illness and death and destruction were brought into existence as a result of Adam and Eve's sin. I was just wondering where that belief comes from scripturally.

Thanks for responding, JMW. I'm always so thankful for night owls like myself who respond quickly. Otherwise I'd go crazy with impatience.

And don't worry, guys, I don't want this to be a debate thread. I'm truly curious.

Love, Heather

 

[lucaspa]

You're going to have to deal with impatience, since I'm not up that late.

Right, I agree. Eden was literally heaven on earth.

Where does scripture say this?

But there was still creation outside the Garden...and I always assumed that part of creation had some different rules governing it than did the Garden itself (just like Heaven and Earth today, I assume, are governed by different rules). I ask because I've seen lately quite a few people that believe that illness and death and destruction were brought into existence as a result of Adam and Eve's sin. I was just wondering where that belief comes from scripturally.

Jesus My Wisdom gave you the most widely quoted text:
" Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin" (Rom 5:12).

That's the one that supposedly tells us there is no death before the Fall.

However, if you look at Genesis 2:17 it says that Adam will die in the same day that he eats the fruit. Well, Adam lived 930 years past that day. Therefore, most Christians concluded the death was not physical and that Paul in Romans is not talking about physical death, but spiritual. Now, Jesus My Wisdom also quoted Genesis 3:
"Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life. "(Genesis 3:22-24). This indicates to me that Adam was going to physically die. Physical death was already there. God did not want Adam to live forever, so kicked him out before he could eat the fruit of the tree of immortal life.

Now, creationists don't like evolution. They tend to attack every part of it. Henry Morris seems to have been the first to really focus in on the idea of "no death before the Fall". I think he invented that so that he could have another argument against evolution. Since evolution does require generations of time and the death of those generations and since natural selection has the death of most individuals in a generation, Morris had a brand new argument against evolution. Morris never seemed to care whether the arguments were scripturally or theologically sound; just as long as they were arguments against evolution. Unfortunately, many people now seem to have picked up the "no death before the Fall" and have not considered the scripture or theology either.

Now:

Cursed is the ground because of you (Gen 3:16).

However,

there was no man to cultivate the ground. (Gen 2:6).

Whatever for? Got me. Can't see why anyone would need to till the ground of an immortal garden.

JMW says he doesn't read the story too literally. So, if you look at Genesis 2-3 from the perspective of the times, I think it makes more sense. This is a creation story that speaks to a primitive agricultural society. God creates the seeds for plants, but the plants won't grow unless tended, thus you have Adam in the Garden. This parallels agriculture, where the plants you want 1) have to be planted and 2) have to be tended because many plants, like grapes, have special needs and tied to stakes in order to grow well. So Adam is needed to tend the plants. Not weed, but put stakes so the tomato plants can climb them and tie up the grape vines.

This makes it a very easy existence for Adam. Perfect climate and rainfall and no weeds or pests. Harvests are guaranteed. Now, Adam and Eve disobey God. Part of their punishment is that the "ground" is cursed. Suddenly agriculture becomes the backbreaking labor that the people of the time knew. Weeds, pests, drought, floods, frost, etc. All the things that make a farmer's life so miserable and a primitive farmer's life a constant battle for survival.

Obviously the context is very different from us. Less than 10% of Americans work on farms. And even here machinery and other technology gurantees a harvest. The question is always how good, not whether you will get one at all! The rest of us simply walk into a supermarket and pick the food off the shelf. No wonder Genesis 2-3 doesn't make much sense to us sometimes!

 

[Bulldog]

The death the fall caused was spiritual, not physical.

 

[HeatherJay]

You're going to have to deal with impatience, since I'm not up that late. Where does scripture say this?

Hmmm, well no where that I can think of. That's just always been my own personal way to imagine the Garden. In the sense that we're one with God, with no seperation, moreso than the Garden was an exact respresentation of true Heaven. I sure hope there's walking and talking with God "in the cool of the day" in Heaven, anyway.

Jesus My Wisdom gave you the most widely quoted text:
" Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin" (Rom 5:12).

That's the one that supposedly tells us there is no death before the Fall.

Right...I've heard that one before. Along with 1 Corinthians 15:21...'For since by man came death, by man also came the resurrection of the dead.'

Both of these seem to refer to Spiritual death, as you and Bulldog stated, and they say nothing about death of anything except that which pertains to man.

However, if you look at Genesis 2:17 it says that Adam will die in the same day that he eats the fruit. Well, Adam lived 930 years past that day. Therefore, most Christians concluded the death was not physical and that Paul in Romans is not talking about physical death, but spiritual. Now, Jesus My Wisdom also quoted Genesis 3:
"Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life. "(Genesis 3:22-24). This indicates to me that Adam was going to physically die. Physical death was already there. God did not want Adam to live forever, so kicked him out before he could eat the fruit of the tree of immortal life.

So, are you saying that scripture would indicate that physical death would have befallen man even if they'd remained in the Garden and hadn't sinned? That's interesting...I've never considered that before.

Now, creationists don't like evolution. They tend to attack every part of it. Henry Morris seems to have been the first to really focus in on the idea of "no death before the Fall". I think he invented that so that he could have another argument against evolution. Since evolution does require generations of time and the death of those generations and since natural selection has the death of most individuals in a generation, Morris had a brand new argument against evolution. Morris never seemed to care whether the arguments were scripturally or theologically sound; just as long as they were arguments against evolution. Unfortunately, many people now seem to have picked up the "no death before the Fall" and have not considered the scripture or theology either.

LOL, I've seen this 'no death before the fall' theory so much lately and I was beginning to wonder if I was missing something scripturally. Lucaspa, your posts are always so informative. I love smart people!

Love, Heather

 

[lucaspa]

Hmmm, well no where that I can think of. That's just always been my own personal way to imagine the Garden.

Join the club! Since I've gotten involved in these discussions over the past several years, I've had to face up to several ideas that I seemed to have just "believed" from Sunday School or whatever that really aren't in the Bible! So I've been caught several times between what I have believed the Bible said and what it actually says! I've got several of my own to look back upon!

I sure hope there's walking and talking with God "in the cool of the day" in Heaven, anyway.

That would be cool, wouldn't it? Yes, here we have a more, innocent, shall we say? view of God than we get in Genesis 1. Instead of an all-powerful spirit, we get a vision of a kindly old man taking evening walks.

Right...I've heard that one before. Along with 1 Corinthians 15:21...'For since by man came death, by man also came the resurrection of the dead.'

Thank you. I forgot that one.

Both of these seem to refer to Spiritual death, as you and Bulldog stated, and they say nothing about death of anything except that which pertains to man.

Yeah, that last is a good observation. The punishments for disobedience are very specific in Genesis 3. Paul in another verse says "all of creation suffers from Adam's sin" or something similar. And this is the verse that is used to justify the extrapolation to "no death at all" before the Fall. I question Paul's extrapolation since Genesis 3 doesn't say this at all!

So, are you saying that scripture would indicate that physical death would have befallen man even if they'd remained in the Garden and hadn't sinned? That's interesting...I've never considered that before.

That's how I read it. Adam would have had a long life, they would have had lots of kids, but then Adam and Eve would have died. You see, I don't view death as the "bad thing" creationists do. After all, if we are united with God after death, how can death be bad? I'm surprised that Fundamentalists aren't out doing the riskiest things they can find so that they can get killed without overtly committing suicide so that they can be united with God. Instead, there seems to be this terrible fear of death, even when they are claiming that they are saved and 'born again'. I don't understand the inconsistency. Now me, who is not sure I'm saved, has a good reason for not wanting to die for a while yet!

LOL, I've seen this 'no death before the fall' theory so much lately and I was beginning to wonder if I was missing something scripturally. Lucaspa, your posts are always so informative. I love smart people!

Love, Heather

Thank you. And for the hug! As far as I can figure it, you haven't missed anything. 'no death before the fall' seems to be a theory made up by creationists that doesn't have scriptural backing. Its purpose seems to be to a club to beat evolution.

 

[Gander]

Once again I fail to understand why some have to make something as simple as God's word so complicated. Just read it as itis written.

Lucaspa I have to give you this. You are not right, but you are consistent.

Let me try to explain how this is according to the word.

In Gen 1:12 God creates all plant life, although you will notice that He does not refer to it as living or life. Stay with me on this for a minute I will come back to it.

In Gen 1:20 creates the "moving creatures that have life" in the sea and in the air (birds). Notice the reference to life.

In Gen 1:24 we have the creation of the "living creatures" of the land. Again notice the reference to life.

It is simply obvious that when God talks about life in these sections of scripture He is referring to animal life, not plant life. We know plants are alive, but it is a very different form of life.

In Gen1:30 everything that has life (animal and man) was given plants for food (green herb for meet). At this point there is no death of any kind affecting what God refers to as life (animal and man).

Moving on to Gen 2:5 the emphasis is on the fact that there was no cultivation of plants before Adam. Further record that there was no man/men before Adam.

In vs 6 we have a more detailed account than that in Chap 1 of Adam's creation. In vs7 Adam receives the breath of life from God. He becomes a living spiritual being. This is where man differs from animals.

Chap 2:8, this is after creation and is when God plants the Garden. This answers someones question as to whether there was creation outside the garden.

In Gen 2:15 we are told that Adam is placed in the garden to tend it. This tends to suprise some people because they think Adam did nothing till after the curse. It should not surprise them because it would not be like God to create something without purpose or function.

Adam was a gardener. What this fully entails we are not told, but at this point creation is perfectly balanced, so we are not speaking about the "toil" involved after the curse comes into existance, and Adam was expelled from the garden to till the ground for his very survival. Adam was now in a very different world. A world where the very ground was cursed because of his act. A world where his life would be a struggle in an unbalanced creation.

I think someone asked about why plants would need water if there is no death. Firstly as I have shown plants are outwith what the scripture is referring to as life. Secondly the plants needed water because that is how they were designed to exist. In a perfectly balanced pre-curse creation there was no possibility of them going without water.
A parallel would be to ask why Adam needed food. The answer is the same. That is how we are designed. In a balanced pre-curse creation thare was no possibility of Adam starving.

We are told that when Adam sinned he died in that day. Yes this is talking about spiritual death, and he did die in that day. However, this is the point that physical death entered the world. Physical death although delayed came as a result of spiritual death and the decay it brought to the whole of Gods creation.
Almost un-noticed in Genesis when God tells Adam of the curse, for the first time he tells Adam that he, as part of the curse, has a life span. Physical death was on the scene.

Rom 5:17 is primarily talking about spiritual death. We know through many other scriptures that we receive spiritual life through Jesus. We also know that we will one day physically die.

Physical death came about as a direct result of spiritual death. Rom 8:22 tells us how creation groans and travails in pain. Put another way, how creation is in a state of decay. Death is part of that decay. It was not designed by God, it did not exist before Adams fall.

The increased rate of decay can be seen after the fall of Adam when you see how long early mankind lived. That lifespan decreased until God had to step in with 3 score and 10.

Why do we still die physically when we as christians are no longer living under the curse. It is because our covenant with God covers how we live, but does not exempt physical death.

In 1 Cor 15:21,22, & 26 we are again shown that spiritual death came by one man, Adam. We are also shown that physical death is associated with this, and that physical death will be the last enemy to be destroyed.
Death is described as an enemy. It is not something designed by God.

There will be a time when, after death is destroyed, we will return to the way things were before death entered our existance through Adam. We will only see that through receiving life in Jesus.

 

[KleinerApfel]

It's God who says death is the enemy, as Gander points out - that's not a creationist invention.

And yes, even though I'm born again and assured of heaven, I am afraid of dying - it might be very painful and unpleasant, and I'm not brave! But at least I know where I'm going when it's over, and that's a great gift to receive.

God bless, Susana

 

[Harpazo]

First of all, let me give a big HELLO! to everyone, as this will be my first post at the forums. (PS - I apologize in advance for the length)

You see, I don't view death as the "bad thing" creationists do. After all, if we are united with God after death, how can death be bad? I'm surprised that Fundamentalists aren't out doing the riskiest things they can find so that they can get killed without overtly committing suicide so that they can be united with God. Instead, there seems to be this terrible fear of death, even when they are claiming that they are saved and 'born again'. I don't understand the inconsistency. Now me, who is not sure I'm saved, has a good reason for not wanting to die for a while yet!

First off, a simple (unbiased) reading of the text distinctly implies that death was not an active part of pre-Fall human existence. Why else would God use the (for lack of a better term) threat of death as the result of eating the fruit if death was a) already a force at work in the world, b) not a bad thing, and/or c) an unknown concept to Adam. Also, if humanity was already perfectly united with God DURING LIFE what possible benefit (remember, at this point, everything in Creation is still, in God's authoritative opinion, "good") could there be in death?

Furthermore, the Bible ends, not only with the promise of no more death, but with its total destruction! If, as you're advocating, death is an integral part of what it means to be human (and thus declared "good" by God), then that means that means that if there is to be no death in the New Heaven and New Earth, there is to be no humanity that has ever existed before -- which runs counter to the Pauline assertion that Christ is the new Adam (which indicates a return of humanity to the Pre-Fallen state). Gander brings up a great point that death is Biblically identified as an enemy.

'no death before the fall' seems to be a theory made up by creationists that doesn't have scriptural backing. Its purpose seems to be to a club to beat evolution.

Actually, Creationism is the only one of the three origins viewpoints that has Scriptural backing -- nowhere in Scripture does it talk about lizards morphing into lizards or about humans swinging from trees and throwing poo. Evolution (or rather, I should say, the Neo-Darwinist mixture of Darwinian evolution and materialistic naturalism that persists today) has plenty of critics outside of the "God just did it!!!" crowd when it comes to a hypothesis about the origin of life -- particularly human life -- on this planet. The growing Intelligence Design crowd -- which isn't a bunch of Creation Lite people -- is made up of scientists (many of them non-Christian) who affirm that their science is pointing them in the direction of a directing intelligence behind the universe. I personally have a problem with a God that not only finds it acceptable or necessary for his creatures to slaughter each other wholesale (natural selection) in order to bring about someone for God to have a relationship with. If God finds the death of His creatures necessary, then He is a pretty weak God, especially after creating all the matter in the entire universe (atoms, quarks, etc) out of nothing. I mean, shoot, after Genesis 1:1, everything was just moving the stuff around.

As for Adam, Eve, God, the Garden, et al., I'm of the conviction that: a) we can make NO inferences of what the Earth was like (geologically and ecologically) prior to the Flood (let alone prior to the Fall); and that b) you cannot prove that Adam had the same physiological and dimensional limitations that we experience today.

Whew! That's a lot for my first post! God Bless!!

 

[rkonfire]

Harpazo and Gander, I think you're on the mark. You saved me some writing, at least.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

This i-hope-to-be-short essay is meant to be a reply to AiG and two of its representatives on a yahoo group. I've been flooded with email over the last 18 months on the issue and need to get a nice answer written up.

In particular it is this:
AiG on death before the Fall
(search answers in genesis for the most strongly worded essays on the topic, it is their position that a Christian must believe as they do)
type of argument that i wish to dispose of, to put out of my thinking as completely wrong.
So i can get on to thinking about scientism and creationomics.



I deliberately use one of their pages with the significant Scriptural passages on it, for it must be to Scripture that we address our arguments...

quote:

Some people try to say that this death only refers to man, and not to the animals. However, it is clear from taking the whole of Scripture that animals were vegetarian (like man) before the Fall, and understanding the Biblical doctrine of the atonement (as will be discussed in a future illustration) there could be no animal death or bloodshed before the Fall either.

end of quote--------------

The argument is that theodicy, the problem of evil, occurred in time at the Fall of Adam. The YEC would force OEC(as well as TE) to deal with theodicy before the fall in the fact that some animals must have died in these two views, versus the idea that there was no death at all before the fall in the YEC thinking.

I can't put it any clearly than to boldly state that the death of animals is of NO ETHICAL significance at all.
A person must be involved as in the clothing of Adam and Eve with animal skins by God, or the sacrifice of animals in the OT temple. Animal on animal death and violence has no ethical component at all. Animals can not be held accountable for their actives, therefore to say that the death of animals is ethically bad is missing the points of ethics. Ethics is purely a system of behavior to be modelled on God's behavior and imposed on man's. Without a PERSON either God or man, there can be not ethical conduct. The deaths of animals is neither good nor evil, it is simply a-moral, a-ethical. period.

Adam's disobedience was an ethical statement, as such it was evil, a willing disobedience towards a clear command of his Creator and God.
As such the penalty was immediate spiritual death, followed by a physical death as a direct result of the sins Adam committed. First the fall then all the rest of the
dirty, nasty little things he did thereafter.

The immediate response ought to be that God declared the world Good at each days's creative activites, how could the death of animals at any point be good?
The answer is that the Good in creation is as it relates to the actor, to the person of God. God declares the creation, as distinct for Him to be good. This is not to say that every relationship within the creation is somehow moral and good. Relationships between the things of creation are without ethical content. The rocks, the stars etc are not good in and of themselves but rather good in their relationship to God and later in the relationship to mankind. Good is an ethical catagory for persons, for actors with moral responsibility. The second way that God pronounces the Creation good is certainly the way He did the work. This is a good work. It has reference to God as Creator, He is responsible for the goodness of the activity. Like when i finish this essay, i think that i did a good work in defending my position. That does not mean that the work in itself is good, ethical speaking. But that the work i put into the essay is good, good as it contacts and flows from my mind through my fingers. The ethics is always rooted into a person. That is why the fact of a lion killing and eating a young antelope is of no ethical significance. Neither the lion nor the antelope are ethical actors, to be held accountable for their actions in any way. Therefore the death of one, and the subsequent continuing living of the other has no goodness as do our actions.

quote:

1 Corinthians 15:26 calls death an enemy. Death is an intrusion. Some try to make out that this death is only 'spiritual' death and not 'physical' death. However, the Bible verses cited make it clear that Christ's death on the Cross is related to the death that came into the world because of the first man's sin. This was a physical death. When Adam sinned, man died spiritually in the sense that he was separated from God, and he also began to die physically.

end of quote--------------

It is spiritual death followed by a actual physical death as a direct result of 1-spiritual death 2-actual sins committed. both kinds of death of a responsible person are seen.
If you argue as the YEC do that in Adam all livings things died, then in Christ would all living things come alive. Simply NOT true, neither part. Christ's death was for His elect alone, not all mankind, not all living creatures. again period.

but i think the YEC know this, for they do not propose that your child's favorite cat join us in heaven, they know better than to argue such nonsense in theology. They save their nonsense for the science side of the arguments. The argument that an old earth position is wrong because it requires death before the fall and this is wrong is actually a smokescreen for a larger argument; which is to force the issue of theodicy on the OEC before the Fall in time. This is one because theodicy is perhaps the hardest problem in theology to deal with, second it is in a significant way unsolvable, so by making it a subtopic in the OEC system they hope to derail the OEC into solving the unsolvable as a means to building their complete answer to the question of origins.

I won't take their bait. The death spoken of in Genesis, Romans, and Corinithians is spiritual death first, followed by physical death. Both, in order, in a significant cause and effect order. Spiritual death and sin CAUSES physical death. Death is a significant experience, death is an ethical catagory ONLY for persons, not animals. To believe otherwise is to completely 'spread' the cause of the death of Christ across all living creatures, not just people, let alone the elect.

quote:


Genesis 1:29-30 makes it obvious that originally, animals and man were vegetarian. Some would say therefore that plants died before sin. However, the Bible in Genesis 1 makes it clear that animals and man have a 'nephesh'-that is, a 'life spirit,' or soul. Plants do not have this. Plants were given for food-they are not living in the same sense that animals are. Man was told he could eat animals after the Flood in Genesis 9:3. Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 make it clear that death came into the world because of sin.

end of quote------


No it is not obvious. The whole push the the argument, into Gen 9:3 is towards mankind. The fact that God gives the green things to animals to eat may very well be the same way that we speak of cows as grass on the hoof. There is no reason to believe that all animals must be vegetarians from this statement. Nor it is the general consensus of the Church that this is so. You can prove human vegetarianism as do the Seventh Day Adventist from these verses if you desire, but not all animals. But literally i don't care if you desire vegetarian lions until the fall have at it. It doesn't change the argument the ethics is person based not animal. Besides if you eliminate carnivous, the OEC have a LOT less death to justify before the Fall anyhow.

My whole argument is that the evolutionary mechanism that created the living world as we know it, fits just fine into the Biblical creation two tablet origins story as told in Genesis 1 and 2. Creation is a good work by God, the death of animals is of no moral concern as long as persons are not involved. The fall explains theodicy in as far as it is explanable in terms of moral responsible actors- persons not animals.

a continuing conversation:

> Romans 8:22 "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and
travaileth in
> pain together until now."
>
> After Adam's sin the Earth "groaneth and travaileth in
>pain". We
> know that God did not create such an earth that "groaneth and
>travaileth in
> pain" because God told us in Genesis that all he had done "was
>good". Something
> happened between the end of day six when God said it is GOOD and the
> creation that "groaneth and travaileth in pain". It was sin, the sin of
> Adam. It corrupted the whole of creation.
>


it is a long way from a fallen creation to the assertion that the
animals were originally created as vegetarian on day 5 or 6 then
re-created as carnivores just after Adam's fall. a big gap.

but there is nothing in your verses as quoted that persuade me that
Scripture teaches that animal death can not precede Adam's fall.

Everything seems to teach the opposite, that death is significant only
for humanity. as commonly defined in Christian theology death is
defined as the separation of body and soul/spirit with the
decomposition of the body, and the transport of the soul/spirit
somewhere else. the significance of death as the punishment for sins
only makes sense if it is only applied to Adam's sin and his
posterity, he as federal head. Otherwise you end up with a general
living things universalism, certainly not what you desire. Having your
pet cat in heaven is maybe a nice thing to tell a young child but
certainly bad theology.

I can assert, as you have Paul teaching in Roman's that creation is
under the curse. but that this includes the status of animal death as
evil as a result of sin is yet to be shown. Simply asserting it is not
sufficent to persuade.


>One can not RESTORE creation to a state in which it has NEVER
>been that being free from death.

snip more name calling and poisoning the well thinking.

the restoration of the world after Revelation has been accomplished is
in fact better than the primal world, the proof i submit is that God
did it this way. that is, in some very significant, very serious way
God desired the suffering, death, etc that the world has gone through,
is going through, will go through until the end of time, IN ORDER that
something better emerges from it. I trust God knows what He is doing.

I can only believe, with scant proof from Scriptures, that this is a
showing of divine love, divine freedom. and in a good way this
'balances' the suffering, death etc we see.

but none of this speculation requires animal death or suffering to be
raised to the same level as that of human, which is exactly what you
do if you propose that in Adam all living things fell, death of all
animals resulted, previously vegetarian animals were transformed into
carnivores in the blink of an eye.

Furthermore you extend the sacrifice of Jesus to cover all of creation
so that all dead animals become alive in Christ in the last days. That
is foolish, simply to assert that no death in the animal world existed
prior to Adam's fall? why lock yourself into such patent contradictions?

The restoration of Creation in the Last Days is the Restoration of
Adam's descendants to a vegetarian world populated by ex-carnivores
now vegetarian? plus all the rest of non-human life? Why propose such
nonsense? isn't human beings living in the glory of God enough? why
bring the props?

 

[Rho]

Harpazo and Gander, I think you're on the mark. You saved me some writing, at least.

I concur as well.
I am surprised that Gander did not mention:
Genesis 3:19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat food until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you will return.

Maybe I'm a bit naive about this verse. From what I understand, is that from the earth Adam was formed, they eat the fruit and spiritual death ensues, then God curses them, with part of the curse (3:19) being that to dust we return - physical death. No big deal if they were already expecting to die, in fact the this part of the curse is redundant. If death was not on the horizon then, yeah, its a big deal.

Oh and read somewhere else that when God clothed them out of skin, it represented the first blood shed.

My 2 cents.
Rho.