Death before the Fall?

[Orthodox Andrew]

If evolution is correct than there was death before the fall, right? So how would somebody who believes in theistic evolution make sense of that?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Erm - there was death before the fall.

Indeed. There was death before my fall. Death before yours.

Your point is?

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

The original fall brought death into the world.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

I guess all those dinosaurs died after the fall - LOL

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

I guess all those dinosaurs died after the fall - LOL

I see your point. But is there any way to not be in conflict with the Bible when one says there is death before the fall? That's what I'm looking for.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Why does it matter? The Bible is wrong on many matters of fact - both historical and scientific - but that is not what the Bible is about. It is not either a science or history text.

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

Why does it matter? The Bible is wrong on many matters of fact - both historical and scientific - but that is not what the Bible is about. It is not either a science or history text.

Is that not kind of like saying the Bible is wrong on stuff it can be tested on, but everything it can't be tested on should just be accepted as fact?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If evolution is correct than there was death before the fall, right? So how would somebody who believes in theistic evolution make sense of that?

i started this essay about a year ago, i havent rewritten it since, perhaps this thread will bring up new information that ought to be included.

The issue of 'death before the fall' comes up so often on the evolution creation design boards that i have found in necessary to create and update this essay. the intention is to have a one-stop place to get into the discussion from:
http://dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/deathfall.html

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

This i-hope-to-be-short essay is meant to be a reply to AiG and two of its representatives on a yahoo group.

In particular it is this:
AiG on death before the Fall
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 actions, 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 no 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. In the fall, Adam lost the supernatural, but human ability to will. From now on, both Adam and all his posterity were unable to will to follow God but rather actively sought to disobey God. Sin stems from a sinnner's heart, we sin because we are sinner's.

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 so first 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?

further research
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
there have been a series of interesting discussions on the topic at TheologyWeb
check out: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/t26518

 

[PaladinValer]

It brought spiritual death, not biological death.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

If evolution is correct than there was death before the fall, right? So how would somebody who believes in theistic evolution make sense of that?

Quite an excellent point. Another hole in any non Creationism theory. Still no outstanding answers on this thread yet...

 

[Asar'el]

If evolution is correct than there was death before the fall, right? So how would somebody who believes in theistic evolution make sense of that?

I am a creationist - but I have heard many arguments against it from supporters of evolution, including those trying to reconcile it with a Christian belief. All such attempts must begin with a disagreement regarding literal acceptance of Genesis accounts - and fall (imho) from there. This naturaly leads to (and is often the result of!) confidence in man's explanation (read, 'science' falsely so called) instead of God's word. From that, almost anything can be (and usually is) justified.

 

[Ron21647]

Were the creations of Gen 1 inside the Garden of Eden? If so, why did God not plant the garden until chapter 2?

Ron

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

They were probably everywhere for the purposes of filling the earth. Cannot say for certain however.

 

[Ron21647]

I believe that the vegetarian lions and lack of death and disease were inside the garden only. Outside the garden life was already as we know it now.

Ron

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I believe that the vegetarian lions and lack of death and disease were inside the garden only. Outside the garden life was already as we know it now.

Ron

Why? It wouldn't hurt to have vegetarian lions for a length of time

 

[Ron21647]

because the life outside the garden had been going on for hundreds of millions of years.

the original post asked how a theistic evolutionist could reconcile the two ideas. that is how I do it.

Ron

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

because the life outside the garden had been going on for hundreds of millions of years.

the original post asked how a theistic evolutionist could reconcile the two ideas. that is how I do it.

Ron

Well thats another reason why creationism makes more sense

 

[Didaskomenos]

I am a creationist - but I have heard many arguments against it from supporters of evolution, including those trying to reconcile it with a Christian belief. All such attempts must begin with a disagreement regarding literal acceptance of Genesis accounts - and fall (imho) from there. This naturaly leads to (and is often the result of!) confidence in man's explanation (read, 'science' falsely so called) instead of God's word. From that, almost anything can be (and usually is) justified.

I do not necessarily believe in evolution. I think it may be the proper model, but I'm not a scientist, and hence don't know that much. I can only trust honest scientists (many of whom are Christians) who do know what they're talking about. My beef with most creationists is their security blanket insistence that the Bible should be interpreted as literally as possible, instead of as literarily as possible. The more insightful of them will say, "No, not everything is literal. But where it's not obviously non-literal, we should interpret it literally." But that's not good enough: for them, it's just literal vs. non-literal, when in fact there are numerous literary genres, forms, and devices used throughout the Bible. Remember the old "Pentateuch, historical, wisdom, prophetic" classifications of the OT books? Did it never occur to anyone that perhaps the classification system should be more fine-grained than that?

It's my belief that the OT shows literary forms that can be described as mythology, saga, a qualified type of history, the Hebrew style of prophecy, apocalypse (the Zoroastrian type of prophecy), and many more types. The creation accounts and Garden pericopes tell me to interpret them as mythology, so I look to the book that's more authoritative for a scientific account of the creation: Creation itself.

Mankind is unable to please God because we are selfish and prideful. The story of the Fall is an explanation. I'm undecided as to the extent of its historicity, but not to its applicability. As I've often said, if Paul had recounted the Greek Pandora myth and explained the entrance of sin and death into the world via Pandora's box, and then said that through another box (the tomb of Christ) proceeded all the treasures of heaven, it would be a beautiful picture of what Christ did.

And don't say that the death that passed to all men must needs be physical. Because if that's so, then Paul was teaching eternal physical life as concommitant with our spiritual rebirth.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

**** News just in ****


There were never vegetarian lions. What a ridiculous concept with absolutely no evidence for and plenty against.

**** End of news flash ****

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

**** News just in ****


There were never vegetarian lions. What a ridiculous concept with absolutely no evidence for and plenty against.

**** End of news flash ****

Just a thought. But do you think Llons started out as vegetarian creature that started eating meat, turning into a carnivore?