Death Before the Fall

Calminian said:

“Say to the Israelites: ‘Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones (chaiyah) you may eat:

The word chayyah is just a basic term for animal or creature. Animals there is the word bhemah often translated beasts or cattle. It's also a somewhat generic term. The word we'd be looking for is nefesh.

KM Hebrew Dictionary: breath; by extension: life, life force, soul, an immaterial part of a person, the seat of emotion and desire; a creature or person as a whole: self, body, even corpse.
​

This is what's used to describe the various creatures in Gen. 1 and is used of man—nefesh chaiyah. I do see the word live there in the english NIV but that's a bit of an ad-lib apparently. The text is merely talking about land creatures, thus creatures that live on the land. But this is no way is saying these are nefesh creatures per se, and certainly isn't speaking of the locust as nefesh. It's merely saying they are edible. That something is edible doesn't necessarily mean they are nefesh creatures. Plants are a perfect example.
.

Click to expand...

I think that some of the things you're saying here may be a matter of pulling the cart before the horse when it comes to saying that insects were never included as living creatures just like the other animals the Lord gave to eat.

As said earlier, I think the view that insects do not have the breath of life in them is problematic on several accounts - for the scriptures never say that they do not have it simply because of the fact that man and living creatures on the ground were noted to have it.. Aquatic animals were not said to have the breath of life aspect to them specifically - but the Biblical writers were not seeking to repeat certain things to indicate what creatures did or did not have life in them.

As it is, if insects were not included in the "Breath of Life" category, why would the Lord have said he'd wipe them out and placed them in the category of living things?
The Tanak declares that all creation looks to the Lord (Psalm 104:4 ) and he also makes clear that "all the trees of the forest sing for joy” (1 Chronicles 16:32-34, Psalm 96:11-13, Isaiah 44:22-24, etc)..for the trees’ song is the Divine song, singing through the trees just as it does through our own poetry, lovemaking and pursuit of justice.

And as it concerns the subject of animals and their souls, whereas some are of the mindset that animals are unimportant/lifeless, others are of the mindset that their having a spirit indicates a value beyond the physical. For what makes man different from the animals is not that he has a soul, but that he is made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). The words "let us make" uses the same Hebrew word for "make" found in Ex. 20:4 in which God commands us to "not make" any graven image. In Psalm 78:50 we find an example of the usage of “soul” as “life” when the writer said in speaking of the people of Egypt (who tried in vain to prevent the Israelites from leaving their country’s slavery) that God “spared not their soul from death, but gave their life over to the pestilence.”

In this instance, the word “soul” (Hebrew nephesh) is used to denote the physical life of humans. But in Genesis 1:20,24, the identical Hebrew word is employed to speak of animals as “living creatures” (Hebrew nephesh hayyah). In this sense, then, yes, it is correct to say that animals have “souls”—since the word soul means only physical life. In responding to the question, “Do animals have souls?,” McCord wrote in his correspondence work "“Do Animals Have Souls?,” that "the word soul, nephesh, only means ‘breath,’ as in Genesis 1:20 (ASV), ‘Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures,’ nephesh hayyah, literally, ‘living soul’” (1999).

It is true that at times the Bible uses the same terms to refer to the life principle/force in both humans and animals (e.g. Genesis 7:22), and that those terms may be used to refer to the immortal soul of humans (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Matthew 10:28). Revelations 16:3 also refers to the souls of animals when it states that "The second angel poured out his bowl upon the sea, so that it turned to blood as of a corpse, and every living soul that was in the sea died." The exact Greek word for soul, "psyche," was used in the original texts. The scriptures discuss how animals have the same "breath of life" as do humans (Genesis 7:15, 22)...and Numbers 16:22 refers to the Lord as "the God of spirits of all flesh." In Numbers 31:28, God commands Moses to divide up among the people the cattle, sheep, asses and human prisoners captured in battle and to give to the Lord "one soul of five hundred" of both humans and animals alike.

Even Psalm 104:27-30 says God provides for animals and their ensoulment:
Moreover, Job 12:10 teaches that in God’s hand "is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind."...and Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 says humans have no advantage over animals since "They all draw the same breath...all came from the dust, and to dust all return."

Of course, it must always be remembered that Man alone was created “in the image and likeness of God” (Genesis 1:26-27)—something that may not be said of animals. God breathed His Spirit into Adam in Gen. 2:7. ...and because we are made in the image of God, murder is forbidden (Gen. 9:6)---for it neglects our own value/worth in light of our unique status in life when it comes to communion/creativity and reason with the Creator we're different. Being made in the image and likeness of God means that human beings are like God, capable of spirituality, with mind, emotion, and will, and they have a part of their being that continues after death. If pets/animals do have a “soul” or immaterial aspect, it must therefore be of a different and lesser “quality.” ...unless there's a different level of things that are to be considered when it comes to how man having an immortal soul doesn't mean that other creatures don't have eternal souls since even the angels---not made in the image of God (as well as other creatures in Revelation 4)---are immortal beings. Immortality isn't based necessarily on being made in God's Image...

Again, scripture says a great deal about animals, portraying them as Earth’s second most important inhabitants. God entrusted animals to us, and our relationships with animals are a significant part of our lives.

For a good resource on the issue, one can go online/consider looking up an article Frank Hoffman entitled “All Creatures Here Below
- Chapter 3- Of Life and Soul: A Book about Souls and Spirits of Animals” ( )--and the other one could consider looking up is under the name of "Do Animals Have Souls? -PleaseConvinceMe.com" ( ).

Gxg (G²);62401351 said:

I think that some of the things you're saying here may be a matter of pulling the cart before the horse when it comes to saying that insects were never included as living creatures just like the other animals the Lord gave to eat.

As said earlier, I think the view that insects do not have the breath of life in them is problematic on several accounts - for the scriptures never say that they do not have it simply because of the fact that man and living creatures on the ground were noted to have it.. Aquatic animals were not said to have the breath of life aspect to them specifically - but the Biblical writers were not seeking to repeat certain things to indicate what creatures did or did not have life in them....

Click to expand...

I'm very open if you can make a case for insects or at least some insects being considered alive in the nefesh sense I just don't see it. The key for me is the issue of blood. This is where the life is.

Lev. 17:11 For the life of a creature is in the blood......​

Those creatures and organisms without blood are never to my knowledge described as nefesh creatures. Now the sea creatures, like fish and sea reptiles and mammals do have blood. Thus they have nefesh. But plants and lower organisms do not.

I don't really see what the concern is about. Certainly bugs and insects are God's creatures, they are just perhaps creatures without any kind of consciousness or awareness. They're biological, but not spiritual. Nefesh creatures are both.

Calminian said:

Looking at Leviticus 11:2, and don't see the word neshesh in the hebrew. I'm not saying it's not there, but I don't see in with my tools.

“Say to the Israelites: ‘Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones (chaiyah) you may eat:

The word chayyah is just a basic term for animal or creature. Animals there is the word bhemah often translated beasts or cattle. It's also a somewhat generic term. The word we'd be looking for is nefesh.

KM Hebrew Dictionary: breath; by extension: life, life force, soul, an immaterial part of a person, the seat of emotion and desire; a creature or person as a whole: self, body, even corpse.​

This is what's used to describe the various creatures in Gen. 1 and is used of man—nefesh chaiyah. I do see the word live there in the english NIV but that's a bit of an ad-lib apparently. The text is merely talking about land creatures, thus creatures that live on the land. But this is no way is saying these are nefesh creatures per se, and certainly isn't speaking of the locust as nefesh. It's merely saying they are edible. That something is edible doesn't necessarily mean they are nefesh creatures. Plants are a perfect example.

Now I said all that assuming I didn't miss something. I'll stand corrected if I did.

Click to expand...

I think the problem is concentrating on nephesh, which means breath and missing the fact that chai or chaiyah means life. We translate it as creatures, because that is less stilted in English than calling all the animals 'lives', but that is the meaning of the Hebrew.

With the Leviticus passage and the reference to locusts, check out the end of the chapter. Lev 11:46 This is the law about beast and bird and every living chaiyah creature nephesh that moves through the waters and every creature nephesh that swarms on the ground,
47 to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean and between the living creature chaiyah that may be eaten and the living creature chaiyah that may not be eaten. The whole chapter is about distinguishing between living creatures nefesh chaiyah that can be eaten and those that can't. That includes the discussion of locusts and other insects. Notice as well how the creatures that swarm on the ground are even referred to as nephesh.

Greg1234 said:

Your post is based on reading the physical body as man. Scriptures don't depict that.

Click to expand...

Gen 2:23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

Calminian said:

I'm very open if you can make a case for insects or at least some insects being considered alive in the nefesh sense I just don't see it. The key for me is the issue of blood. This is where the life is.

Lev. 17:11 For the life of a creature is in the blood......
​

Those creatures and organisms without blood are never to my knowledge described as nefesh creatures. Now the sea creatures, like fish and sea reptiles and mammals do have blood. Thus they have nefesh. But plants and lower organisms do not.

Click to expand...

That again is pulling the cart before the horse - and an indication that one is not open. For with the rule of first reference where you see things in order (as often discussed in Jewish culture), one does not go to Leviticus - look for where something is or isn't mentioned - and then build a case from there. You start from the beginning of scripture prior to that since some things in Jewish culture did not need repeating due to how they were already explained.

It has NEVER been the case in Judaism or Hebrew culture that insects were not deemed to be living things - and that is plain when seeing what they already said on the issue....as well as seeing what was noted directly in the second account of Creation when the Lord decided to wipe out ALL life/living things on the Earth. Insects were included according to Genesis 6 and Genesis 7 with the Flood Account

don't really see what the concern is about. Certainly bugs and insects are God's creatures, they are just perhaps creatures without any kind of consciousness or awareness. They're biological, but not spiritual. Nefesh creatures are both.

Click to expand...

That again is a categorical error that's actually really new since the Judaic culture did not advocate such at any point - as they did not see the creatures as having no awareness or lacking spiritual.

Again, at times the Bible uses the same terms to refer to the life principle/force in both humans and animals (e.g. Genesis 7:22), and that those terms may be used to refer to the immortal soul of humans (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Matthew 10:28). Revelations 16:3 also refers to the souls of animals when it states that "The second angel poured out his bowl upon the sea, so that it turned to blood as of a corpse, and every living soul that was in the sea died."

Every living thing, Cal...from fish to crabs/lobsters (related to bugs/anthropods) to dolphins and other sea creatures. They were all deemed to be amongst the living

The exact Greek word for soul, "psyche," was used in the original texts. The scriptures discuss how animals have the same "breath of life" as do humans (Genesis 7:15, 22)...and Numbers 16:22 refers to the Lord as "the God of spirits of all flesh." In Numbers 31:28, God commands Moses to divide up among the people the cattle, sheep, asses and human prisoners captured in battle and to give to the Lord "one soul of five hundred" of both humans and animals alike.

Even Psalm 104:27-30 says God provides for animals and their ensoulment:
Moreover, Job 12:10 teaches that in God’s hand "is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind."...and Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 says humans have no advantage over animals since "They all draw the same breath...all came from the dust, and to dust all return."

No way around that if wanting to seriously deal with the text

Assyrian said:

I think the problem is concentrating on nephesh, which means breath and missing the fact that chai or chaiyah means life. We translate it as creatures, because that is less stilted in English than calling all the animals 'lives', but that is the meaning of the Hebrew.

With the Leviticus passage and the reference to locusts, check out the end of the chapter. Lev 11:46 This is the law about beast and bird and every living chaiyah creature nephesh that moves through the waters and every creature nephesh that swarms on the ground,
47 to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean and between the living creature chaiyah that may be eaten and the living creature chaiyah that may not be eaten. The whole chapter is about distinguishing between living creatures nefesh chaiyah that can be eaten and those that can't. That includes the discussion of locusts and other insects. Notice as well how the creatures that swarm on the ground are even referred to as nephesh.

Click to expand...

Indeed...and thanks for pointing that out. Genesis 6 also notes the issue of insects being counted amongst those that are living things - and in practical application, one can see the problem in how far this goes.

Leviticus 11 has always been about which insects one is allowed to eat - not a text claiming that insects have no souls/spirits or that they are not considered on the level of animals.

And if saying otherwise, that'd mean that killing insects randomly would not be considered abuse/bad stewardship of God's creation just like with other creatures:

To burn kittens or tie barb-wire around the face of a dog (as has happened to some) is deemed abusive and harmful toward God's creation - but to randomly kill butterflies or destroy ant/bee nests is deemed to be a good thing? Is it a just action to go around squising spiders wherever we're able because of the fun of it? That's illogical - as well as near-sighted since insects aid tremendously with the eco-system - from locusts to spiders to aquatic insects and many others... There's nothing randomly created in God's kingdom or without purpose

Because of their diversity and abundance, insects play major roles in the functioning of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. Insects influence the nutrient and energy flow of ecosystems in many ways, but perhaps most importantly as decomposers (see related chapter: Decomposers ). No source of decaying organic material goes unused by insects, and their action is often necessary before other groups of decomposers can take advantage of the material. In both terrestrial and freshwater aquatic ecosystems, insect decomposers are crucial to the breakdown of plant material (both leaf litter and woody material), dead animals and waste material. I

To say that they don't have spirits and are not alive is against scripture - and it doesn't deal at all with the ways God actually praised the insect world in scripture when noting their actions.

Assyrian said:

What laws are you talking about, the law of Moses, the law of the Spirit of life, the law of the land, the laws of physics? And what has the existence or otherwise of Adam got to do with our following these laws?

Click to expand...

The laws of Moses. We find them in the same book as the one story about the Jesus character.

Instead of just thinking that because these writers talk about Adam they must have though he was real, you need to ask yourself how the writers are actually interpreting the passage.

Click to expand...

The writers place him as fully real as any other name mentioned in the scriptures.

Paul saw Adam as a figurative picture of Christ.

Click to expand...

Paul who? They are all just figures. Even the writers are figures of writers. No actual people exist.

Romans 5:14 Adam was a figure of the one who was to come. Now Paul may also have considered....

Click to expand...

Paul is real? comeon now. Stop joshing me.

as a historical person too, and allegorised him the way he allegorised Hagar and Sarah. What it does mean is that you have to be especially careful where Paul compares Adam and Christ. His comparison may be a figurative one, like he tells you in Romans 5. 1Cor 15:22 makes much more sense if Paul is talking figuratively because Paul is talking about something that happens the humans now as part of the human race. In Adam all die 1Cor 15:22, this is present tense, we are in Adam (Hebrew for mankind) now and die in Adam when we sin. The tense is wrong to talk about an event in the past back when we were all died 'in Adam loins'.If you look at 1Corinthians 15:45 you find the same situation. Read the next two verses.
1Cor 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.
47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. Jesus isn't just the last Adam, Paul calls him the 'second man'. That isn't literal history, if you are taking Genesis literally the second man (Greek: anthropos, a human being) was Eve, the second male human was Cain. The way Paul is talking here is describing the entire human race in two apocalyptic figures Adam and Christ, they are the two humanities, the old man of our fleshly sinful nature and the new man we are made in Christ.In 1Timothy Paul uses Adam and Eve in another metaphor he used. Adam and Eve are a picture of marriage.1Tim 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
Yet she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
See the way Paul went from the past tense describing Adam and Eve, then taking it into the future tense 'she will be saved' and into the plural 'if they continue' to describe how husband and wife should continue to live. Paul is speaking highly allegorically here.

Jude is quoting from the Book of Enoch and if you want to understand his point about Enoch being seventh from Adam, you have to look in the Book of Enoch. His point wasn't literal history but second Temple Jewish numerology and the symbolic significance of the number seven.

The whole question is how we should interpret Genesis. It is interesting though how Adam is seen in Genesis itself as God's name for people rather than just an individual. Gen 5:2 male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. In post 59 in the thread Adam is an explicitly metaphorical reference, I pointed out how the writer uses the language of the creation of Adam to describe God wiping out Adam whom he created in the flood, even though a literal Adam would have been long dead.

Click to expand...

What writer? That was just a figurative person created by a group. You put way too much stock in this authorship thing. Those are invented characters, created by committee to make the Jesus story sound true. There were no actual apostles. The church created these characters to add body and depth to the Jesus story they created.

Assyrian said:

What about trees, they don't have blood, but we know they do respire. Usually, the bible uses the more descriptive 'wither' to describe plants dying, but that doesn't mean they don't die. After all Jesus thought it appropriate to use death to talk about plants when he talked of a seed falling into the ground and dying.

Click to expand...

It was not accidential that the Lord used the language of "death" to describe what it was that the trees experienced in the Garden. There was a serious spiritual view that was always in place within Judaism when it came to plant life and the way it experiences things just like the animals.

The idea that no creatures, including plants, died prior to the Fall is the extreme position of a minority of young earth creationists...and whenever it's claimed that only parts of plants are eaten, and, therefore, no plants actually died in the Fall, the argument seems to be a bit inconsistent.

Although a number of grazing animals eat only the tops of grass or leaves, leaving the plant alive, there are a number of exceptions - as even grass grazers pull up whole plants (including the roots) on occasion, which results in the death of entire plants. Some animals eat only roots, such as gophers. Once the roots are eaten, the plant quickly dies. From an aquatic perspective, many sea animals eat diatoms and microscopic plants - ingesting and killing entire organisms. And thus, unless God changed the way these herbivores eat, plants surely died during the fifth and sixth days of creation.


If Plants were not living, it'd be illogical for the Bible to go opposite of many young earth creationists claim that the Bible indicates that plants do not die and (in their view) eating them does not constitute death. For the Bible specifically compares the deaths of humans to those of plants (just as Jesus did in John 12 with the analogy of a seed failing to the ground and dying), making this idea unsubstantiated. Both the Old Testament and New Testament compare the deaths of humans to the deaths of grass, flowers, and herbs.

• "You will know also that your descendants will be many, And your offspring as the grass of the earth. You will come to the grave in full vigor, Like the stacking of grain in its season." (Job 5:25-26)

• "For there is hope for a tree, When it is cut down, that it will sprout again, And its shoots will not fail. "Though its roots grow old in the ground, And its stump dies in the dry soil, (Job 14:7-8)

• (A Psalm of David.) Do not fret because of evildoers, Be not envious toward wrongdoers. For they will wither quickly like the grass, And fade like the green herb. (Psalm 37:1-2)

• Thou hast swept them away like a flood, they fall asleep; In the morning they are like grass which sprouts anew. In the morning it flourishes, and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades, and withers away. (Psalm 90:5-6)

• My days are like a lengthened shadow; And I wither away like grass. (Psalm 102:11)

• May all who hate Zion, Be put to shame and turned backward, Let them be like grass upon the housetops, Which withers before it grows up; (Psalm 129:5-6)

• As for man, his days are like grass; As a flower of the field, so he flourishes. When the wind has passed over it, it is no more; And its place acknowledges it no longer. (Psalm 103:15-16)

• For the waters of Nimrim are desolate. Surely the grass is withered, the tender grass died out, There is no green thing. (Isaiah 15:6)

• "Therefore their inhabitants were short of strength, They were dismayed and put to shame; They were as the vegetation of the field and as the green herb, As grass on the housetops is scorched before it is grown up. (Isaiah 37:27)
  
• A voice says, "Call out." Then he answered, "What shall I call out?" All flesh is grass, and all its loveliness is like the flower of the field. The grass withers, the flower fades, When the breath of the LORD blows upon it; Surely the people are grass. The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever. (Isaiah 40:6-8)
• Isaiah 53:2He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
  Isaiah 53
• 'And in that the king saw an angelic watcher, a holy one, descending from heaven and saying, "Chop down the tree and destroy it; yet leave the stump with its roots in the ground, but with a band of iron and bronze around it in the new grass of the field, and let him be drenched with the dew of heaven, and let him share with the beasts of the field until seven periods of time pass over him"; (Daniel 4:23)

• "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains by itself alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. (John 12:24)

• and let the rich man glory in his humiliation, because like flowering grass he will pass away. For the sun rises with a scorching wind, and withers the grass; and its flower falls off, and the beauty of its appearance is destroyed; so too the rich man in the midst of his pursuits will fade away. (James 1:10-11)

crawfish said:

That implies that death was possible in the pre-fall Eden. Which means, God built death into the very fabric of creation.

Click to expand...

Everlasting life was built in to Creation. Sin can only work with what is there because it has no creative powers. What was there was good, and had to be turned to work for evil.

Separation from God was achieved without physical death. Meaning, the term "death" in Genesis 2 would be speaking of spiritual, not physical, death. This makes the idea that there was no physical death before Adam's sin problematic - a deathless world is no longer required by the text.

Click to expand...

Though shalt surely die. Death comes to all.

They're certainly not difficult if you're willing to sacrifice core YEC beliefs.

Click to expand...

There are no core YEC beliefs that are internally legitimate. If we examine the age of the Garden East of Eden, what exact age do we get? If we examine the age of the animals brought before Adam to name, what age do we get....exactly? Zero? I thought not.

Assyrian said:

What about trees, they don't have blood, but we know they do respire. Usually, the bible uses the more descriptive 'wither' to describe plants dying, but that doesn't mean they don't die. After all Jesus thought it appropriate to use death to talk about plants when he talked of a seed falling into the ground and dying.

Click to expand...

The Tanak declares that all creation looks to the Lord (Psalm 104:4 ) and he also makes clear that "all the trees of the forest sing for joy” (1 Chronicles 16:32-34, Psalm 96:11-13, Isaiah 44:22-24, etc)..for the trees’ song is the Divine song, singing through the trees just as it does through our own poetry, lovemaking and pursuit of justice.

That is a bit controversial for many because of the assumption that the trees are not living - but is an historical viewpoint that many in the early Church had. In the event that what was just said was not clear, have you ever heard of the film "Avatar"?

Saw the film "Avatar" years ago....and it was highly intriguing to see some of the concepts discussed in the film when it came to many of the things I studied within Jewish/Messianic culture. For some basic reference materials that others can consider:

• Tikkun Daily Blog: Avatar"
• -- "The Neshamah: Avatar the Messiah" ( )
• --"AVATAR AND... JEWISH MYSTICISM" ( )...
• -"Rabbi Jason Miller: How Jewish is Avatar?" ( )
• -"Haaretz: Avatar, Tu B'Shvat and the connection to Jewish mysticism"
• --Tikkun Daily---Avatar: the Spiritual Progressive Movie of the Decade?
• --The Jewish Daily Forward: Taking Avatar Seriously(Environmentalisms, Spiritual and Practical"
• --Avatar and the Jews: The connections with Torah and Hebrew words are just too frequent and striking to be accidental"

As one Jewish Reviewer said best:
There were many concepts within the film that I thought were HIGHLY Biblical in nature.....and though I'll hopefully be able to share more so later in time, one of the things I wanted to talk about immediately was the aspect of CREATION Care that the film focused highly upon. Anyone who saw the film will quickly note how there was a strong Eco-Spiritual dynamic within warfare that was focused upon......and that's BIBLICAL, as it relates to how often others destroy God's real-estate that He made when they fight each other...



One of the strongest themes within the film was how the Na'vi worship ancient trees. When studying what the Word of God says about trees, its interesting to see how they were treated back in the scriptures. For Cedars of Lebanon were harvested as building materials to help construct the Temple....as the daily sacrifice was practiced there and a secure supply of wood was necessary. For both Iron Age wealth and military might were dependent on charcoal as a heat source for smelting silver and forging weapons.

And yet the Lord made an explict command against destroying the trees in battle:
Here one learns the difference between using the land to survive/thrive, such as harvesting a field...and abusing the land because it conviently fits our purposes......for we have the right to use creation in order to meet our needs--but we never have the right to abuse creation to satisfy our greeds. And what God told the Israelite soldiers was essentially a rebuke for failing to leave destroying his creation out of battle. How often is this forgotten when it comes to modern warfare and collateral environmental damage....and forgetting that God places value on His inanimate creations as well.


For as Francis Shaeffer wrote, "The Christian stands in front of the tree and has the emotional reaction toward it, because the tree has areal value in itself being a creature made by God. I have this in common with the tree: we were made by God and not just cast up by chance......if I love the Lover, I must love what the lover made."


Romans 1:18-25, Psalm 19 and so many others detail the works of Gods Hand and how the Heavens/Creation themselves testify to a Grand Design/Designer (as it concerns Intelligent Design)...that nothing is by accident and that the very design of life is FAR too complex to have simply happened. ...........and alongside that is the concept that even nature itself is alive, praising the Lord.

Its by His Grace that all men have rain....for in his Providential Grace, He shows grace/care for all his creatures...allowing others to survive by sending rain on the JUST and the Unjust (Matthew 5:45)....and Christ in the scriptures is portrayed as the INSTRUMENT of creation, "sustaining all things by His powerful word", (Colosians 1:16-7, John 1:3, Hebrews 1:3)---and whom by immanence is fully present in even the smallest atom....with all things connected to Him

It is with this in mind that I was glad the movie Avatar came out....and counter to others saying the film promoted "Pantheism", what the film actually promoted was a BIBLICAL concept known as Panentheism....which understands that God is greater than the universe and includes and interpenetrates it, including the NATURE/Ecological aspects.













The simplest definition of Christian panentheism is simply that God is omnipresent and transcendent - that is, God contains the entire cosmos but the entire cosmos does not and cannot contain God. He is omnipresent because his uncreated energies permeate all Creation, generating and sustaining it. He is transcendent because his uncreated essence is inaccessible to us - it is wholly beyond Creation.

Depending on what worldview one has can determine how much trouble they either do...or don't have with a concept. And with myself, It's not a bother since panentheism is something which underlines my understanding of the way nature operates.

Whenever it comes to opportunities I have to go out into nature.....with hiking, walking, and admiring Gods Creation, I'd often think on how much design is involved in all aspects of it. Be it the Eco-System design where survival of the fittest occurs...or in the symbotic relationships many creatures have with each other...or in certain plants/trees developed to fight against certain predators and yet being so fragile all at once....none of it is by chance....nor any of it disconnected from each other and from the Lord...

Again, the Tanak declares that all creation looks to the Lord (Psalm 104:4 ) and he also makes clear that "all the trees of the forest sing for joy” (1 Chronicles 16:32-34, Psalm 96:11-13, Isaiah 44:22-24, etc)..for the trees’ song is the Divine song, singing through the trees just as it does through our own poetry, lovemaking and pursuit of justice. And to pave over the trees for no reason other than the aggrandizement of the yetzer hara, the selfish inclination, is a diminution in the Divine voice.

The Torah teaches us that even the smallest creatures are not overlooked by our Creator. There's a story I was able to learn of about the late Rabbi Isaac Kook, first chief Rabbi of Israel: One day Rav Kook was walking in the fields with a student when the young man carelessly plucked a leaf off a branch. Visibly shaken by this act, Rav Kook turned to his companion and said gently, “Believe me when I tell you I never simply pluck a leaf or a blade of grass or any living thing unless I have to. Every part of the vegetable world is singing a song breathing forth a secret of the diving mystery of creation.” For the first time the young student understood the meaning of showing compassion to all living things. (Spirit in Nature: Teaching Judaism and Ecology on the Trail, Biers-Ariel, Newborn and Smart, pg 22).

Panentheism shows how all there is not only emanates from God..but is experienced by Him as well. Its the idea that one's not to worship an animal or a tree since it's not the creator--but on the same token, as Chasidism ascribes to, the animal being abused is felt deeply by the Lord. He hurts with it as much as it does since that creation is directly connected to Him (As its being sustained by Him) and consequently He can feel it---just as he does with all suffering and pain in the world whenever injustice occurs.

This is why many Panentheist have noted that Paul made a point in Romans to discuss how its not just humankind that's redeemed...but all of creation as well, described as "groaning" and "suffering" rather than being indifferent to it all. The Eastern Fathers and some medievals have written profoundly on the cosmic dimensions of the Incarnation and Redemption (as did St. Paul).

Christian panentheists view the earthly existence of Jesus Christ as either the central cause of the outcome of the process or a primary symbol or example of the process. Each approach is at odds with classical theism. With Biblical Panentheism I tend to lean more so toward what’s known as weak panentheism or soteriological panentheism. That is more similar to the position found in Eastern Orthodox Christianity (As well as Eastern Christianity in general). For in that view, God is manifest in redeemed nature and panentheistic metaphors are used in an eschatological sense, a future expectation when all redeemed nature is reconciled with God (1 Cor 15:28).

For further info, Classical theism views sin and the Fall as distinct from the basic structure of the world and the culmination of the kingdom of God as a gracious undertaking that is not a mere outcome of a natural process. Panentheism, however, typically views creation and the Fall as part of the cosmic process as are redemption and consummation.

It often seems that in the West, the concept is more difficult to understand than in the East...where more of the "mystical" aspects of the faith are more easily accepted. From an Eastern perspective is where I tend to come from on issues more often than not----as the Messianic Jewish Rabbi I learn from is a Sephardic Jew and had an extensive background being educated within the world of Eastern Christianity/the Church Fathers...including the Desert Fathers. Many other Messianic Jews disagree with his views, which I have adopted in my own journeys with Eastern Christianity.

Taking it further, certain groups within Judaism actually hold to the view of Panentheism. In example, one should consider the reality of what often occurs within the system of Jewish thought known as Hasidim. For Hasidic Jews actually believe God is in everything. Panentheism, popular in certain Chasidic circles, seems more than relevant if/when understanding God to be both within all existence and transcendent beyond all being. When all life as we know it is over, God will remain, the ultimate One, alone. Yet in the here and now "every creature and every form of life is a garbing of the divine presence". This has immediate moral implications....for the way in which we treat them and relate to them is the ultimate testing ground of where we stand.

For more info, one can go online/look up 2 other articles under the names of "The Rosh Pina Project (an alternative look at Messianic Jews ): Neo-Hasidism in Messianic Judaism" or Radical Judaism – Rethinking God and Tradition--- A vision of God for the twenty-first century | The Jewish Chronicle"

Jews understand that everything originates from, and is interconnected to a single source. And that source, HaShem, still interacts with, and is heavily involved in, the world we live.

ChetSinger said:

I can see that. I lean toward YEC, but I can see that. I've done some reading on reasons.org and I respect Hugh Ross' efforts.

I think perhaps one of the cruxes is how much trust each of us has in the interpretation of radiometric dating. Perhaps that's a subject for a separate thread, but I think radiometric dating and distant starlight are the two biggest stumbling blocks to a wide acceptance of YEC within the church.

Click to expand...

That's a valid concern

SkyWriting said:

The laws of Moses. We find them in the same book as the one story about the Jesus character.

Click to expand...

Why would Adam not being real, mean the Israelites didn't have to follow the laws of Moses?

The writers place him as fully real as any other name mentioned in the scriptures.

Click to expand...

Like Jeshurun or the poor man Lazarus?

Paul who? They are all just figures. Even the writers are figures of writers. No actual people exist.

Paul is real? comeon now. Stop joshing me.

What writer? That was just a figurative person created by a group. You put way too much stock in this authorship thing. Those are invented characters, created by committee to make the Jesus story sound true. There were no actual apostles. The church created these characters to add body and depth to the Jesus story they created.

Click to expand...

If the church created these fictional characters wouldn't that make the church fictional too? Wouldn't you have to be fictional for trying to use that argument?

Gxg (G²);62405153 said:

John 12:23
23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. 25 The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.
​

It was not accidential that the Lord used the language of "death" to describe what it was that the trees experienced in the Garden. There was a serious spiritual view that was always in place within Judaism when it came to plant life and the way it experiences things just like the animals.

The idea that no creatures, including plants, died prior to the Fall is the extreme position of a minority of young earth creationists...and whenever it's claimed that only parts of plants are eaten, and, therefore, no plants actually died in the Fall, the argument seems to be a bit inconsistent.

Although a number of grazing animals eat only the tops of grass or leaves, leaving the plant alive, there are a number of exceptions - as even grass grazers pull up whole plants (including the roots) on occasion, which results in the death of entire plants. Some animals eat only roots, such as gophers. Once the roots are eaten, the plant quickly dies. From an aquatic perspective, many sea animals eat diatoms and microscopic plants - ingesting and killing entire organisms. And thus, unless God changed the way these herbivores eat, plants surely died during the fifth and sixth days of creation.


If Plants were not living, it'd be illogical for the Bible to go opposite of many young earth creationists claim that the Bible indicates that plants do not die and (in their view) eating them does not constitute death. For the Bible specifically compares the deaths of humans to those of plants (just as Jesus did in John 12 with the analogy of a seed failing to the ground and dying), making this idea unsubstantiated. Both the Old Testament and New Testament compare the deaths of humans to the deaths of grass, flowers, and herbs.

• "You will know also that your descendants will be many, And your offspring as the grass of the earth. You will come to the grave in full vigor, Like the stacking of grain in its season." (Job 5:25-26)

• "For there is hope for a tree, When it is cut down, that it will sprout again, And its shoots will not fail. "Though its roots grow old in the ground, And its stump dies in the dry soil, (Job 14:7-8)

• (A Psalm of David.) Do not fret because of evildoers, Be not envious toward wrongdoers. For they will wither quickly like the grass, And fade like the green herb. (Psalm 37:1-2)

• Thou hast swept them away like a flood, they fall asleep; In the morning they are like grass which sprouts anew. In the morning it flourishes, and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades, and withers away. (Psalm 90:5-6)

• My days are like a lengthened shadow; And I wither away like grass. (Psalm 102:11)

• May all who hate Zion, Be put to shame and turned backward, Let them be like grass upon the housetops, Which withers before it grows up; (Psalm 129:5-6)

• As for man, his days are like grass; As a flower of the field, so he flourishes. When the wind has passed over it, it is no more; And its place acknowledges it no longer. (Psalm 103:15-16)

• For the waters of Nimrim are desolate. Surely the grass is withered, the tender grass died out, There is no green thing. (Isaiah 15:6)

• "Therefore their inhabitants were short of strength, They were dismayed and put to shame; They were as the vegetation of the field and as the green herb, As grass on the housetops is scorched before it is grown up. (Isaiah 37:27)
• A voice says, "Call out." Then he answered, "What shall I call out?" All flesh is grass, and all its loveliness is like the flower of the field. The grass withers, the flower fades, When the breath of the LORD blows upon it; Surely the people are grass. The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever. (Isaiah 40:6-8)
• Isaiah 53:2He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
  Isaiah 53
• 'And in that the king saw an angelic watcher, a holy one, descending from heaven and saying, "Chop down the tree and destroy it; yet leave the stump with its roots in the ground, but with a band of iron and bronze around it in the new grass of the field, and let him be drenched with the dew of heaven, and let him share with the beasts of the field until seven periods of time pass over him"; (Daniel 4:23)

• "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains by itself alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. (John 12:24)

• and let the rich man glory in his humiliation, because like flowering grass he will pass away. For the sun rises with a scorching wind, and withers the grass; and its flower falls off, and the beauty of its appearance is destroyed; so too the rich man in the midst of his pursuits will fade away. (James 1:10-11)

Click to expand...

There is an interesting verse in the psalms:
Psalm 58:9 Sooner than your pots can feel the heat of thorns, whether green or ablaze, may he sweep them away!
The word translated 'green' is actually chai, living, but the Hebrew is a bit on the obscure side.

the more things i find out, the more irritated i get with YECs. it is true that the magnetic field has been declining, but it was stable, back in the 19th century. the YECs have been saying that the magnetic field has been delining in a linear way, so they extrapolate back to their 6000 years creation. if the magnetic field was stable, then it could have been stable, or fluctuating for millions of years.

Please excuse me for butting in, but back to the OP. After 90+ replies, I still haven't read where someone is going on record as saying:

1. Yes, there was physical death before the Fall, but...

2. Yes, there was physical death before the Fall - no "buts".

3. No, there was no physical death of any sort before the Fall.

Doesn't seem like that hard of a multiple-choice question.

dysert:>>Please excuse me for butting in, but back to the OP. After 90+ replies, I still haven't read where someone is going on record as saying:

1. Yes, there was physical death before the Fall, but...

2. Yes, there was physical death before the Fall - no "buts".

Dear Dysert, I have posted that there was death before the fall. NO buts, ifs or ands. It's Scriptural. God tells us that He created the heavens and earth but darkness or DEATH was upon the first elements made BEFORE the first Day. Genesis 1:1-2 This is why the Light (YHWH/Jesus) came forth from the invisible Spirit of God into the physical world, in order to defeat death. In the end, the last enemy to be defeated is death. 1Cr 15:26 Adam's sin caused the death or separation from God, of humans.

In Love,
Aman

dysert said:

Please excuse me for butting in, but back to the OP. After 90+ replies, I still haven't read where someone is going on record as saying:

1. Yes, there was physical death before the Fall, but...

2. Yes, there was physical death before the Fall - no "buts".

3. No, there was no physical death of any sort before the Fall.

Doesn't seem like that hard of a multiple-choice question.

Click to expand...

I'll go with #1. I'm inclined to believe there was animal death before the Fall. Not for a scientific reason, but because animals were given only the green plants, and not the Tree of Life. I think entropy would've eventually worn them out. Adam and Eve, being God's designated rulers, were the only ones granted immortality, and even that depended on consuming the fruit from that particular tree. That's not a typical YEC conclusion, and as one I'll be happy to be wrong, but that's how I see it.

One big problem with my conclusion is Paul's statement that "the creation will be set free from its bondage to decay". That doesn't sound like animal death in the new creation, so why would there have been animal death in the first one?

dysert said:

Please excuse me for butting in, but back to the OP. After 90+ replies, I still haven't read where someone is going on record as saying:

1. Yes, there was physical death before the Fall, but...

2. Yes, there was physical death before the Fall - no "buts".

3. No, there was no physical death of any sort before the Fall.

Doesn't seem like that hard of a multiple-choice question.

Click to expand...

2. there was death before the fall. there is a record in the sumerian myths where adapa has a similar thing going on as the fruit of the garden, except it is bread. i think that's where the fall story comes from. people might have originally lived for a very long time, but spiders have always spun webs and bats have always eaten insects.

1. Yes, there was physical death before the Fall, but...

2. Yes, there was physical death before the Fall - no "buts".

3. No, there was no physical death of any sort before the Fall.

Aman777 said:

Dear Dysert, I have posted that there was death before the fall. NO buts, ifs or ands.

Click to expand...

ChetSinger said:

I'll go with #1.

Click to expand...

hiscosmicgoldfish said:

2. there was death before the fall.

Click to expand...

Thank you all for weighing in in a way that's simple enough for me to understand. Nice to see some unanimity on something ;-)

Assyrian said:

There is an interesting verse in the psalms:
Psalm 58:9 Sooner than your pots can feel the heat of thorns, whether green or ablaze, may he sweep them away!

The word translated 'green' is actually chai, living, but the Hebrew is a bit on the obscure side.

Click to expand...

Interesting to consider and thanks for bringing it to my attention