Death: Part of God’s World From the Beginning

Job 33:6 · Oct 25, 2021

Derf said:
My disappointment is growing. All you’ve done is said, “Because reptiles are descended from fish and horses from reptiles, we will find fish lower than reptiles and reptiles lower than horses in the fossil record.”
Have you considered other ways for that to happen? For instance, fish live at lower elevations than reptiles, and reptiles lower than horses, generally.

Well remember, fish are very common in cenozoic strata. And fish are of course alive today as well. So it isn't really an issue to find ceolacanth (also a fish) living just the same, no more is it an issue that any other fish lives today. And ceolacanths species today are morphologically different than ceolacanth species of the carboniferous and morphologically different still than ceolacanth species of the Devonian. So keep that in mind as well. Most people don't know that. They think ceolacanth species today are the same species of the past, but that's actually incorrect. And if you would like more info on that, feel free to ask.

It's not about where any fossils are present but rather it's a question of when their physical traits appear. So it doesn't have anything to do with elevations they live at. Plus whales are also found above most mammals. So that would just turn that idea on its head anyway.

Also, further still, if you think about how fossils are collected, we aren't typically digging deep quarries to get to them. They're exposed at the surface by tilted strata that extends deep into the earth. The structure of the earth is not what it once was. Think big picture. What elevations things lived at is irrelevant, because eons of time, mountains, seas, deserts, frozen tundra etc are all flattened together into these layers we are discussing. "Cenozoic" or "cretaceous" encompasses all elevations, deep sea and highest peaks. It's temporal not geographic.

Ultimately I'm just doing this all for fun, for entertainment purposes. If fish appear lower in strata, it's interesting to see that their DNA is more basal than a reptile or horse as well. And whale DNA is nothing like a fishes, though they appear physically the same (until you look at their skeletons).

I digress.

Derf said:
You’ve said evolution would be disproved if an animal was found out of sequence, but such happens fairly often, and the sequence is adjusted to fit. Coelacanth is an example, though in reverse—after it supposedly went extinct with the dinosaurs, suddenly some are found alive. All by itself it casts a huge shadow on the veracity of the fossil record, where a creature can hide for 60 million years undetected.

But of course ceolacanth dates back to the Devonian.

Think about it like this. If reptiles hypothetically evolved from fish, such as from ceolacanth (which is a fish), then it must be true that reptiles cannot be found before the first appearance of fish (with respect to first appearance). However, it absolutely can be true that fish still live on and fish are still alive today. Ceolacanth, just as any other fish existing today simply tells us that they lived on. So it's not an issue that fish live today. But the reverse is true that if reptiles lived back then, then you would disprove the theory.

It's not illogical for me to live along side my father at the same time in this current day. But it is illogical for me to pre-date the existence of my father. Keep this in mind.

Other examples:
If you found a bird or mammal in Paleozoic strata. And I mean literally any bird or any mammal in the Paleozoic. It would disprove the theory. Because how could a mammal or bird exist if reptiles had not yet come to be?

I'm sure you've heard scientists say that birds evolved from dinosaurs. So imagine if you found a bird in rocks older than dinosaurs, you would twist the whole succession apart. But, there is nothing unreasonable about reptiles and birds living side by side today.

If we found any tetrapod in the Ordovician, Cambrian or earlier, it would disprove the theory. Etc.

Derf said:
Grasses are another example. Until recently, grasses weren’t thought to have evolved until after dinosaurs were extinct, but now fossil coprolites have been found to have grasses in them.

Same deal as above.
Grass:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poaceae
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poales
The Poales are a large order of flowering plants in the monocotyledons, and includes families of plants such as the grasses, bromeliads, and sedges.

"The earliest fossils attributed to the Poales date to the late Cretaceous period about 66 million years ago, though some studies (e.g., Bremer, 2002) suggest the origin of the group may extend to nearly 115 million years ago, likely in South America. The earliest known fossils include pollen and fruits."

There's nothing unreasonable about discovering grass to be older than it was previously thought, or finding a fish to be younger than was previously thought.

The key is to pay attention to the phylogenies.

Grass is a flowering plant. Flowering plants date back some 150 million years ago, descended from seeded plants which extend back 350 million years ago. So moving grass from 50 to 100, or 100 to 50, doesn't really change the succession of non vascular>vascular>seeded>flowering. You would have to find grasses back over 300 million years for it to become a logical problem. So finding grass at 65 million years or 70, that's just an update to good science, but it isn't a logical conflict with common descent.

If my father is 70 years old, it might be shocking to you if you thought I was 30 years old then later found out that I was 40. Surprising? Sure. But illogical? Not at all. But if I were 75 years old, then it would become illogical.

Job 33:6 · Oct 25, 2021

Isaiah 41:10 said:
Well remember, fish are very common in cenozoic strata. And fish are of course alive today as well. So it isn't really an issue to find ceolacanth (also a fish) living just the same, no more is it an issue that any other fish lives today. And ceolacanths species today are morphologically different than ceolacanth species of the carboniferous and morphologically different still than ceolacanth species of the Devonian. So keep that in mind as well. Most people don't know that. They think ceolacanth species today are the same species of the past, but that's actually incorrect. And if you would like more info on that, feel free to ask.

It's not about where any fossils are present but rather it's a question of when their physical traits appear. So it doesn't have anything to do with elevations they live at. Plus whales are also found above most mammals. So that would just turn that idea on its head anyway.

Also, further still, if you think about how fossils are collected, we aren't typically digging deep quarries to get to them. They're exposed at the surface by tilted strata that extends deep into the earth. The structure of the earth is not what it once was. Think big picture. What elevations things lived at is irrelevant, because eons of time, mountains, seas, deserts, frozen tundra etc are all flattened together into these layers we are discussing. "Cenozoic" or "cretaceous" encompasses all elevations, deep sea and highest peaks. It's temporal not geographic.

Ultimately I'm just doing this all for fun, for entertainment purposes. If fish appear lower in strata, it's interesting to see that their DNA is more basal than a reptile or horse as well. And whale DNA is nothing like a fishes, though they appear physically the same (until you look at their skeletons).

I digress.

But of course ceolacanth dates back to the Devonian.

Think about it like this. If reptiles hypothetically evolved from fish, such as from ceolacanth (which is a fish), then it must be true that reptiles cannot be found before the first appearance of fish (with respect to first appearance). However, it absolutely can be true that fish still live on and fish are still alive today. Ceolacanth, just as any other fish existing today simply tells us that they lived on. So it's not an issue that fish live today. But the reverse is true that if reptiles lived back then, then you would disprove the theory.

It's not illogical for me to live along side my father at the same time in this current day. But it is illogical for me to pre-date the existence of my father. Keep this in mind.

Other examples:
If you found a bird or mammal in Paleozoic strata. And I mean literally any bird or any mammal in the Paleozoic. It would disprove the theory. Because how could a mammal or bird exist if reptiles had not yet come to be?

I'm sure you've heard scientists say that birds evolved from dinosaurs. So imagine if you found a bird in rocks older than dinosaurs, you would twist the whole succession apart. But, there is nothing unreasonable about reptiles and birds living side by side today.

If we found any tetrapod in the Ordovician, Cambrian or earlier, it would disprove the theory. Etc.

Same deal as above.
Grass:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poaceae
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poales
The Poales are a large order of flowering plants in the monocotyledons, and includes families of plants such as the grasses, bromeliads, and sedges.

"The earliest fossils attributed to the Poales date to the late Cretaceous period about 66 million years ago, though some studies (e.g., Bremer, 2002) suggest the origin of the group may extend to nearly 115 million years ago, likely in South America. The earliest known fossils include pollen and fruits."

There's nothing unreasonable about discovering grass to be older than it was previously thought, or finding a fish to be younger than was previously thought.

The key is to pay attention to the phylogenies.

Grass is a flowering plant. Flowering plants date back some 150 million years ago, descended from seeded plants which extend back 350 million years ago. So moving grass from 50 to 100, or 100 to 50, doesn't really change the succession of non vascular>vascular>seeded>flowering. You would have to find grasses back over 300 million years for it to become a logical problem. So finding grass at 65 million years or 70, that's just an update to good science, but it isn't a logical conflict with common descent.

If my father is 70 years old, it might be shocking to you if you thought I was 30 years old then later found out that I was 40. Surprising? Sure. But illogical? Not at all. But if I were 75 years old, then it would become illogical.

But yea, this is all just for entertainment. The depths of geology and paleontology are far far deeper than anything discussed here. It took me years of study, even post-college, several years. Then further study in my career to really grasp the magnitude of information that is backing these ideas I'm sharing. But as long as people keep asking questions and keep pondering and stay open and thoughtful, then it is well.

I believe that every person, every Christian, is at a different place in their walk with God. But I firmly believe that no matter what challenging ideas someone faces, I believe that trust in God is what will bring us through and that He meets people where they are at in their walk.

And different people are challenged by different ideas and we are all just growing in Christ at our own spot in a greater spiritual walk. So all the best to you either way, and I welcome prayers for myself as I grapple with complicated topics of our times.

Abaxvahl · Oct 25, 2021

Dale said:
If you think that death started at some particular time, take a look at this passage.

A good name is better than fine perfume, and the day of death better than the day of birth.
It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting, for death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this to heart.
Ecclesiastes 7:1-2 NIV

In this passage, the author of Ecclesiastes says that “death is the destiny of every man”. He doesn’t speak of death as something that started at some point in time after the creation. He doesn’t talk about death as the result of some disastrous error by an ancestor. The author of Ecclesiastes speaks of death as an inevitable part of life.

Ecclesiastes does not speak of death as something to be feared. Instead, he says that “the day of death is better than the day of birth.” A puzzling statement at first glance. He seems to be saying that when life is over, we can no longer sink into error. On the day of death, the man or woman who has lived life well goes to meet the Lord.

Ecclesiastes tells us that death is an inevitable part of life, not the result of some monstrous accident in the past.

Ecclesiastes and Hebrews (I believe that is another place where it says "it is appointed to man once to die and after that the judgment") are both written after the Fall, so I would not consider them as teaching what was always to happen, but Ecclesiastes especially wisdom for this world and in his time (the limitation on his perspective on death being obvious, as he knows no Resurrection either as the later books, and knows of no knowledge the dead have, but all of these things changed in the later books with further revelation, making it impossible to be an eternal truth).

Abaxvahl · Oct 25, 2021

Dale said:
I don’t understand why you think that meat wasn’t eaten until after the Flood. I suggest that you read Genesis One for what it says instead of imposing your understanding of Genesis Nine on it.

The story of Cain and Abel shows us that animals were being raised, slaughtered and consumed from the beginning.

In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD.
But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favour on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favour. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.
Genesis 4:3-5 NIV

If Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel had been vegetarians, Abel wouldn’t have had a flock of sheep. If they had been vegetarians by God’s command, Cain’s offering would have been accepted and Abel’s would have been rejected. Instead, God rejects Cain’s offering of grain and vegetables.

In case this is not clear enough, under OT law, not all of an animal sacrifice was burned up. Parts of the sacrifice were eaten either by the worshipers or by the priest who performed the sacrifice.

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

When Abel sacrificed a lamb, he would have eaten part of it either as worshiper, or as priest, since he was acting as his own priest. There is no doubt that Genesis presents the good son, Abel, as a meat eater, consuming the livestock that God created in Genesis One.

It does not mention what sort of sacrifice Abel made or why there were sheep (for it may have, as I interpret it, simply have been for the purpose of sacrifices). What exactly is your understanding of Genesis 9? "I have given all things to you as the green herbs," or "as I gave the green plants to you, I have now given you everything." LXX and MT respectively.

The OT Law was not given at the time of Abel, and no consumption is mentioned. Supplementary texts make it even more clear that meat was not eaten at this time, or at the beginning.

Abaxvahl · Oct 25, 2021

Dale said:
Abaxvahl,

you made a hasty reference to Isaiah 11 as a “return to Paradise.” Let me take a look at that chapter.

The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling [Hebrew:;Septuagint lion will feed] together; and a little child will lead them.
The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
The infant will play near the hole of the cobra, and the young child put his hand into the viper’s nest.
They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.
Isaiah 11: 6-9 NIV

This is a prophecy of the Messiah, although it seems to be a prophecy of Christ’s second coming, since all these things did not happen during the first coming. I am well aware that many people take this to mean that animals will stop eating each other in the Millennium, or after the Second Coming. I think it is far more likely that the animals in this passage symbolize nations or countries. The wolf and lamb, leopard and goat, lion and yearling mean that large, powerful and prosperous nations will live in peace with nations that are fewer in numbers and not militarily powerful. That is a much more likely interpretation, and it goes along with Isaiah calling the Messiah the Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)

Why do you think that this is more likely and it is not just the recapitulation of animals, making them deathless and incorruptible?

Derf · Oct 25, 2021

Abaxvahl said:
Ecclesiastes and Hebrews (I believe that is another place where it says "it is appointed to man once to die and after that the judgment") are both written after the Fall, so I would not consider them as teaching what was always to happen, but Ecclesiastes especially wisdom for this world and in his time (the limitation on his perspective on death being obvious, as he knows no Resurrection either as the later books, and knows of no knowledge the dead have, but all of these things changed in the later books with further revelation, making it impossible to be an eternal truth).

Can you show me where it says there’s judgment after death in Ecclesiastes? It’s definitely in Hebrews, in agreement with your claim of further revelation. Or perhaps that something changed with the advent of Jesus.

Derf · Oct 25, 2021

Abaxvahl said:
It does not mention what sort of sacrifice Abel made or why there were sheep (for it may have, as I interpret it, simply have been for the purpose of sacrifices). What exactly is your understanding of Genesis 9? "I have given all things to you as the green herbs," or "as I gave the green plants to you, I have now given you everything." LXX and MT respectively.

The OT Law was not given at the time of Abel, and no consumption is mentioned. Supplementary texts make it even more clear that meat was not eaten at this time, or at the beginning.

Maybe for clothing and milk??

Abaxvahl · Oct 25, 2021

Derf said:
Can you show me where it says there’s judgment after death in Ecclesiastes? It’s definitely in Hebrews, in agreement with your claim of further revelation. Or perhaps that something changed with the advent of Jesus.

I was referring more to the "it is appointed to man to die," Ecclesiastes mentions death and in a separate place (the very end) says "God will bring all works to judgment," but it does not mention it in the same way Hebrews does. Sorry for the confusion.

Dale · Oct 26, 2021

Abaxvahl said:
It does not mention what sort of sacrifice Abel made or why there were sheep (for it may have, as I interpret it, simply have been for the purpose of sacrifices). What exactly is your understanding of Genesis 9? "I have given all things to you as the green herbs," or "as I gave the green plants to you, I have now given you everything." LXX and MT respectively.

The OT Law was not given at the time of Abel, and no consumption is mentioned. Supplementary texts make it even more clear that meat was not eaten at this time, or at the beginning.

What are these "supplementary texts"?

Job 33:6 · Oct 26, 2021

Isaiah 41:10 said:
.

Also, further still, if you think about how fossils are collected, we aren't typically digging deep quarries to get to them. They're exposed at the surface by tilted strata that extends deep into the earth. The structure of the earth is not what it once was. Think big picture. What elevations things lived at is irrelevant, because eons of time, mountains, seas, deserts, frozen tundra etc are all flattened together into these layers we are discussing. "Cenozoic" or "cretaceous" encompasses all elevations, deep sea and highest peaks. It's temporal not geographic.

More on this one little point:

We use words like "Permian" and "Devonian" to describe vast swaths of time. Each period, depending on where you go, can encompass tens of thousands of individual layers. Each layer representing its own unique environment. So I'm from the new England area and I can go out and can look at Devonian strata for example, and I can find layers deposited in shallow seas, layers of deep seas, layers deposited at beach fronts and layers deposited along side mountains, all in the same block of time, stacked one on top of the other hundreds or even thousands of repeated times over.

So if fish appear in the Cambrian, amphibians in the Devonian, reptiles in the carboniferous and birds and mammals in the late mesozoic, you have to understand that this is a statement that isn't limited to any geography or elevation. Fish live in oceans today just as they did in the Cenozoic, mesozoic and paleozoic. Amphibians live near land, usually low lying land just as they have always done, today, and in every period of earth history, going back to the frasnian or so.

So, just trying to zoom out to give a big picture feel of what we are actually discussing. @Derf

And I'm a geologist so if you have any questions about geology, feel free to ask. But otherwise I hope the video above makes sense.

Derf · Oct 27, 2021

Isaiah 41:10 said:
More on this one little point:

We use words like "Permian" and "Devonian" to describe vast swaths of time. Each period, depending on where you go, can encompass tens of thousands of individual layers. Each layer representing its own unique environment. So I'm from the new England area and I can go out and can look at Devonian strata for example, and I can find layers deposited in shallow seas, layers of deep seas, layers deposited at beach fronts and layers deposited along side mountains, all in the same block of time, stacked one on top of the other hundreds or even thousands of repeated times over.

So if fish appear in the Cambrian, amphibians in the Devonian, reptiles in the carboniferous and birds and mammals in the late mesozoic, you have to understand that this is a statement that isn't limited to any geography or elevation. Fish live in oceans today just as they did in the Cenozoic, mesozoic and paleozoic. Amphibians live near land, usually low lying land just as they have always done, today, and in every period of earth history, going back to the frasnian or so.

So, just trying to zoom out to give a big picture feel of what we are actually discussing. @Derf

And I'm a geologist so if you have any questions about geology, feel free to ask. But otherwise I hope the video above makes sense.

You do realize that the first scene in your play won’t work, don’t you? A dinosaur doesn’t fossilize on top of the ground, but if not, then how does it last until it is covered with something to help preserve it until it fossilizes?

And the uniformity of the layers speaks volumes about how long it must take between layers. I’m glad the video showed that accurately, but the audio didn’t fit the video there.

Do you believe your user name? Does it speak truth?

Job 33:6 · Oct 27, 2021

Derf said:
You do realize that the first scene in your play won’t work, don’t you?
A dinosaur doesn’t fossilize on top of the ground, but if not,

Maybe Im not understanding this comment.

The video shows a T rex walking, then the T-Rex dies, then it gets buried and then later fossilized.

What is it about this that you don't agree with?

Surely they have to live on top of the ground and even further they would be buried on top of the ground as well. Then they would later fossilize over time.

What about dinosaur trackways and trace fossils? Do you think these fossils are not "on top of the ground" as well?

Of all the things to disagree with in the video, I'm surprised that the idea of fossils walking and living on top of the ground is what bothers you. But maybe I'm just misunderstanding your concern.

Here are examples of nests and trackways on top of the ground. Nothing strange here.

But I have a bit more. This first one was made by a giant prehistoric sloth of the Cenozoic.

Here are fossil burrows. Notice how complex the burrow networks are, and notice how massive the Cenozoic burrow is, and try to imagine how long it would take animals to make these structures.

Does it seem odd to you that an animal, such as a giant air breathing sloth, might have time to make a giant burrow? Does it seem odd to you that animals lived and walked "on top of the ground" in prehistoric times?

The reality is that all fossils (most fossils aren't dinosaurs but are things that lived long before dinosaurs) are always found along what we call bedding planes which are prehistoric tops of ground. That's why they're flat. And we know that bedding planes historically were the "top of ground", because we have things like trackways and nests, burrow networks, rooted fossil trees, resting traces, feeding traces (traces of prehistoric animals grazing and roaming around eating) etc.

There are a few exceptions. One exception is if the bedding plane is eroded away and the fossils fallout. So for example, often times to find fossils we will travel along road cuts until we find fragments, then often you have to climb up to the bedding plane where the fossils are falling out of eroding rock.

Sometimes you might have things like a mud slide or avalanche. But 99% of the time fossils are found along flat bedding planes. If you don't believe me, I can show you how to see for yourself. I collect fossils all the time.

Here is the fossil Grove site in the UK. The roots run horizontally then submerge into what we call "paleosols" or O, A,B, and C soil horizons that have become fossilized. There are many Paleo forest sites where trees remain in the very place they grew. Some have trackways around their trunks from prehistoric forest animals, some have termite burrows in their wood. The fossil Grove site depicted above is found in carboniferous strata, vertically it is about Midway through the Paleozoic.

Do you find it strange that a forest might grow between deposition of layers or "on top of the ground"? How much time might it take for a forest to grow between deposition of layers?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_Grove

Job 33:6 · Oct 27, 2021

Derf said:
then how does it last until it is covered with something to help preserve it until it fossilizes?

[/QUOTE]

We call it "mass wasting". See the following for examples.

Anything that causes large amounts of erosion can cause rapid burial of animals. So this includes avalanches, floods (they don't have to be global), rock slides, mud slides, hurricanes, mud flows, etc.

Some animals fossilize in places like bogs and swamp's too. Places of high deposition of sediment. Swamp's also oftentimes have anoxic shallow marine areas where fossil preservation is more likely due to a lack of sunlight at the bottom of a swamp floor and a lack of aerobic bacterial decay (bacteria can't break down and decay dead animals because there is no oxygen for the bacteria to breath). Shallow lakes also contain anoxic spaces where fish will die and are less likely to decay, again due to a lack of oxygen and protection from sunlight while submerged.

Job 33:6 · Oct 27, 2021

Derf said:
And the uniformity of the layers speaks volumes about how long it must take between layers.

Are you familiar with slickensides or fault breccia?

Structural features demonstrate that strata was rock solid prior to motion in cases of angular unconformities. We know this because these features exist as a product of rock scraping and crushing it's way past another massive body of rock (as opposed to soft sediment recently deposited). When we consider that trace fossils are also present above and below structural unconformities, we come to the simple conclusion that there is no logical way for such layers to be rapidly deposited. I'll explain:

1. animals to live and walk on top of the ground (your based layer of the unconformity), burrowing, trees growing etc., much like depicted in my prior post.

2. Then more layers to form above them for burial and fossilization (see prior post on fossilization),

3. then to have those layers harden (they have to be hard for slickensides and fault gouge to form).

4. then be overturned (they have to be tilted for an angular unconformity to form)

5. Then to have the upper layer of the unconformity to be deposited (it takes deposition overtop tilted strata for layers to be unconfirmed).

6. then to have more animals walking and living on top of the T shaped unconformity (such as is the case of the Cenozoic megasloth burrow noted above), then for those animals to be buried and fossilized and so on.

So if you think all this might occur in a matter of days or hours, I suppose it begs the question of how you think deposited sediment could be turned to stone so quickly? Or how you think animals had time to burrow and walk and graze and build nests in between the deposition of layers? Or how you think forests could grow between layers or how those slickensides and breccias formed if layers weren't hard prior to deformation?

But we are only scratching the surface of course. There is much more ground to cover.

Dale · Oct 27, 2021

Abaxvahl said:
This is all in error. Firstly, Moses is receiving this revelation after the Fall and so uses names of things current to him rather than what they are called then (see the rivers and "livestock"). Secondly, man was not eating any animals (legally that is) until after the Deluge, see Genesis 9 and the return to Paradise of Isaiah 11 (and there was no sacrifice until God ordained it in Genesis 3). Thirdly, there is no reason to assume that because plants existed there was death or will be death in the future for you do not even know the manner of existence in Paradise or what existence in Glory will be. Fourthly, just because one has dominion does not mean that their dominion is to death, but rather it is as the Scriptures say "Adam was above every other living being in creation." Dominion does not prove death. And the Second Adam will head over all things without death (which He defeated).

Finally, all of this is refuted by the Scriptures which say "God did not make death" and "death entered the cosmos through man's sin."

This quote from St. Maximus is enlightening to the matter: "in the beginning sin seduced Adam and persuaded him to transgress God's commandment ... thus condemning our whole human nature to death and, via humanity, pressing the nature of (all) created beings toward mortal extinction."

No matter what resolution is held a principle is to be maintained absolutely: death comes through sin, a thing St. James the Apostle and Brother of the Lord teaches in his epistle. Spiritual death and otherwise, death comes through sin.

God bless.

Abaxvahl: << Finally, all of this is refuted by the Scriptures which say "God did not make death" and "death entered the cosmos through man's sin." >>

Where do the Scriptures say “God did not make death”?

I don’t recall any statement like this anywhere.

Dale · Oct 27, 2021

Abaxvahl said:
This is all in error. Firstly, Moses is receiving this revelation after the Fall and so uses names of things current to him rather than what they are called then (see the rivers and "livestock"). Secondly, man was not eating any animals (legally that is) until after the Deluge, see Genesis 9 and the return to Paradise of Isaiah 11 (and there was no sacrifice until God ordained it in Genesis 3). Thirdly, there is no reason to assume that because plants existed there was death or will be death in the future for you do not even know the manner of existence in Paradise or what existence in Glory will be. Fourthly, just because one has dominion does not mean that their dominion is to death, but rather it is as the Scriptures say "Adam was above every other living being in creation." Dominion does not prove death. And the Second Adam will head over all things without death (which He defeated).

Finally, all of this is refuted by the Scriptures which say "God did not make death" and "death entered the cosmos through man's sin."

This quote from St. Maximus is enlightening to the matter: "in the beginning sin seduced Adam and persuaded him to transgress God's commandment ... thus condemning our whole human nature to death and, via humanity, pressing the nature of (all) created beings toward mortal extinction."

No matter what resolution is held a principle is to be maintained absolutely: death comes through sin, a thing St. James the Apostle and Brother of the Lord teaches in his epistle. Spiritual death and otherwise, death comes through sin.

God bless.

Abaxvahl: << Fourthly, just because one has dominion does not mean that their dominion is to death, but rather it is as the Scriptures say "Adam was above every other living being in creation." Dominion does not prove death. >>

Yes, the dominion of Adam and Eve, or the men and women created at the end of Genesis One, do prove death. In the ancient world all rulers had the power of life and death over their subjects. To rule meant the power of execution. The difference is that rulers were supposed to execute criminals and the “rule” that God gave to men and women was the power to slaughter livestock and wildlife to be eaten as food.

Dale · Oct 27, 2021

coffee4u said:
The answer to that is no. The Bible describes death in a very specific way.

The Bible says plants wither or fade, they don't die.

Life was defined by having nephesh (the soul) the ruach (breath of life) and the blood.
Leviticus 17:11

11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.

Animals like cats, dogs and cattle all have soul, breath and blood as do birds.

Gets a bit harder when you move to sea creatures, some may and some might not.
Invertebrates don't have blood, they have hemolympha heterogeneous fluid.

I'm sorry but animals were not for eating in Geneses 1.
God only gave mankind permission to start eating animals including fish after the flood.
Genesis 9:3
Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
"I now give you everything" God did not give them fish or birds or any other creature with a soul to eat at creation.

Genesis 1 says man and animals were created to eat plants.
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

Now interestingly It says nothing about the creatures who don't have the breath of life, so it's possible that insects were not under this plant eating edict or maybe all creatures have the breath of life even those without a soul or life blood.

Most times when you hear one of us refer to 'no death before sin' we are talking about people, animals, birds, water animals like whales and fish.
Please stop thinking we are referring to things like skin cells, plants or mosquitoes, we are not.

Coffee: “Now interestingly It says nothing about the creatures who don't have the breath of life, so it's possible that insects were not under this plant eating edict or maybe all creatures have the breath of life even those without a soul or life blood.”

Coffee suggests that insects may not be animals in the Biblical definition. I don’t believe this is true. Genesis 1:24-25 tell us that God created “things that move along the ground”. That covers a wide variety of insects, even if it seems to leave out flying insects. The sense of the creation story is that God created, even if it doesn’t mention everything that God created.

I have heard that there are five species of edible locusts in Palestine. Jewish rabbis decided that two of the five are kosher and the other three are not. If some species of locusts are kosher, that seems to settle their status as animals.

Abaxvahl · Oct 27, 2021

Dale said:
Abaxvahl: << Finally, all of this is refuted by the Scriptures which say "God did not make death" and "death entered the cosmos through man's sin." >>

Where do the Scriptures say “God did not make death”?

I don’t recall any statement like this anywhere.

In Wisdom 1 and Wisdom 2.

From Wisdom 1: "Seek not death in the error of your life: and pull not upon yourselves destruction with the works of your hands. For God made not death: neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living. For he created all things, that they might have their being: and the generations of the world were healthful; and there is no poison of destruction in them, nor the kingdom of death upon the earth: (for righteousness is immortal) but ungodly men with their works and words called it to them: for when they thought to have it their friend, they consumed to nought, and made a covenant with it, because they are worthy to take part with it."

Wisdom 2: "For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that are of his side do find it."

On the second bolded part, it is related to what St. Augustine says on death which is: "death forces what dies into non-being, to the degree that it dies. If in fact something that dies were to die completely, it would certainly arrive at nonexistence. But it dies only to the extent that it does not participate in the essence. In short, the less it exists, the more it dies."

So that "all things" truly includes "all things," that they might have their being and not be diminished in their being when they were created (for I think it is evident that an animal or a plant diminishes when it's life/soul separates from it). These passages also connect death to the works of rational beings which are not God.

coffee4u · Oct 28, 2021

Dale said:
Coffee: “Now interestingly It says nothing about the creatures who don't have the breath of life, so it's possible that insects were not under this plant eating edict or maybe all creatures have the breath of life even those without a soul or life blood.”

Coffee suggests that insects may not be animals in the Biblical definition. I don’t believe this is true. Genesis 1:24-25 tell us that God created “things that move along the ground”. That covers a wide variety of insects, even if it seems to leave out flying insects. The sense of the creation story is that God created, even if it doesn’t mention everything that God created.

I have heard that there are five species of edible locusts in Palestine. Jewish rabbis decided that two of the five are kosher and the other three are not. If some species of locusts are kosher, that seems to settle their status as animals.

If you read my earlier post the Bible defines things that die as having the breath of life, a soul and life blood. We know that insects do not have life blood which is why this brings up a question mark if they have a soul or the breath of life, because if they don't then they don't die in the Biblical sense of death.

There is no way for any human being to know if an insect has a soul.

chad kincham · Oct 28, 2021

Isaiah 41:10 said:
I think the simple way to go about this discussion is to simply point out that there is death on the fossil record. For example, dinosaur plant eaters with tooth scars on their bones, mammoths with diseases bones, trilobites of the Cambrian inside the stomachs of larger arthropods, eaten.

Death, in the animal kingdom, has always existed as long as there is evidence of life, which of course long predates the appearance of mankind as per geologic superposition.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

Death did not exist, before sin, and animals weren’t carnivores, until the curse on creation due to sin - and in fact on the new earth which is restored to edenic conditions, the lion becomes an herbivore again, and a child can safely play with every kind of formerly dangerous carnivore.

Isa 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

Isa 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

Isa 11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

Isa 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain:

sa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

Death: Part of God’s World From the Beginning

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency