Did animals die before the Fall?

[Mallon]

Just finished reading a thought-provoking article in a previous issue of the American Scientific Affiliation journal, concerning animal death before the Fall:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF6-06Phillips.pdf
The main thesis is this:

If one accepts the fact that God can impute

Jesus’s righteousness retroactively,
then one must accept that God can
impute Adam’s sin retroactively. Conversely,
if one denies that Adam’s sin
can be imputed retroactively, then one
must deny that Jesus’s righteousness​

can be imputed retroactively.

I'm still digesting this parallel, and I'm wondering what others think of it. Please comment after you've read the article. Does the author's argument hold any merit?​

 

[juvenissun]

This question is not new, but I do not have answer to it. So I like it.

The key question is: what is death? Is the death of an animal the same as the death of a human?

I suspect they are different. So, we "should" use different words to tell one "death" from another. Think it this way: would there be animal in heaven?

If that were true, then the problem is solved.

 

[metherion]

I believe that the argument holds a lot of merit.
We know at the absolute least Elijah is in Heaven, because he was taken up on a fiery chariot. However, if and only if (iff) human could only be saved because of AND after Jesus, Elijah could not have come up. But we know that Elijah did go up. This means that God could bring people up to Heaven before Jesus' sacrifice, and without salvation they could not be in Heaven. So people could receive salvation before Jesus' sacrifice and still because of it.

Thus, if we accept the second premise that animal death (and not spiritual death, which would only affect humans because only humans have souls) is a direct result of Adam's sin, we can combine that with the statements in the Torah that God will hold the sins of the fathers down through several generations, and combine THAT with the fact that God could grant salvation to people who existed before Jesus' sacrifice, we can arrive at the conclusion that God could actively make animals die before the act happened because He knew it would happen later.

However, the two are not actually connected. God could choose to do one and not do the other. In logic terms, the statement
A iff B
with A being (God can proactively give humans the benefit of Jesus' sacrifice before it happened) and B being (God can make animals die as punishment for Adam's sin before Adam actually sinned)
IS FALSE.
While God could do either or both, He does not have to do one to do the other. While it seems likely that He would do one if He did the other, it isn't necessary. While it is true that proactive donation of salvation makes proactive retraction of life have a precedent, it by no way necessitates it.

I do like the statement about how God never says the penalty is that animals will die as well, and that in Gen 3 God refers to the fact that the serpent will do something all the days of its life (implying that its life will in fact end) BEFORE He tells man that man will die.

It should also be noted that I disagree with the premise that the death God talked about was animal death, specifically because of verse 22 of Genesis 3. If man needed to eat from the Tree of Life to not die, man must not have been immortal. Furthermore, if He had cursed them with physical death, then nothing should have been able to stop it because God is all-powerful and His curse would be able to override anything the Tree of Life could have done. But if He'd cursed them with SPIRITUAL DEATH, then living forever in body would have circumvented that, now, wouldn't it've?

Whaddaya know. I convinced myself that his reasoning wasn't right just by talking through it.

Metherion

 

[busterdog]

Just finished reading a thought-provoking article in a previous issue of the American Scientific Affiliation journal, concerning animal death before the Fall:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF6-06Phillips.pdf
The main thesis is this:

I'm still digesting this parallel, and I'm wondering what others think of it. Please comment after you've read the article. Does the author's argument hold any merit?​

Like most TE arguments, it is very logical.

The only catch is, what happens when God speaks to the issue? Can we apply any logic we like?

I think the question is not a frivolous exercise, but the level of presumption is scary. God is, after all just. What is the basis for a retroactive curse of sin? You may not like a prospective, generational curse, but at least the latter is supported by scripture and is part of the overt rules. Making new rules for God's justice is pretty daunting.

how about a show of hands? Is anyone else scared to reason in the way of the OP quote? The word "must" is pretty insolent IMO.

As God said, it was "good." How "good" could it have been under this scenario? Gen 1:31
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Again, the evolutionary model presumes death in paradise. We have been through this before. One argument is that the Potlatch community was such a great thing, maybe paradise was like that. This really strains the idea of a pre-fall creation made perfect by God.

I understand that you reject the six day creation as "surface text", that death only entered creation "spiritually" with the fall, and that the pre-fall paradise was kind of a relative "paradise" (better than what we have, but not like heaven). All those issues are pretty hot issue that determine whether the proposition makes sense.

 

[shernren]

As God said, it was "good." How "good" could it have been under this scenario? Gen 1:31
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Again, the evolutionary model presumes death in paradise. We have been through this before. One argument is that the Potlatch community was such a great thing, maybe paradise was like that. This really strains the idea of a pre-fall creation made perfect by God.

Well, the people who wrote and received Genesis were Eastern, and you're forgetting one big factor in the Eastern mentality: food. To me as a Chinese a good world is one in which we can all eat sharks' fin, lobster, and abalone every day without worrying about extinction.

Therefore, in a good world, animals will die aplenty.

This example is, of course, a touch frivolous, but I hope you get the point. God said His creation was good; you're the one saying that in a good creation there can be no animal death, and your only support for that is that the converse "strains" you. You miss the facts that God clearly glorifies Himself with carnivory at multiple spots in the Old Testament. Also, in the Old Testament's eschatological viewpoint, the dead bodies of God's enemies will be eaten by birds of the air - is that not meat-eating? And the Marriage Feast of the Lamb. I may again be a bit flippant when I say that as a Chinese I'd be disappointed if there isn't sharks' fin and crab roe, but I bet any Jew would not have associated a marriage feast with vegan food and tofu fake meats!

The burden is on you to show a connection between a good creation and animals not dying.

 

[juvenissun]

As God said, it was "good." How "good" could it have been under this scenario? Gen 1:31

As a professional who knows the formation of rock better than any other studies, I have a fatal weakness as a YEC. I could not figure out why would fossils be distributed in a long sequence of rock layers. I do not buy the Flood hypothesis on the origin of fossil sequence. ICR's flood model never answer me on one question: how was sedimentary rocks made before the Flood? I assume there are quite a bit of sedimentary rocks pre-existed the Flood. And there are fossils in those older-than-the-Flood rocks.

There are two ways to solve my problem. One is that God made it that way, so time is not needed to be a factor. In fact, I do not have problem with this simple solution. However, if we want to talk about scientific thinking, then another solution could be that the death of animal has a longer history. I don't really care how long the history was. But it should be a time period in which animals died in sequence. Of course, this could take place AFTER Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden. But, if so, time conflict could become a problem between human history and animal history (fossil record). The time conflict could be taken off, if animal died in sequence before the sin.

People like to say that animal's death is cruel, painful, etc, etc. Somehow I am skeptical on this "emotional" description too. If that were true, then why would God allow us to kill (eat) them? Why isn't the killing of animal also forbidden in the Ten Commandments? Why don't we also consider the life (the pain) of plants? As a result, I tend to think that the death of animal IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT from the death of human. The death of animal may not relate to sin, may not relate to devil, and may not even be "bad" at all. The death of animal, and plant, do not need to bear any spiritual meaning. I really think the question which asks: would there be animal in heaven, is a critical question, which is directly related to the OP. If animals do not have eternal life, then what is the meaning of their existence? Except the "tree" of life, have we read anywhere in the Bible that describes any plant (even fruit, flower) in the heaven?

Implication: Would it be a big surprise if we DO find fossils on Mars? Not at all !! As long as we do not find sin on any other planet in the universe, the Bible will hold true. Nevertheless, I still do not believe there was life at all on Mars, because the uniqueness of the earth.

 

[juvenissun]

The burden is on you to show a connection between a good creation and animals not dying.

He he he.. I think you are about >50% YEC now.

 

[gluadys]

I think the question is not a frivolous exercise, but the level of presumption is scary.

I don't think any presumption is being made about God here. The question is being put to those who say death cannot exist before the fall because the punishment cannot occur before the offense.

Why do they not similarly conclude that salvation cannot occur before 33AD because it cannot occur before the atonement.

I think in some respect the argument is extending Paul's thought in Romans 5 when he says sin was in the world before the law but sin is not reckoned before the law.

Well, if sin is not reckoned before the law, how is it that those who lived before the law was revealed died? How could they be judged guilty and sentenced to death before sin began to be reckoned?

Yet Paul immediately acknowledges that death did reign from Adam to Moses in spite of the fact that no law was in place for the reckoning of sin.

Paul, of course, is primarily interested in the connection of human sin with human death, but perhaps the principle he enunciates here could be applied to animals as well.

That said, while the article is intriguing and I have referred others to it myself, I don't think it's a strong one.

Of course, I don't think it is necessary to presume that a good world had no natural death in it either.

 

[metherion]

Furthermore, in the Law God describes the odor of burning meat sacrifices (I think specifically bulls but I don't quite remember) as pleasing. If it pleases the Lord it must be good. So, for the world to be good, it must have had burning bull meat, probably caused by wildfires. So, animal death MUST have occured before the Fall!

[/flippant]

However, seriously, death is quite a good thing in the Bible. God often kills the Israelites' enemies, or empowers the Israelites to kill their own enemies. If death was evil, that would mean God was actively doing evil, which isn't possible. While God does use it as punishment for Israel's enemies, He also often uses it to reward the Israelites. Furthermore, He seems to delight in sacrifice. What was the first thing Noah did after getting off the Ark? Sacrifice animals. What did Abraham do as soon as he recieved the message Isaac wasn't to be killed? Sacrifice an animal. What did God demand the Israelites do to not be victims of the Angel of Death? Kill a lamb and smear the blood on their doors. As a matter of fact, who MADE said Angel of Death? God.

God does seem to like, or at least not mind, the death of animals. It makes no sense and is in fact evidenced against that God detests and would not include animal death.

Metherion

 

[busterdog]

As a professional who knows the formation of rock better than any other studies, I have a fatal weakness as a YEC. I could not figure out why would fossils be distributed in a long sequence of rock layers. I do not buy the Flood hypothesis on the origin of fossil sequence. ICR's flood model never answer me on one question: how was sedimentary rocks made before the Flood? I assume there are quite a bit of sedimentary rocks pre-existed the Flood. And there are fossils in those older-than-the-Flood rocks.

***

People like to say that animal's death is cruel, painful, etc, etc. Somehow I am skeptical on this "emotional" description too. If that were true, then why would God allow us to kill (eat) them? Why isn't the killing of animal also forbidden in the Ten Commandments? Why don't we also consider the life (the pain) of plants? As a result, I tend to think that the death of animal IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT from the death of human. The death of animal may not relate to sin, may not relate to devil, and may not even be "bad" at all. The death of animal, and plant, do not need to bear any spiritual meaning. I really think the question which asks: would there be animal in heaven, is a critical question, which is directly related to the OP. If animals do not have eternal life, then what is the meaning of their existence? Except the "tree" of life, have we read anywhere in the Bible that describes any plant (even fruit, flower) in the heaven?

God does seem to like, or at least not mind, the death of animals. It makes no sense and is in fact evidenced against that God detests and would not include animal death.

Metherion

1Cr 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. 1Cr 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
Isa 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

What is lawful post-fall seems of no particular help in telling us what happened pre-fall.

I have no problem admitting that some rocks look very old and give us a bit of a dilemma about how to reconcile that with other evidence. So being concerned about that is fine. Presuming that paradise must have allowed for morbidity and death is something else.

 

[busterdog]

I don't think any presumption is being made about God here. The question is being put to those who say death cannot exist before the fall because the punishment cannot occur before the offense.

Why do they not similarly conclude that salvation cannot occur before 33AD because it cannot occur before the atonement.

Two seperate issues: 1. curing the curse by the power and love of God - retroactively; and 2. imposing a curse by the authority of fallen man. A backwards looking forgiveness and a backwards looking curse are entirely different matters -- one originates in perfection/justice and the other in corruption.

 

[crawfish]

how about a show of hands? Is anyone else scared to reason in the way of the OP quote? The word "must" is pretty insolent IMO.

Why would we be scared? Some of the holiest men in the bible questioned God's purposes. Questioning is not denying.

As God said, it was "good." How "good" could it have been under this scenario? Gen 1:31
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Again, the evolutionary model presumes death in paradise. We have been through this before. One argument is that the Potlatch community was such a great thing, maybe paradise was like that. This really strains the idea of a pre-fall creation made perfect by God.

Count me as one interested in how you derive your particular interpretation of "good". You ask two people what their interpretation of a perfect creation would be and you'd get two different answers. Certainly, the ancient Hebrew definition of this would be different than the average view today.

As mentioned above, I'd also like an explanation of the sacrifice issue. Note that Eden was perfection, and our world isn't...but the same things that were right and wrong in Eden are right and wrong here. If animals dying would have been an evil in Eden, then why was the sacrificial death of animals viewed as good after the fall?

 

[busterdog]

Why would we be scared? Some of the holiest men in the bible questioned God's purposes. Questioning is not denying.

Peter denied Jesus. So? The point is intellectual honesty about the possibility of mistake. Maybe tomorrow is your spouse's birthday, maybe it isn't. Do you have any concern about getting that right or are you going to assume it is of no importance to someone you care about?

If animals dying would have been an evil in Eden, then why was the sacrificial death of animals viewed as good after the fall?

People die in this life. They won't in heaven and didn't in Eden. So, like you want God should do it all the same for you?

Accidental death was grounds for a man to flee to a santuary city in Israel. Does God likewise kill people by accident, or rather, does he need such rules for doing things perfectly? Why must paradise be like this world for you?

 

[Tinker Grey]

1. Taking the whole Genesis account as Hebrew myth (existing for the purpose of explicating man's relationship with God), the whole ante-fall v. post-fall question is meaningless.

2. I don't think of the death of Christ working retroactively. I think that all men are saved by trusting God for salvation. What makes us Christians is believing that God effected that salvation through Jesus. (Ergo, I don't worry about retroactively applying the fall of man to nature so that animals die "before the fall.")

 

[crawfish]

Peter denied Jesus. So? The point is intellectual honesty about the possibility of mistake. Maybe tomorrow is your spouse's birthday, maybe it isn't. Do you have any concern about getting that right or are you going to assume it is of no importance to someone you care about?

Personally, I don't have confidence in "getting it right" without questioning things first. I've seen too many traditionally-held beliefs that have been wrong.

People die in this life. They won't in heaven and didn't in Eden. So, like you want God should do it all the same for you?

Accidental death was grounds for a man to flee to a santuary city in Israel. Does God likewise kill people by accident, or rather, does he need such rules for doing things perfectly? Why must paradise be like this world for you?

I'm guessing that God isn't pleased by our death and suffering, yet the OT states that he WAS pleased by animal sacrifice. My argument is that God's attitude about other things hasn't changed after Eden...he likes what he likes, he dislikes what he dislikes. Why is this one item different?

 

[busterdog]

Personally, I don't have confidence in "getting it right" without questioning things first. I've seen too many traditionally-held beliefs that have been wrong.



I'm guessing that God isn't pleased by our death and suffering, yet the OT states that he WAS pleased by animal sacrifice. My argument is that God's attitude about other things hasn't changed after Eden...he likes what he likes, he dislikes what he dislikes. Why is this one item different?

As for questioning, I think its ok to ask questions. Much like you. Not that I worship the idea that ideas have to exist "in tension" to have merit, which is a construct of modern academia. But, if you are going to question, this should apply to both ends of the spectrum. Eg., the fear of the Lord is a pretty good beginning for questioning. Similarly, rejecting the surface text that says "six days", I think a little nervousness should be acceptable, at the very least.

My premise is one should question whether the whole idea of retroactive curse being a "must" is worthy of the question, Is this hubris? For that matter, the absolute denial of Paul's statement that death entered by one man, at the fall is worthy of the question -- ag ain, Is that hubris?

Part two: Is death due to old age "sacrifice," or just the outworking of the curse? God also likes a cheerful giver. Do you think there will be money in heaven? I suppose it is possible there might be, but how does that help? My point is simply that many things we have now are pleasing as a response to corruption and the fall, not because they are things good in and of themselves that would remain so in paradise.

 

[shernren]

Isa 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

What is lawful post-fall seems of no particular help in telling us what happened pre-fall.

I have no problem admitting that some rocks look very old and give us a bit of a dilemma about how to reconcile that with other evidence. So being concerned about that is fine. Presuming that paradise must have allowed for morbidity and death is something else.

Never mind that plenty of commentators have said that this description is entirely figurative, for example Gill (who is openly YEC in his commentary of Genesis 1) and Barnes. But this passage isn't even clearly about the post-Fall state. For that, it's good to go to Isaiah 65:

"Behold, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.
But be glad and rejoice forever
in what I will create,
for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight
and its people a joy.
I will rejoice over Jerusalem
and take delight in my people;
the sound of weeping and of crying
will be heard in it no more.
"Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
he who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere youth;
he who fails to reach a hundred
will be considered accursed.
(Isaiah 65:17-20 NIV)

(emphasis added) Whoa! There will be people "living out their years"? The implication is of course that this number of years must be finite! No way! And there will be people dying at a hundred? (Believe it or not, the Left Behind gang have taken this prophecy literally and posited a world in which cultists during the Millenium literally drop dead on their hundredth birthdays!)

Mmmm. Isaiah be not such a safe book for you brother.

 

[busterdog]

(emphasis added) Whoa! There will be people "living out their years"? The implication is of course that this number of years must be finite! No way! And there will be people dying at a hundred? (Believe it or not, the Left Behind gang have taken this prophecy literally and posited a world in which cultists during the Millenium literally drop dead on their hundredth birthdays!)

Mmmm. Isaiah be not such a safe book for you brother.

Rev 20:7 ¶ And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

You mean that Millenium? Again, that is not paradise.

Why you TEs is such a bloody rush to push this uniformitarianism? Do you really want paradise to look like evolution? Paradise is a not a uniformitarian idea. I realize many people want to put all the nuts like me in one group with Tim Lahaye. But come on. Its like heaven has no useful place in your thinking.

 

[shernren]

Rev 20:7 ¶ And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

You mean that Millenium? Again, that is not paradise.

Why you TEs is such a bloody rush to push this uniformitarianism? Do you really want paradise to look like evolution? Paradise is a not a uniformitarian idea. I realize many people want to put all the nuts like me in one group with Tim Lahaye. But come on. Its like heaven has no useful place in your thinking.

Uniformitarianism?

"Behold, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.
But be glad and rejoice forever
in what I will create,
for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight
and its people a joy.
I will rejoice over Jerusalem
and take delight in my people;
the sound of weeping and of crying
will be heard in it no more.
"Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
he who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere youth;
he who fails to reach a hundred
will be considered accursed.
(Isaiah 65:17-20 NIV)

(emphases added) All I be pushing is Scripture, brother. This passage clearly describes an eternal Heaven, and clearly describes finite lifespans in it.

Whichever way you take it, things are not as straightforward as you'd like them to be.

 

[busterdog]

Uniformitarianism?

"Behold, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.
But be glad and rejoice forever
in what I will create,
for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight
and its people a joy.
I will rejoice over Jerusalem
and take delight in my people;
the sound of weeping and of crying
will be heard in it no more.
"Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
he who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere youth;
he who fails to reach a hundred
will be considered accursed.
(Isaiah 65:17-20 NIV)

(emphases added) All I be pushing is Scripture, brother. This passage clearly describes an eternal Heaven, and clearly describes finite lifespans in it.

Clearly?

I guess death being cast in the lake of fire after the millenium is just a nice thought of no possible application.

Once again you completely avoid dealing with the idea of eternal life and paradise. This is becoming a habit for the TE crowd. Too bad. Again and again, the idea of evolution in paradise is associated with the idea that there is no eternal life. ...And God saw that it was fair to midlin'....

Whichever way you take it, things are not as straightforward as you'd like them to be.

Oh. That clears it up.

You do recall that we are talking about the proposition of a retroactive curse upon the creatures of Eden?

You do recall that before you invoked "left behind", the problem was "What is lawful post-fall seems of no particular help in telling us what happened pre-fall." And now dying during the millenium is used to bootstrap the uniformitarian position of death in paradise before the Tree of Life was taken away? Indeed that is not straightforward, but bent.

As for Left Behind, not only do I use the words "millenium" and "revelation", but I have been known to use the word "rapture" on occasion. I suppose that is indictment enough. Perhaps this is why you assiduously avoid conceding the smallest point to any YEC, lest you also be irretrievably tainted.