Did animals die before the Fall?

[crawfish]

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 -- again, Is that hubris?

The concept of "six days" did bother me at one time, until I felt I was answered sufficiently, through prayer and study. I feel no qualms about not taking it literally anymore. I'm definitely not on board with the retroactive curse idea, though - it's not an issue if you've rejected a literal creation story.

Hubris, to me, accepting a truth and denying the search. It's saying, "thank you God for perfect understanding" and then resisting anything that conflicts. It is closing your mind off to God's further influence. (I'm certainly not accusing you of this, btw.)

 

[shernren]

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'....

I should make both my highlights clear:

"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)

You tried to use a post-apocalyptic (in terms of the period to which the prophecy applies) prophecy from Isaiah, speaking of the post-Fall condition, to say that there should not possibly be physical death of any person or creature pre-Fall. I'm glad you yourself notice the logical disconnection: "What is lawful post-fall seems of no particular help in telling us what happened pre-fall."

What I then did was to show you a passage in which Isaiah juxtaposes a future heavenly eternity ("new heavens and new earth", "be glad and rejoice forever", "the sound of weeping and crying / will be heard in it no more") with both the prospect of a finite human lifetime ("old man ... live out his years", "he who dies at a hundred" / "he who fails to reach a hundred") and what would, to you, be a prophecy towards the abolition of animal death:

The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
but dust will be the serpent's food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,"
says the LORD.
(Isaiah 65:25 NIV)

So the wolf and the lamb will feed together? But the old man will live out his years? And we will be glad and rejoice forever?

What I am pointing out with this passage is that if you thought we were weird, the very author you're quoting is weirder. No TE here would so much as go near the idea of humans dying in heaven; Isaiah is perfectly happy to describe an eternal heaven with grazing wolves and mortal humans. Do you really think he's any help to your case?

 

[shernren]

And I have no idea why you are making such a big deal of:

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.

All I said was:

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.

(color added) I think it is painfully obvious (to anyone without a prior agenda of seeking unnecessary martyrdom) that my tangential comment about LaHaye's interpretation of this passage has absolutely nothing to do with the main point I was trying to push. What right could I possibly have to connect you to LaHaye over a passage which I, not you, brought to the table? Even if I did, would I possibly stoop to the level of a Beavis and Butthead assault - "hey busterdog, Left Behind! Huh huh!" on your position and expect it to stick - or expect you to spend so much verbiage refuting it?

For goodness sakes, when will I ever be able to make an offhand comment about something I find amusing in a conversation with you, without you turning it into an insinuation that I'm trying to run you off the face of Christendom in the name of intellectual purity?

 

[busterdog]

For goodness sakes, when will I ever be able to make an offhand comment about something I find amusing in a conversation with you, without you turning it into an insinuation that I'm trying to run you off the face of Christendom in the name of intellectual purity?

Come now, let's admit how we feel about Tim LaHaye and those who talk of raptures and real, bodily eternal life.

Let's admit that the idea of dying in a future paradise is more salient than any notion of real eternal life in your posts.

Reply if you like, I'm done.

 

[busterdog]

So the wolf and the lamb will feed together? But the old man will live out his years? And we will be glad and rejoice forever?

What I am pointing out with this passage is that if you thought we were weird, the very author you're quoting is weirder. No TE here would so much as go near the idea of humans dying in heaven; Isaiah is perfectly happy to describe an eternal heaven with grazing wolves and mortal humans. Do you really think he's any help to your case?

Let's also admit that I am posting on the idea of sacrificial animal as approved has nothing to do with the place of or absence of animal in the pre-fall or post-rapture paradise, be it the millenium or otherwise. The approval of death by God is the issue. When is paradise, really paradise. You have yet to answer that except to refer to a limited time when people still die.

 

[Ben_Hur]

Suggested read for an alternate view (specifically chapters 1 and 2):

http://answers.org/newlook/NEWLOOK.HTM

 

[gluadys]

You have yet to answer that except to refer to a limited time when people still die.

Excuse me, but something went by me there. Where did shernren (or isaiah) refer to "a limited time" when people still die?

 

[busterdog]

Excuse me, but something went by me there. Where did shernren (or isaiah) refer to "a limited time" when people still die?

Hopefully Shernren understood that the millenium was a limited time. But that is clearly what he was referring to, intentionally I guess. It usually sounds like the conditions of the millenium are to represent eternity in these posts.

If there is to be no distinction between the millenium and eternity in paradise, anyone who wants to say so is entitled to that opinion. I have long thought that evolution in pre-history would likely be associated with evolution for eternity.

To demonstrate that there is a distinction, read Rev. 20, which ends with the following:

Rev 20:14
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

 

[gluadys]

Hopefully Shernren understood that the millenium was a limited time. But that is clearly what he was referring to, intentionally I guess. It usually sounds like the conditions of the millenium are to represent eternity in these posts.

I don't much about millennium teachings. They were never part of my religious upbringing. But the bit I have heard suggests that the millennium is seen as part of the future history of this earth.

The Isaiah passage clearly refers to the new heaven and new earth. I have always associated that phrase with eternity.

I have long thought that evolution in pre-history would likely be associated with evolution for eternity.

That thought has never occurred to me.

To demonstrate that there is a distinction, read Rev. 20, which ends with the following:

Rev 20:14
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

And that is followed by "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth ..." in Rev. 21:1---a clear echo of Isaiah 65:17

 

[busterdog]

I don't much about millennium teachings. They were never part of my religious upbringing. But the bit I have heard suggests that the millennium is seen as part of the future history of this earth.

The Isaiah passage clearly refers to the new heaven and new earth. I have always associated that phrase with eternity.




That thought has never occurred to me.



And that is followed by "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth ..." in Rev. 21:1---a clear echo of Isaiah 65:17

Ok, so, what happens then with people in eternity?

 

[gluadys]

Ok, so, what happens then with people in eternity?

Apparently it depends on whether you ask Isaiah or John.

 

[busterdog]

Apparently it depends on whether you ask Isaiah or John.

Well, that's a clear enough answer.

 

[shernren]

Come now, let's admit how we feel about Tim LaHaye and those who talk of raptures and real, bodily eternal life.

Let's admit that the idea of dying in a future paradise is more salient than any notion of real eternal life in your posts.

Reply if you like, I'm done.

Yes, I think Tim LaHaye is not good material for Christians. He turns the Apocalypse into some kind of techno-thriller, has some pretty unsavory views about the Mark of the Beast as a physical operation (and the possibility of receiving it and remaining a regenerate, saved Christian), the literal nature of a unified world government in Babylon (clearly ignoring the extreme symbolic significance of Babylon in the Bible), etc. Another author, with reference to his first two books, noted how marriage and sex were so idolized - the bad guys are all single, while the good guys are all rolling around happily, and indeed Buck resists temptation by fixing his mind on Chloe. Not Jesus? Hmm.

In all this I don't have much objection to the idea of a rapture. It does sound too much like escapist, isolationist fantasy for my liking ("We'll wait in Heaven seven years while God shells the evil world to Kingdom Come!") but hey, if it really happens, I wouldn't be complaining at all.

And if you read any posts I've made about death and eternity before this point, I have never actually contemplated the possibility of death in future eternity. Never so much as went near it with a ten-foot pole. And all I did here was quote the Bible.

I'm not surprised or offended if you disagreed with me. But the idea of dying in a future paradise is really only as salient in my posts as it is in Isaiah's original. Is that my fault?

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 65:19-20 NIV)

Quite frankly, I've got as much theological (and personal!) commitment to living forever in Heaven as you do, and the doctrine is clearly supported elsewhere, particularly in the New Testament. Thus the only way to treat this passage is that it simply cannot be a literal description of eternity future ... in which case using Isaiah to support your arguments falls flat.

If you'd rather ignore Isaiah 65 than face that fate, that's your loss, not mine.