Evolution conflict and division

[2PhiloVoid]

Your focus is on degrees and credentials rather than the actual arguments being made. Citing diplomas or academic titles doesn’t automatically make a position true; it just tells me the person read a lot of other people’s thinking. Original thought—careful reasoning, grappling with the text and the evidence for yourself—is far more important than reflecting the conclusions of others.

So yes, I don’t need to know your degrees to engage with what you’re actually saying. What matters is whether the points hold up under scrutiny, whether the text is being interpreted responsibly, and whether your reasoning makes sense—not how many letters come after your name. The work of thinking for yourself matters far more than the pedigree attached to it.

It is your words that inform me about you and not the titles of books you have on your shelf or all of the subjects you studied in school. My mind is on these pages.

Do you have any other misrepresentations about my thought processes you'd like to fan along and make fly like gnats, Mr. Boomer?

And yes, I will continue to focus on the "degrees and credentials" of all those individuals I read or resource---or with whom I speak---whether I agree with those persons or not. And, what's more, I will continue to make semi-final conclusions out of the wide spectrum of scholars whom I read, especially when it comes to historically and ontologically indiscernible texts such as Genesis 1 through 11.

So, what does this mean? It means that I will read Peter Enns' book, The Evolution of Adam, on one hand, and the anthology of rejoinders made against him by a bevy of more evangelical scholars in the book, Adam, The Fall, and Original Sin (Hans Madueme & Michael Reeves, eds.), on the other.

I'll also have been reading and/or resourcing, and will continue to read and resource, other similar structured competitions of ONLY academic level thought via the following books, all of which is in addition to cracking open a book on Historiography, the Philosophy of History, or Archaeology:

Four Views of the Historical Adam - Matthew Barrett, Ardel B. Caneday, Stanley N. Gundry, eds.​

​

The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science - Conrad Hyers​

​

Genesis Unbound - John Sailhammer​

​

Science, Life and Christian Belief - Malcolm A. Jeeves & R.J. Berry [My personal favorite]​

​

Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on The Bible's Earliest Chapters - Charles Halton, Stanley N. Gundry, eds.​

​

Since the Beginning: Interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 through the Ages - Kyle R. Greenwood, ed.​

​

Beginnings: Ancient Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives - Peter C. Bouteneff​

​

Redeeming Science - Vern S. Poythress​

​

The Evolution Controversy - Thomas B. Fowler and Daniel Kuebler​

​

The Bible, Rocks and Time - Davis A. Young and Ralph F. Stearley​

​

If you don't like my approach to analyzing without relying on sheer deduction or ---**cough**---dolling out "original thought" fit for today's 10 second TikTok crowd, then you can be my guest and stuff it!!

It's not my fault your dog died. It's not God's fault, either. Get over it. .........................I did. And I loved my dog.

​

​

 

[Job 33:6]

Do you have any other misrepresentations about my thought processes you'd like to fan along and make fly like gnats, Mr. Boomer?

And yes, I will continue to focus on the "degrees and credentials" of all those individuals I read or resource---or with whom I speak---whether I agree with those persons or not. And, what's more, I will continue to make semi-final conclusions out of the wide spectrum of scholars whom I read, especially when it comes to historically and ontologically indiscernible texts such as Genesis 1 through 11.

So, what does this mean? It means that I will read Peter Enns' book, The Evolution of Adam, on one hand, and the anthology of rejoinders made against him by a bevy of more evangelical scholars in the book, Adam, The Fall, and Original Sin (Hans Madueme & Michael Reeves, eds.), on the other.

I'll also have been reading and/or resourcing, and will continue to read and resource, other similar structured competitions of ONLY academic level thought via the following books, all of which is in addition to cracking open a book on Historiography, the Philosophy of History, or Archaeology:

Four Views of the Historical Adam - Matthew Barrett, Ardel B. Caneday, Stanley N. Gundry, eds.​

​

The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science - Conrad Hyers​

​

Genesis Unbound - John Sailhammer​

​

Science, Life and Christian Belief - Malcolm A. Jeeves & R.J. Berry [My personal favorite]​

​

Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on The Bible's Earliest Chapters - Charles Halton, Stanley N. Gundry, eds.​

​

Since the Beginning: Interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 through the Ages - Kyle R. Greenwood, ed.​

​

Beginnings: Ancient Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives - Peter C. Bouteneff​

​

Redeeming Science - Vern S. Poythress​

​

The Evolution Controversy - Thomas B. Fowler and Daniel Kuebler​

​

The Bible, Rocks and Time - Davis A. Young and Ralph F. Stearley​

​

If you don't like my approach to analyzing without relying on sheer deduction or ---**cough**---dolling out "original thought" fit for today's 10 second TikTok crowd, then you can be my guest and stuff it!!

It's not my fault your dog died. It's not God's fault, either. Get over it. .........................I did. And I loved my dog.

​

​

Have you read " Reading Genesis 1 and 2: An Evangelical Conversation"? It rotates between scholarly views of these two chapters. And each scholar is given a section to critique the other. You would probably like it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Have you read " Reading Genesis 1 and 2: An Evangelical Conversation"? It rotates between scholarly views of these two chapters. And each scholar is given a section to critique the other. You would probably like it.

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll take a look at it and maybe I'll buy it sometime in the near future.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolutionary theory, as it is normally understood, explains life through unguided processes—mutation, selection, death, and contingency.

“The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).
Here, you're just assuming that God isn't able to use contingency to effect His will.

What makes you think that?

Your comments. Or are you saying that God does use contingency in evolution?

 

[Mercy Shown]

It sure looks like there will still be death to me, I've added verse 20, just a few verses prior to this same idea over in chapter 65:

Isaiah 65: 20, 25 ESV
[20] No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed.

[25] The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent’s food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain,” says the Lord.

Or do you think that because this is poetry, it therefore doesn't actually mean that "the young man shall die" ?

This just seems like a terrible argument on your part.

Still be death when. You are assuming that this text is speaking of of a time after restoration when it is clearly not. I should have made that clear. This point being made was not that during this period there would not be natural death but there would be no violent death and predation. In other words destruction. It is quite clear that after restoration there will be no death. So death aside, nothing hurts or destroys during this period. This will also be true after restoration in which death is thrown into the lake of fire. I suppose the only problem with using these verses is it gave you the opportunity to distract from the argument rather than address engaging it with a thoughtful rebuttal.

 

[Mercy Shown]

You cannot call it "the Bibles internal theology" if you can't derive that theology from the textual data and contextual background.

And yes that is right "which" context matters most is what is under debate. And you're arguing from a modern anachronistic context. While I'm arguing from the context of the ancient near east, the contextual background of the Hebrew Bible.

I think this is where we need to slow the conversation down a bit, because I’m not dismissing ANE context or lexical data, and I’m certainly not arguing from modern science or importing biology into Genesis. That’s precisely why the constant charge of “concordism” doesn’t really land. I’m not asking the text to line up with evolution, geology, or modern categories at all. I’m asking how the canon itself develops its own categories over time.

You’re right that “biblical theology” has to be derived from the text. But it’s not derived only by freezing each passage inside its earliest recoverable ANE horizon and refusing to let later Scripture inform earlier Scripture. The Hebrew Bible itself invites a forward-moving reading. Isaiah is not just another ANE text; it is consciously re-reading Israel’s Scriptures and projecting a restored order in which “destroying” no longer characterizes God’s reign. That is still textual data, not anachronism.

ANE background helps us understand what words could mean; it does not automatically determine what they must mean in every context. If it did, prophecy itself would be unintelligible, because prophecy regularly stretches, reshapes, and sometimes subverts cultural expectations. Saying “the ANE assumed animal death, therefore Genesis must assume it” is just as much an inference as saying “Isaiah envisions a peace that includes the removal of violence.” The question is which inference best accounts for the trajectory of the text as a whole.

And that’s where the appeal to concordism keeps missing the mark. I’m not using Genesis or Isaiah to refute science. I’m questioning whether a reading that treats death and predation as morally neutral features of God’s original creative intent actually coheres with the Bible’s own storyline—where death is named as an enemy, associated with curse, and ultimately undone. That concern arises from the text’s internal logic, not from modern biology.

So the disagreement isn’t “ANE context vs. theology,” or “exegesis vs. assertion.” It’s whether ANE background is allowed to be the final arbiter of meaning, or whether the Bible’s own intertextual development is allowed to generate theological claims that go beyond its cultural starting point. Calling that move “anachronistic” doesn’t settle the issue—it just assumes, rather than demonstrates, that later Scripture has no interpretive authority over earlier Scripture.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think this is where we need to slow the conversation down a bit, because I’m not dismissing ANE context or lexical data, and I’m certainly not arguing from modern science or importing biology into Genesis. That’s precisely why the constant charge of “concordism” doesn’t really land. I’m not asking the text to line up with evolution, geology, or modern categories at all. I’m asking how the canon itself develops its own categories over time.

You’re right that “biblical theology” has to be derived from the text. But it’s not derived only by freezing each passage inside its earliest recoverable ANE horizon and refusing to let later Scripture inform earlier Scripture. The Hebrew Bible itself invites a forward-moving reading. Isaiah is not just another ANE text; it is consciously re-reading Israel’s Scriptures and projecting a restored order in which “destroying” no longer characterizes God’s reign. That is still textual data, not anachronism.

ANE background helps us understand what words could mean; it does not automatically determine what they must mean in every context. If it did, prophecy itself would be unintelligible, because prophecy regularly stretches, reshapes, and sometimes subverts cultural expectations. Saying “the ANE assumed animal death, therefore Genesis must assume it” is just as much an inference as saying “Isaiah envisions a peace that includes the removal of violence.” The question is which inference best accounts for the trajectory of the text as a whole.

And that’s where the appeal to concordism keeps missing the mark. I’m not using Genesis or Isaiah to refute science. I’m questioning whether a reading that treats death and predation as morally neutral features of God’s original creative intent actually coheres with the Bible’s own storyline—where death is named as an enemy, associated with curse, and ultimately undone. That concern arises from the text’s internal logic, not from modern biology.

So the disagreement isn’t “ANE context vs. theology,” or “exegesis vs. assertion.” It’s whether ANE background is allowed to be the final arbiter of meaning, or whether the Bible’s own intertextual development is allowed to generate theological claims that go beyond its cultural starting point. Calling that move “anachronistic” doesn’t settle the issue—it just assumes, rather than demonstrates, that later Scripture has no interpretive authority over earlier Scripture.

I appreciate the clarification, and I agree that later Scripture theologically develops and reframes earlier texts. My claim, however, is narrower and more historical: Genesis itself does not depict or require a deathless animal creation. Canonical development can articulate redemption, reversal, and hope, but it does not retroactively establish what the original author assumed unless the text explicitly signals such a departure. Isaiah’s vision of peace still includes death, and therefore cannot function as evidence that Genesis portrayed animal immortality. ANE context is not the final arbiter of theology, but it is the default arbiter of original meaning. Without clear textual indicators to override that background, claims of a deathless creation remain theological inferences rather than exegetical conclusions.

And why does this matter? Because if we are debating Genesis, we have to start with Genesis. We don't start with Paul and read backwards.

 

[Mercy Shown]

I'll simply repeat myself because your not addressing the issue here.

I appreciate your emphasis on reading Genesis carefully and respecting narrative context. I agree that lexical data alone doesn’t settle meaning, and that the story’s literary flow, later Scripture, and theological themes all inform interpretation. Context matters. But context is not just the internal narrative or later canonical usage, it includes the historical and cultural setting in which the text was produced. In the ancient Near Eastern world, animals were understood to be mortal, creation was about ordering the cosmos, and there was no expectation of immortal beasts. Recognizing this cultural background is not a theological judgment; it is a data-driven assumption based on what the original audience would have understood, until there is explicit textual reason to depart from it.

If you wish to remove Genesis from its cultural background to argue that the text depicts a deathless creation, you bear the burden of proof. You must point to clear, specific textual signals that indicate the author intended such a departure. Simply appealing to narrative flow, poetic imagery (such as Isaiah 65, which includes death and contradicts your position anyway, e.g., verse 20-25), or abstract concepts like “very good” does not suffice. I mowed my lawn last week, it was “very good,” but that doesn’t say anything about animal mortality.

Without such evidence, assuming the historical-cultural default is the most reasonable and justified starting point. All other interpretive claims are inferences layered on top of the text, not explicit features of it, and thus carry the burden of demonstration.

Your position assumes that deathlessness fits the “internal logic” of Genesis, but that is an interpretive inference, not something clearly signaled by the text itself. And with that said, it is not sufficient to overturn contextual background.

While coherent theologically, your position cannot be objectively demonstrated without circular reasoning: the text is read in light of later theological themes, which presupposes the conclusion.

Alternatively, my position is evidence based. ANE cultures did not view animals as immortal, so the default assumption is that Genesis reflects that same worldview unless there is strong evidence otherwise.

If you want to argue that Genesis departs from its ANE background and depicts a deathless creation, you must show specific textual signals or clear evidence from the text itself, not just narrative flow or theological inference. Extraordinary claims require evidence.

Ok, this is an impasse, So lets move on. I think I have clearly understood you to believing that:

1. Your theology comes from an orthodox position and does not adhere to sola scriptura
2. God exists and is eternal
3. Your theology accepts evolution as a plausible explanation for biological development under God's guidance. (You have taken that stance)
4. Evolution involved death, destruction, disease, predation, pain and suffering that weeded out the weak and favored the strong over roughly 3.7 billion years

What I am not clear on about your theology is:
1. How does your theology view Adam and Eve. Are they metaphors or a real couple.
2. Did God guide evolution or merely throw the dice.
3.When did sin appear.

Fell free to extend and revise.

 

[Job 33:6]

I should have made that clear. This point being made was not that during this period there would not be natural death but there would be no violent death and predation.

Ok so this doesn't serve as evidence of a deathless creation. Thank you for coming to terms with this. Glad we've established that God's good creation includes death. And I think that if you're trying to walk a tight rope in which there is death before the fall, but there just isn't violent death (whatever that arbitrarily means), it's just an unstable position that still isn't derived from the text. Especially when again, the text doesn't say that there would be no more predation, it simply focuses on peace in the human domain (calf, cow, goat, young boy etc.). Maybe no predation of people if taken more rigidly. But there is nothing saying that say, a bird wouldn't eat a caterpillar, or a wolf wouldn't eat a mouse, or things along these lines.

More specifically, there are no wild animals mentioned in either passages of Isaiah that we've referenced. Its ambiguous to extend protection of the human domain beyond out space and to extrapolate that outward into the world. God's blessings are for people, not antelopes.

 

[Mercy Shown]

I appreciate the clarification, and I agree that later Scripture theologically develops and reframes earlier texts. My claim, however, is narrower and more historical: Genesis itself does not depict or require a deathless animal creation. Canonical development can articulate redemption, reversal, and hope, but it does not retroactively establish what the original author assumed unless the text explicitly signals such a departure. Isaiah’s vision of peace still includes death, and therefore cannot function as evidence that Genesis portrayed animal immortality. ANE context is not the final arbiter of theology, but it is the default arbiter of original meaning. Without clear textual indicators to override that background, claims of a deathless creation remain theological inferences rather than exegetical conclusions.

And why does this matter? Because if we are debating Genesis, we have to start with Genesis. We don't start with Paul and read backwards.

We’re not only debating Genesis in isolation. Genesis is part of the discussion, but it’s a small portion of a larger biblical conversation. If the question were only “What did the human author of Genesis assume within his ANE context?” then your approach makes sense. But that’s not my question.

My question is whether the Bible, as a whole, presents death as part of God’s original creative intent or as something that enters later and is opposed, judged, and ultimately undone. So, it makes sense to read Genesis in consideration of the rest of Scripture, not to ignore comes later.

This is really a difference in how we view Scripture. You’re prioritizing original historical meaning; I’m have a more holistic approach assuming the canon can interpret itself. That doesn’t mean flattening Genesis or forcing it to answer modern scientific questions. It means recognizing later biblical authors do reflect back on earlier texts and sometimes clarify, deepen, or reframe them.

Outside theology, this isn’t an unusual method. In evolutionary science, we often start with present observations and reason backward to infer origins. So reading later biblical theology back into earlier texts isn’t bad, it’s a common way humans learn about history.

Genesis doesn’t get the final word in isolation. The disagreement here is about whether ANE context gets to function as a veto over the Bible’s own developing storyline.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Ok so this doesn't serve as evidence of a deathless creation. Thank you for coming to terms with this. Glad we've established that God's good creation includes death. And I think that if you're trying to walk a tight rope in which there is death before the fall, but there just isn't violent death (whatever that arbitrarily means), it's just an unstable position that still isn't derived from the text. Especially when again, the text doesn't say that there would be no more predation, it simply focuses on peace in the human domain (calf, cow, goat, young boy etc.). Maybe no predation of people if taken more rigidly. But there is nothing saying that say, a bird wouldn't eat a caterpillar, or a wolf wouldn't eat a mouse, or things along these lines.

No, the bible narrative is pretty solid in its inference that God did not create using death, suffering, etc. Now that does not reflect on Evolutionary Theory. I think you approach this assuming an attack on evolution but it is a rebuttal of theistic evolution. If we were debating evolutionary science, God would not be in the picture.

I think theistic evolution is like trying to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Mercy Shown]

“The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).
Here, you're just assuming that God isn't able to use contingency to effect His will.

Your comments. Or are you saying that God does use contingency in evolution?

I am saying that there is no God or gods in evolutionary science.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Do you have any other misrepresentations about my thought processes you'd like to fan along and make fly like gnats, Mr. Boomer?

You have such a tender ego. I do not care to brusie it any further.

And yes, I will continue to focus on the "degrees and credentials" of all those individuals I read or resource---or with whom I speak---whether I agree with those persons or not. And, what's more, I will continue to make semi-final conclusions out of the wide spectrum of scholars whom I read, especially when it comes to historically and ontologically indiscernible texts such as Genesis 1 through 11.

So, what does this mean? It means that I will read Peter Enns' book, The Evolution of Adam, on one hand, and the anthology of rejoinders made against him by a bevy of more evangelical scholars in the book, Adam, The Fall, and Original Sin (Hans Madueme & Michael Reeves, eds.), on the other.

I'll also have been reading and/or resourcing, and will continue to read and resource, other similar structured competitions of ONLY academic level thought via the following books, all of which is in addition to cracking open a book on Historiography, the Philosophy of History, or Archaeology:

Four Views of the Historical Adam - Matthew Barrett, Ardel B. Caneday, Stanley N. Gundry, eds.​

​

The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science - Conrad Hyers​

​

Genesis Unbound - John Sailhammer​

​

Science, Life and Christian Belief - Malcolm A. Jeeves & R.J. Berry [My personal favorite]​

​

Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on The Bible's Earliest Chapters - Charles Halton, Stanley N. Gundry, eds.​

​

Since the Beginning: Interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 through the Ages - Kyle R. Greenwood, ed.​

​

Beginnings: Ancient Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives - Peter C. Bouteneff​

​

Redeeming Science - Vern S. Poythress​

​

The Evolution Controversy - Thomas B. Fowler and Daniel Kuebler​

​

The Bible, Rocks and Time - Davis A. Young and Ralph F. Stearley​

​

If you don't like my approach to analyzing without relying on sheer deduction or ---**cough**---dolling out "original thought" fit for today's 10 second TikTok crowd, then you can be my guest and stuff it!!

It's not my fault your dog died. It's not God's fault, either. Get over it. .........................I did. And I loved my dog.

​

​

I leave you in peace and hope that you were the man your dog thought you were.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, the bible narrative is pretty solid in its inference that God did not create using death, suffering, etc. Now that does not reflect on Evolutionary Theory. I think you approach this assuming an attack on evolution but it is a rebuttal of theistic evolution. If we were debating evolutionary science, God would not be in the picture.

I think theistic evolution is like trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Nowhere in the entire biblical corpus does any text say that "animals had access to the tree of life." Nor does it say that Adam and Eve were created immortal in some 'original nature.'

No, the poetic implication in the Eden account is that Adam and Eve's potential for immortality was fully contingent upon taking and eating from the Tree of Life. And there is ZERO indication that the Tree of Life was for the consumption of any other species.

So, you'll just have to swallow that obvious detail.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You have such a tender ego. I do not care to brusie it any further.

I leave you in peace and hope that you were the man your dog thought you were.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Notice, at the same time, I'm not stumbling off with a smirk, making insinuations that you're not really a fellow Christian.

Oh, and I'm sure I've failed to 'be the man' in many ways. That's par for the course, but for some reason, I keep bumping into Evangelicals who are always more than ready to use this line as a first recourse rather than as a last recourse against me. This rhetoric or yours/theirs gets tiresome and gives me even more reason to resist (desist really) from going to any more evangelical churches in the future.

Fellowship is apparently highly overrated.

 

[Job 33:6]

We’re not only debating Genesis in isolation. Genesis is part of the discussion, but it’s a small portion of a larger biblical conversation. If the question were only “What did the human author of Genesis assume within his ANE context?” then your approach makes sense. But that’s not my question.

My question is whether the Bible, as a whole, presents death as part of God’s original creative intent or as something that enters later and is opposed, judged, and ultimately undone. So, it makes sense to read Genesis in consideration of the rest of Scripture, not to ignore comes later.

This is really a difference in how we view Scripture. You’re prioritizing original historical meaning; I’m have a more holistic approach assuming the canon can interpret itself. That doesn’t mean flattening Genesis or forcing it to answer modern scientific questions. It means recognizing later biblical authors do reflect back on earlier texts and sometimes clarify, deepen, or reframe them.

Outside theology, this isn’t an unusual method. In evolutionary science, we often start with present observations and reason backward to infer origins. So reading later biblical theology back into earlier texts isn’t bad, it’s a common way humans learn about history.

Genesis doesn’t get the final word in isolation. The disagreement here is about whether ANE context gets to function as a veto over the Bible’s own developing storyline.

I agree that later Scripture reflects on earlier Scripture, and I’m not denying canonical theology. But canonical theology does not retroactively redefine the original meaning of a text unless the later text explicitly says it is doing so.

Genesis must first be read as Genesis, in its own literary and cultural world. Only after that can we ask how later authors theologize it. If Genesis does not depict animal immortality within its own context, then later theological reflections cannot simply insert that idea back into the text without clear warrant.

The issue is not whether Scripture develops themes, it clearly does. The issue is whether development is being mistaken for correction. If death is later named as an enemy, that tells us how death is theologically evaluated, not how animal life functioned biologically before the Fall. Those are distinct questions.

ANE context does not veto Scripture; it anchors meaning. Without that anchor, “the Bible interprets itself” becomes “later theology redefines earlier texts,” and the text itself loses stable meaning.

New testament theology doesn't outright overwrite or replace original meaning. That's a bad hermeneutical approach that will simply get you into a lot of trouble if you follow it that methodology throughout scripture. You have to distinguish original intent from later theological revelation. And neither circumvents or replaces the other.

Your concerns are much more driven toward questions related to, what we must believe theologically. My questions are more driven toward, what does the text mean in its original context. And my question has to come first, before yours, if you want to retain any semblance of a unified church hermeneutic.

If you want theology to supercede original context, you're just going to turn the church into a warzone of competing theologies, untethered from original context.

Also, no death before the fall is not "canon". I just want to point that out. So that we aren't confused about what we are debating. We aren't debating canon. No predation before the fall is also not canon. Otherwise you may as well argue that St Augustine was a heretic.

 

[The Barbarian]

I am saying that there is no God or gods in evolutionary science.

None in physics, either. Did anyone think there should be? When Newton declined to put God in his theory of gravitation, do you think Newton was thereby an atheist?

No, the poetic implication in the Eden account is that Adam and Eve's potential for immortality was fully contingent upon taking and eating from the Tree of Life.

Right. This is something God explicitly states in Genesis 3:
Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

 

[Job 33:6]

We’re not only debating Genesis in isolation. Genesis is part of the discussion, but it’s a small portion of a larger biblical conversation. If the question were only “What did the human author of Genesis assume within his ANE context?” then your approach makes sense. But that’s not my question.

My question is whether the Bible, as a whole, presents death as part of God’s original creative intent or as something that enters later and is opposed, judged, and ultimately undone. So, it makes sense to read Genesis in consideration of the rest of Scripture, not to ignore comes later.

This is really a difference in how we view Scripture. You’re prioritizing original historical meaning; I’m have a more holistic approach assuming the canon can interpret itself. That doesn’t mean flattening Genesis or forcing it to answer modern scientific questions. It means recognizing later biblical authors do reflect back on earlier texts and sometimes clarify, deepen, or reframe them.

Outside theology, this isn’t an unusual method. In evolutionary science, we often start with present observations and reason backward to infer origins. So reading later biblical theology back into earlier texts isn’t bad, it’s a common way humans learn about history.

Genesis doesn’t get the final word in isolation. The disagreement here is about whether ANE context gets to function as a veto over the Bible’s own developing storyline.

I'm going to give another example here to help out. Now remember my prior example of the elephant and water in its trunk, and the later car with water in its trunk.

Now I'm going to add another reality of the biblical text.

Consider Mathew 2:15
and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son"

And Hosea 11:1
Hosea 11:1 ESV
[1] When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

Later Bible authors routinely reference the old testament for a variety of reasons. They reveal many truths about the old testament.

But look closely, Hosea isn't talking about Jesus. Hosea is about Isrealites and Moses leaving Egypt.

Later theological developments are important, but you can't use that to retroactively go back and change original meaning of Hosea. These are two different topics we are looking at. So, likewise with Genesis, if you want to know what Genesis is saying, you have to start with Genesis and work outward. You can't start with Paul and retroactively impose theology into the old testament that wasn't originally there. Not unless Paul himself clarified that to be his intent (to exegete Genesis), which of course never happened in Romans 5 or elsewhere.

Or as AI puts it:
Later biblical authors frequently reread earlier Scripture in light of new events, but this does not retroactively alter original meaning. Matthew 2:15 is a clear example. Hosea 11:1 is not about Jesus; it is about Israel and the Exodus. Matthew’s use of Hosea is typological, not corrective. It adds a theological layer without rewriting Hosea’s historical referent.

This distinction matters. If later theology could redefine original meaning, Hosea would no longer be about Israel at all — which is plainly false. Likewise, later reflections on death in Paul cannot be used to overwrite what Genesis itself communicates within its own context. To understand Genesis, we must start with Genesis and work outward, not begin with later theology and read it backward into the text unless the later author explicitly signals that intention — which Paul does not do in Romans 5 or elsewhere.

Theology is important, but it cannot come before fundamental hermeneutics and principals of reviewing authorial intent in conjunction with the original context and cultural background of Genesis and the old testament. If you allow theology to supercede historical context, you're creating a recipe for an untethered theological conflict with just about anyone you have a conversation with on this matter.

I'm not denying the importance of Paul or his writings or what anyone later has to say about those writings, what I'm saying is, if you want to debate Genesis, you have to start there and move outward. You don't want to start in the new testament or even with church fathers and later theologies, and try to argue theology backwards into the old testament.

If we attempted to align the old testament with later theologies and Pauline writings, as if Paul or others were exegeting the text, much like we would become confused about the original meaning of Hosea, old testament interpretation would feel like walking on land mines and it would become very confusing quite quickly.

You can't start with the car and work backwards. You have to start with the elephant and work forwards. And if you run into theological conflict, then you have to essentially go back and start over at the text and rebuild outward again. The starting point is the ancient near east. The starting point is Hebrew. It's the original context. And that is the foundation that has to be established before advancing more modernized theological frameworks.

 

[Mercy Shown]

I'm going to give another example here to help out. Now remember my prior example of the elephant and water in its trunk, and the later car with water in its trunk.

Now I'm going to add another reality of the biblical text.

Consider Mathew 2:15
and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son"

And Hosea 11:1
Hosea 11:1 ESV
[1] When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

Later Bible authors routinely reference the old testament for a variety of reasons. They reveal many truths about the old testament.

But look closely, Hosea isn't talking about Jesus. Hosea is about Isrealites and Moses leaving Egypt.

I am not really concerned with what AI has to say. But I am surprised that you seem unaware of double references in the bible. "Double reference" in biblical interpretation, often called the "law of double reference," is a prophetic principle where a single scripture passage simultaneously points to two events, one immediate/partial (like a sign for a contemporary king) and another future/ultimate (like the Messiah or End Times), linking them as though they were one to show fulfillment, as seen in Isaiah 7:14 (Immanuel) applying to a contemporary sign and Jesus, or Matthew 24 concerning both the AD 70 temple destruction and the Second Coming.

Examples are things like Isaiah 7:14

The immediate reference was Isaiah speaking to King Ahaz about a child to be born as a sign that Judah will survive the current political crisis. Later Matthew 1:22–23 applies the passage to Jesus’ birth. The child is both a short-term sign in Isaiah’s day and a messianic sign in the Gospel narrative.

Psalm 22 Was David’s own experience of suffering and persecution. Later referenced during the crucifixion of Jesus (quoted directly in Matthew 27:46). David’s suffering becomes a pattern fulfilled more fully in Christ.

Joel 2:28–32 Immediately refers to the restoration after national judgment and locust devastation. Later Peter declares its fulfillment at Pentecost (Acts 2:16–21). Peter explicitly treats the prophecy as already and not yet.

There are many more but you get the idea.

 

[Mercy Shown]

None in physics, either. Did anyone think there should be? When Newton declined to put God in his theory of gravitation, do you think Newton was thereby an atheist?

Newton's entire science frame work depended upon God. This is one of his clearest statements.

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
— Principia, General Scholium. Newton believed science reveals how God ordered creation, not that it replaces God. Further more Newton said, “The authority of Scripture is the authority of God himself.”— Yahuda Manuscript 7.3 He also believed genesis as being literal.
Isaac Newton explicitly referred to God when discussing gravity, both in his scientific works and in related correspondence. He did not see gravity as a self-sufficient, atheistic mechanism. He understood it as part of God’s orderly governance of creation.

Since we both agree that evolutionary science is godless then we are left with what to do with the god concept. Was it Deus ex machina lowered in at the end of the play to tie up all the loose ends?

Right. This is something God explicitly states in Genesis 3:
Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

Sorry, but evolutionary theory has no room for a biblical Adam either. It really only intellectually fits atheism.