Evolution conflict and division

[Job 33:6]

I think this is where our disagreement really crystallizes. You’re framing this almost entirely as a Genesis + ANE background question, but the Bible doesn’t end at Genesis 1, and Genesis itself isn’t meant to be read as a sealed unit. We’re talking about the entire biblical narrative, from creation to fall to redemption to restoration. Any reading of Genesis that ignores how later Scripture interprets creation is already incomplete.

Sure. And that's why with things like my word study, I referenced the Hebrew terms across the old testament. Again, subdue for example, it's used at least a dozen times in the old testament. And it is always harsh.

You’re right that the Bible is theologically unique, and that uniqueness isn’t always spelled out with explicit footnotes. But it is revealed by trajectory. Death is consistently treated across Scripture as an enemy, a curse, something bound up with sin, and something God intends to undo—not as a morally neutral tool God used to patiently sculpt humanity through billions of years of suffering, predation, extinction, and disease. That’s not just a Genesis claim; it’s a Bible-wide one.

Only under the assumption that the death being referred to, relates to the animal kingdom, which is the assumption that I am asking you to justify, not merely to assert.

Also, I referenced Psalm 104 with God giving lions their prey. The text doesn't say anything about the fall or sin or evil. It just says that God made the creatures in His wisdom, even those that are predators. If the psalmist truly thought that death (particularly in animals) were bad, it would be odd for him to praise the Lord when referencing it.

But again, it's ultimately still a matter of, is the concordist approach to scripture valid? And I would say, the obvious answer is no. Anyone trying to use the Bible to refute something like animal death before the fall is incorrect on multiple counts.

And this is where I find the position deeply problematic, not just exegetically but theologically. The story Scripture tells moves from a world God calls “very good,” through corruption and death, toward a restored creation where, as Isaiah envisions, “they shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain.” That future isn’t described as a radical reversal of how God has always worked—it’s presented as a healing of what went wrong. If violence, killing, and death were always God’s preferred creative tools, then Isaiah’s vision isn’t redemption; it’s contradiction.

Isaiah never says that there wasn't death to begin with. Again, your position is asserted, not actually substantiated by the text or context.

Isaiah also doesn't say that there will be no death either. It says that domesticated animals will be protected from predators. But that's different than an idea in which all animals become immortal or that predators stop existing as a whole. I can protect my pet chickens from predation by building a fence around their coop to keep out foxes and coyotes. That doesn't mean that life becomes immortal or that predators disappear.

So no, I’m not saying Genesis gives us a scientific lecture on animal immortality. I am saying that the idea God intentionally used death and violence as the engine of creation sits very awkwardly—borderline incoherently—with the Bible’s own arc, where death is the problem Christ comes to defeat, not the mechanism God celebrates. At some point, appeals to ANE assumptions and word studies can’t shield us from asking whether the theology actually hangs together.

Same as above.

That’s the issue I’m pressing. Not cakes, not dogs, not modern concordism—but whether the God revealed across Scripture looks like one who creates through death, or one who creates life and then moves to rescue it when death enters the picture.

Same as above.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don’t think this comes down to “moral discomfort,” and I don’t think the burden of proof rests entirely where you’re placing it. ANE background is important, but it doesn’t get to override the internal logic of the biblical text itself. Genesis isn’t just another ANE creation myth; it’s the opening act of a narrative that runs straight through the Fall, the curse, Israel’s story, and ultimately Christ.

Ok, let's talk about internal logic of the text. Genesis never says that there was no death before the fall. "Very good" doesn't mean "immortal" or anything even remotely related. You have to substantiate that, you cannot merely assert it.

You’re right that “very good” by itself isn’t a technical biological claim. But Genesis doesn’t stand alone. Death is later identified as an intruder tied to sin (Genesis 3), an enemy (1 Corinthians 15), and something from which creation itself longs to be freed (Romans 8). That means when we go back to Genesis 1, we’re not reading it in isolation but in light of how Scripture itself interprets creation and what went wrong with it. That’s not anachronism—that’s canonical reading.

Again, your position assumes that the death in question is related to the animal kingdom. Romans and Corinthians are likewise outside of the old testament original context.

You're not using the text to substantiate your position, you're asserting concepts about Genesis not justified by word studies, and you're dragging the text outside of its original context without evidence.

As for the claim that animal death was simply assumed in the ANE, that may be true culturally, but Genesis already breaks with its cultural environment in multiple ways: one God instead of many, creation by speech instead of violence, humans made in God’s image instead of slaves of the gods. So it’s not at all obvious that Genesis must share the ANE assumption that predation and death are intrinsic goods. In fact, the absence of any mention of death, violence, or killing in Genesis 1—paired with plant-based food for both humans and animals—is at least suggestive that something different is being presented.

As you've noted, absence of something is not demonstration that it didn't exist. It's not suggestive at all of animal immortality.

I mowed my lawn last night, it was good.

Did I say anything about animal immortality?

You're asserting, you're not using textual evidence or contextual background.

So I’m not arguing that Genesis explicitly spells out “animal immortality” in modern terms. I’m arguing that the trajectory of the text treats death as a corruption of God’s good order, not a built-in feature of it. If death is later the problem Christ comes to defeat, then allowing it to be foundational to creation raises theological questions that background assumptions alone can’t resolve. At minimum, the issue isn’t settled by saying, “The ANE assumed animal death, therefore Genesis must too.” The text itself deserves more weight than that.

Again, you're asserting, not justifying. The ANE is the cultural background. I'm assuming the default, not arguing in favor of removing the Genesis text from its default.

You can claim that Genesis is unique in this regard, but again, you need to justify that textually, not merely by assertion. And I'm sorry but simply saying "but it was good" isn't textual justification. That's just importing theology into a term that has nothing to do with animal immortality.

I use word studies. I use contextual background.

You are simply asserting your personal theology. And that's not exegesis, that's eisegesis.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think you’re overplaying the lexical argument by treating usage patterns as if they determine meaning in every context rather than inform it. Kabash is often forceful, but the fact that all other uses occur after the Fall, in political or military settings, already limits how much weight that carries when we’re reading a pre-Fall creation narrative. There's no other "pre-fall" context to compare it with. So saying “every attested use is violent” is accurate, but it doesn’t settle the question of what the verb means when there is no enemy, no rebellion, and no threat being subdued. That’s not special pleading; it’s acknowledging a genuinely unique narrative setting.

Your response has this theological assumption that there was no death before the fall, and it is carrying your argument. But youre not addressing the fact that that theological position itself is not substantiated by the text.

You can't use your theology to circumvent my textual evidence. Especially, and this is very important, if your theology additionally is not in line with contextual background of the old testament.

It is a recipe for disaster.

If you had the contextual background on your side, it would be a justified effort. If you had word studies on your side, it would be a justified effort.

But here, you have neither, and you're denying both. And that is an issue.

And you're confused about why God would command mankind to subdue creation.

Well, on earth as it is in heaven. God just subdued the waters of chaos. Mankind is simply carrying out the mission in accordance with what God has just done at a cosmic scale. The ultimate point being that "very good" is in relation to things like the establishment of order of the cosmos. It's not about whether or not there was death. Textually and contextually, the idea of immortal animals in the garden is completely alien to the Bible.

 

[Job 33:6]

@Mercy Shown
Isaiah also doesn't say that there will be no death either. It says that domesticated animals will be protected from predators. But that's different than an idea in which all animals become immortal or that predators stop existing as a whole. I can protect my pet chickens from predation by building a fence around their coop to keep out foxes and coyotes. That doesn't mean that life becomes immortal or that predators disappear.

Isaiah 11:6-8 ESV
[6] The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them. [7] The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. [8] The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den.

The lamb, the young goat, the calf, the child, the cow.

These are domesticated. Of the human domain. It's not saying that lions won't eat gazelle or that bears won't eat fish. It's saying that lions won't break into your camp and eat your livestock. You will be blessed.

There are just a lot of assumptions built into this. That the future will reflect the past. That this says anything about the animal kingdom in any concordist nature. That the animals involved so extend beyond protections of those domesticated of the human domain, among others.

It's just a very ambiguous text. It's also poetic in nature and uses a lot of figurative language. Which further complicates how we can extrapolate this to the animal kingdom of earth history.

I think that Romans 5 could make a stronger case. But then we've left the old testament context. We've applied 5:12 to animals (as opposed to just people), we've added in concordism to extrapolate the text to modern perceptions of the animal kingdom.

It's just very messy theology trying to drag the text in that direction of immortal animals in Eden.

Whereas the alternative, death before the fall, is actually relatively easy to get behind. The word studies align. The contextual background aligns. There isn't a need to force concordism.

My position can be theologically "scary" for some fundamentalist conservatives. But even in theology, as noted with dominant figures like Saint Augustine, the most influential western church theologian in terms of original sin of all time, accepted death before the fall.

My position is therefore superior in terms of text exegesis, historical and cultural contextual background, and still a viable option theologically in terms of more modern church history.

Your interpretation is a viable option in terms of later church history, but it struggles substantially in terms of exegesis and text analysis as well as cultural and contextual background. It's just very anachronistic.

Not that your position isnt possible. But I'd say it's, in my opinion, clearly a weaker position in a variety of ways. Excluding all the issues with actual modern science and strictly in terms of Biblical exegesis.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think this has become more personal than it needs to be. I’m not evaluating your education, demanding accountability, or trying to place myself in a position of authority over you. I don’t know you, and I have no interest in policing your beliefs.


What I’ve been discussing from the beginning is a theological question—what view of God’s character follows from theistic evolution—not you as a person, your credentials, or your spiritual life. Disagreement on that point isn’t an accusation, and it isn’t a demand.


If this conversation feels upsetting or unproductive, I’m genuinely fine with letting it end here. There’s no obligation to continue, and no offense taken if you’d rather disengage.

I’m honestly not sure where “activist evangelical” came from, and no—I didn’t take that as a rhetorical flourish so much as an assumption. I’m not here to get anyone to “burn their diplomas,” and I’m certainly not trying to convert you to any version of Christianity. I’ve been pretty consistent about that. I’m pressing ideas, not credentials.


You’re right about one thing, though: religion does tend to put an edge on conversations, especially when there’s internal tension to manage. I can talk about evolution with atheists all day too, precisely because there’s no need to reconcile it with a theological narrative. The friction shows up when evolution is placed inside a Christian framework, because then questions about death, purpose, and God’s character are unavoidable. Pointing that out isn’t activism—it’s analysis.


And just to be clear, I’m not disputing your education or erudition. I don’t doubt you’ve read widely or thought deeply. But expertise doesn’t insulate a position from critique, just as disagreement isn’t a sign of ignorance or bad faith. If we can keep this about the ideas themselves—without leaning on labels or resumes—I think the conversation stays both sharper and more respectful for everyone involved.

I don’t think that’s a fair characterization, and I want to be clear that I’m not trying to misrepresent you or be disrespectful. If I’ve misunderstood a point you’ve made, I’m open to correction—that’s part of having a real discussion. But dismissing what I’ve said as “trollish” or questioning my motives doesn’t actually move the conversation forward.


If there are specific errors, misrepresentations, or fallacies you see in what I’ve written, I’m happy to address them one by one. That’s how productive dialogue works. Broad accusations about my intent or effort don’t engage the substance of the argument; they shift the focus from ideas to personalities, which isn’t helpful for either of us.


I’m here to discuss the reasoning, the theology, and the implications of the views being presented—not to score points or take shots. If we can keep the exchange centered on the arguments themselves, I think the conversation will be worth continuing.

I get what you’re saying, and I actually agree with your stated axiom more than you might think. None of us knows everything, and none of us has a God’s-eye, systematic grasp of reality. That kind of epistemic humility is healthy. Where we seem to differ is that no one operates without some axioms or starting points—even the claim “no one knows everything” is itself a philosophical axiom. The question isn’t whether we have assumptions, but whether we’re willing to examine them and follow their implications honestly.

I also don’t think the Copernicus quote quite lands where you’re aiming it. Copernicus wasn’t dismissing theological questions; he was pushing back against people misusing Scripture to shut down inquiry they didn’t understand. Fair enough. But in this discussion, I’m not appealing to the Bible to end debate—I’m appealing to the Bible to ask whether certain theological conclusions are coherent with the Christian story being told. That’s a very different move from proof-texting to silence dissent.

To borrow from a philosopher who cared deeply about this tension, Immanuel Kant once said: “Reason must subject itself to criticism in all its undertakings.” That cuts both ways. It applies to naïve biblicism, yes—but it also applies to philosophical frameworks that quietly set boundaries on what kinds of divine action or meaning are allowed before the discussion even begins.

So I’m not asking you to accept my axioms, and I’m not claiming privileged knowledge. I’m asking whether the position you hold, however provisional and open to revision, carries theological consequences that deserve scrutiny. That’s not babbling, and it’s not condemnation—it’s simply taking ideas seriously enough to examine them.

I think the main point between us that you're missing here is that you and I likely disagree on an entire spectrum of philosophical and theological points, and that's why we aren't seeing eye to eye. As for critical examination, I actually identify myself as a Critical Realist and I'm all about applying critical analysis to both evidence on one hand and methodology on the other.

As for the question you posed to another member here, I don't think evolution has much, if any, implication for "God's Character," especially since so little historically or ontologically can actually be clearly dredged from the first 11 chapters of Genesis. In my critical hermeneutic, I neither demythologize the text nor to I attempt to apply deduction for inferences where denotations, connotations and contexts are scant in the text.

Again, there is no 'negative' implication upon God's character with the presence of evolution. If you think there is, maybe you've been listening to too much Alex O'Conner or other atheists since they always seem to harbor most on the Axiological questions pertaining to what they feel are ethical incongruities within the overall theological mystery of God's being and his creation. ........... I have little concern for all of that because it isn't telling one way or another, whether negatively or positively, and to think it is is to import extra meaning where there is none.

If anything, it's just personal angst being put forth as theological necessity where there is none, kind of like in the way in which certain folks in the time of Copernicus up through Galileo thought that a heliocentric model would upend the meaning of the Bible. But in truth, neither a heliocentric model, nor the theory of evolution, do such a thing. It only seems to do so for those with a burdened sensitivity to energy exchanges in the universe and between trophic levels in the environmental ecology. ... an antelope being killed and eaten by lion isn't a moral fragmentation within the world. However, a jealous brother killing another brother, like we see in the story of Cain and Abel, is a symptom of moral fragmentation in God's created moral order. And that is something that should bother us.

 

[Job 33:6]

One more thing that I find funny about this Isaiah argument:

Isaiah 65:25 ESV
[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.

Look no death!

Wait a minute, but a few verses earlier:

Isaiah 65:20 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.
@Mercy Shown @2PhiloVoid

"The young man shall die..." ? But I thought lions would be eating straw and everything would be immortal?

The concordist approach to scripture continues to over-promise and under deliver.

If the future restoration of Isaiah truly reflected the edenic ideal and pre-fall conditions, then we have a problem for the deathless position.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

One more thing that I find funny about this Isaiah argument:

Isaiah 65:25 ESV
[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.

Look no death!

Wait a minute, but a few verses earlier:

Isaiah 65:20 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.
@Mercy Shown @2PhiloVoid

"The young man shall die..." ? But I thought lions would be eating straw and everything would be immortal?

The concordist approach to scripture continues to over-promise and under deliver.

If the future restoration of Isaiah truly reflected the edenic ideal and pre-fall conditions, then we have a problem for the deathless position.

I've long thought the 'deathless' position was contrived by a faulty reading. Even from within the context of the mythos of the Garden of Eden, it seems to me that the fruit from the Tree of Life was reserved for Adam and Eve, not for the animals or the rest of creation to consume (and thereby live forever).

Now, if the book of Revelation has more meaning that we can glean from it at the present moment, then maybe later there will be a new creation of a kind where everything---people, animals, plants, etc. --- completely escape entropy and death. But until we get to that point of fulfillment, none of us can know what the extent or metaphysical nature of the new creation will be, other than the theological idea that God will uphold it in a way He didn't earlier on.

 

[Mercy Shown]

I think the main point between us that you're missing here is that you and I likely disagree on an entire spectrum of philosophical and theological points, and that's why we aren't seeing eye to eye. As for critical examination, I actually identify myself as a Critical Realist and I'm all about applying critical analysis to both evidence on one hand and methodology on the other.

Now I find the interesting because religion is irrational so on what critical realism do you base your belief in a god? It is an honest question asked out of curiosity.

As for the question you posed to another member here, I don't think evolution has much, if any, implication for "God's Character," especially since so little historically or ontologically can actually be clearly dredged from the first 11 chapters of Genesis. In my critical hermeneutic, I neither demythologize the text nor to I attempt to apply deduction for inferences where denotations, connotations and contexts are scant in the text.

So how do you navigate the brutality of evolution and a god who started it all? How can he wash his ands of it. If I start a small fire and it ends up burning a house down am I not culpable?

Again, there is no 'negative' implication upon God's character with the presence of evolution. If you think there is, maybe you've been listening to too much Alex O'Conner or other atheists since they always seem to harbor most on the Axiological questions pertaining to what they feel are ethical incongruities within the overall theological mystery of God's being and his creation. ........... I have little concern for all of that because it isn't telling one way or another, whether negatively or positively, and to think it is is to import extra meaning where there is none.

Do you think go took a look at all of the predation, starvation, genocide and suffering and throw up his hands saying, " Hey, it's not mine? Lay out your argument that god is not responsible for it.

If anything, it's just personal angst being put forth as theological necessity where there is none, kind of like in the way in which certain folks in the time of Copernicus up through Galileo thought that a heliocentric model would upend the meaning of the Bible. But in truth, neither a heliocentric model, nor the theory of evolution, do such a thing. It only seems to do so for those with a burdened sensitivity to energy exchanges in the universe and between trophic levels in the environmental ecology. ... an antelope being killed and eaten by lion isn't a moral fragmentation within the world. However, a jealous brother killing another brother, like we see in the story of Cain and Abel, is a symptom of moral fragmentation in God's created moral order. And that is something that should bother us.

So you would not stop to help a wounded animal? If god felt that way then why so many commands about how to treat animals kindly? Do you not think that the antelope feels fear and pain?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Now I find the interesting because religion is irrational ..............

Ok. Stop there! I don't think belief in the Christian Faith is irrational. It may not be comprehensively evidenced the way we like, and while I recognize that a partial lack of historical evidences for the validity of the Bible is an intellectual challenge, this doesn't mean that belief in its essential, historicized theological truths is a completely non-rational project. As Blaise Pascal once averred, there's enough there for those who think they can believe to do so, and enough missing that those who don't want to believe can do so as well.

As for Critical Realism as a form of epistemological and hermeneutical engagement with history, science and religion, I'll just say that I'm not fond of relying on the idea of Strong Foundationalism to get a point across nor to "build" a Cartesian edifice of deduction. At best, my Critical Realism tends more toward a form of Weak Foundationalism or Coherentism, with Abduction used to weigh epistemological analyses over Deduction or mere Induction. At the same time, I'm prone to incorporating some consideration from Natural Epistemology, Philosophical Hermeneutics, and maybe a small bit of Thomistic Scholasticism, all condense and juxtaposed within my Critical Realism.

But here's a quick AI rundown of what Critical Realism means at the most basic level, and I tag a short video at the end by Jenz Zimmerman, who is a Christian and a Philosophical Hermeneuticist to explain some other details that, by and large, are appropriated by me in my engagement with both Science, even Evolutionary Science, and the Bible:

Critical realism is a philosophical approach that emphasizes understanding the underlying mechanisms of reality, particularly in social sciences. Emergence, within this framework, refers to how complex systems exhibit properties that are not present in their individual components, highlighting the importance of context and interaction in understanding social phenomena.
Wikipedia

Understanding Critical Realism and Emergence​

What is Critical Realism?​

Critical realism is a philosophical approach that emphasizes the existence of a reality independent of our perceptions. It argues that our understanding of the world is shaped by social contexts and structures. This perspective allows for a stratified view of reality, where different layers of existence interact.​

The Concept of Emergence​

Emergence refers to the phenomenon where complex systems exhibit properties or behaviors that are not present in their individual components. In philosophy and systems theory, emergence is crucial for understanding how higher-level phenomena arise from lower-level interactions.​

Emergence in Critical Realism​

In critical realism, emergence plays a significant role. It helps explain how social structures and systems can influence individual actions and vice versa. The concept of contextual emergence is proposed as a way to address challenges posed by reductionist views, which argue that complex phenomena can be fully explained by their simpler parts.​

Key Points of Contextual Emergence​

• Downward Causation: Contextual emergence allows for higher-level phenomena to influence lower-level components, providing a more comprehensive understanding of causation.
• Robust Alternative: This approach overcomes limitations of traditional emergence theories, offering a better justification for the stratified nature of reality in critical realism.
• Interconnectedness: It emphasizes the importance of context in understanding how different levels of reality interact and produce emergent properties.

By integrating emergence into critical realism, researchers can better analyze complex social phenomena and their underlying structures.​

The University of Manchester Wikipedia



***********************************************************

And via this mode of Realism, I critically explore and examine the wide epistemic fields by which we might make heads for tails out of whether the Biblical corpus, in its diverse genres of ancient, foreign literature, has something in it by which we each come to a point where we answer the final question: "But, who do you say that I am ?"

As for the presence of Entropy in God's created order, it's just Physics, and where lions eat antelope, this is also entropy on an organic level. It's bothersome, yes; but entropy within the natural order is how it's been for nearly 14 billion years. Not even the Garden of Eden scenario implies an exemption from this being that in order for Adam and Eve to 'live forever,' they had to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Life as it was provisioned to them (and as far as I can tell, ONLY to them).

But hey, let's bring in a bite of Thomistic Scholasticism and hear what Prof. Karin Öberg has to say to contribute some further coherence:

 

[The Barbarian]

I would say, some people have motives for wanting them to be compatible but they are not. Evolution and creationism are not just different models talking past each other; they make competing claims about origins, causation, and meaning.

No. Creationism, for example, is about the way life began. Which is not something evolutionary theory is about.

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).

Biblical creation, by contrast, presents life as the result of intentional, purposeful acts of God, culminating in a good creation where death is not the starting point but the problem to be solved.

Here, you're just assuming that God isn't able to use contingency to effect His will.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Ok. Stop there! I don't think belief in the Christian Faith is irrational. It may not be comprehensively evidenced the way we like, and while I recognize that a partial lack of historical evidences for the validity of the Bible is an intellectual challenge, this doesn't mean that belief in its essential, historicized theological truths is a completely non-rational project. As Blaise Pascal once averred, there's enough there for those who think they can believe to do so, and enough missing that those who don't want to believe can do so as well.

Well then enlighten me? What is rational about it. You discount a 7 day creation because it is not rational. What is rational about the virgin birth? What is rational about the resurrection?

As for Critical Realism as a form of epistemological and hermeneutical engagement with history, science and religion, I'll just say that I'm not fond of relying on the idea of Strong Foundationalism to get a point across nor to "build" a Cartesian edifice of deduction. At best, my Critical Realism tends more toward a form of Weak Foundationalism or Coherentism, with Abduction used to weigh epistemological analyses over Deduction or mere Induction. At the same time, I'm prone to incorporating some consideration from Natural Epistemology, Philosophical Hermeneutics, and maybe a small bit of Thomistic Scholasticism, all condense and juxtaposed within my Critical Realism.

But here's a quick AI rundown of what Critical Realism means at the most basic level, and I tag a short video at the end by Jenz Zimmerman, who is a Christian and a Philosophical Hermeneuticist to explain some other details that, by and large, are appropriated by me in my engagement with both Science, even Evolutionary Science, and the Bible:

Critical realism is a philosophical approach that emphasizes understanding the underlying mechanisms of reality, particularly in social sciences. Emergence, within this framework, refers to how complex systems exhibit properties that are not present in their individual components, highlighting the importance of context and interaction in understanding social phenomena.
Wikipedia

Understanding Critical Realism and Emergence​

What is Critical Realism?​

Critical realism is a philosophical approach that emphasizes the existence of a reality independent of our perceptions. It argues that our understanding of the world is shaped by social contexts and structures. This perspective allows for a stratified view of reality, where different layers of existence interact.​

The Concept of Emergence​

Emergence refers to the phenomenon where complex systems exhibit properties or behaviors that are not present in their individual components. In philosophy and systems theory, emergence is crucial for understanding how higher-level phenomena arise from lower-level interactions.​

Emergence in Critical Realism​

In critical realism, emergence plays a significant role. It helps explain how social structures and systems can influence individual actions and vice versa. The concept of contextual emergence is proposed as a way to address challenges posed by reductionist views, which argue that complex phenomena can be fully explained by their simpler parts.​

Key Points of Contextual Emergence​

• Downward Causation: Contextual emergence allows for higher-level phenomena to influence lower-level components, providing a more comprehensive understanding of causation.
• Robust Alternative: This approach overcomes limitations of traditional emergence theories, offering a better justification for the stratified nature of reality in critical realism.
• Interconnectedness: It emphasizes the importance of context in understanding how different levels of reality interact and produce emergent properties.

By integrating emergence into critical realism, researchers can better analyze complex social phenomena and their underlying structures.​

The University of Manchester Wikipedia



***********************************************************

And via this mode of Realism, I critically explore and examine the wide epistemic fields by which we might make heads for tails out of whether the Biblical corpus, in its diverse genres of ancient, foreign literature, has something in it by which we each come to a point where we answer the final question: "But, who do you say that I am ?"

As for the presence of Entropy in God's created order, it's just Physics, and where lions eat antelope, this is also entropy on an organic level. It's bothersome, yes; but entropy within the natural order is how it's been for nearly 14 billion years. Not even the Garden of Eden scenario implies an exemption from this being that in order for Adam and Eve to 'live forever,' they had to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Life as it was provisioned to them (and as far as I can tell, ONLY to them).

But hey, let's bring in a bite of Thomistic Scholasticism and hear what Prof. Karin Öberg has to say to contribute some further coherence:

 

[Mercy Shown]

@Mercy Shown
Isaiah also doesn't say that there will be no death either. It says that domesticated animals will be protected from predators. But that's different than an idea in which all animals become immortal or that predators stop existing as a whole. I can protect my pet chickens from predation by building a fence around their coop to keep out foxes and coyotes. That doesn't mean that life becomes immortal or that predators disappear.

Isaiah 11:6-8 ESV
[6] The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them. [7] The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. [8] The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den.

The lamb, the young goat, the calf, the child, the cow.

These are domesticated. Of the human domain. It's not saying that lions won't eat gazelle or that bears won't eat fish. It's saying that lions won't break into your camp and eat your livestock. You will be blessed.

There are just a lot of assumptions built into this. That the future will reflect the past. That this says anything about the animal kingdom in any concordist nature. That the animals involved so extend beyond protections of those domesticated of the human domain, among others.

It's just a very ambiguous text. It's also poetic in nature and uses a lot of figurative language. Which further complicates how we can extrapolate this to the animal kingdom of earth history.

I think that Romans 5 could make a stronger case. But then we've left the old testament context. We've applied 5:12 to animals (as opposed to just people), we've added in concordism to extrapolate the text to modern perceptions of the animal kingdom.

It's just very messy theology trying to drag the text in that direction of immortal animals in Eden.

Whereas the alternative, death before the fall, is actually relatively easy to get behind. The word studies align. The contextual background aligns. There isn't a need to force concordism.

My position can be theologically "scary" for some fundamentalist conservatives. But even in theology, as noted with dominant figures like Saint Augustine, the most influential western church theologian in terms of original sin of all time, accepted death before the fall.

My position is therefore superior in terms of text exegesis, historical and cultural contextual background, and still a viable option theologically in terms of more modern church history.

Your interpretation is a viable option in terms of later church history, but it struggles substantially in terms of exegesis and text analysis as well as cultural and contextual background. It's just very anachronistic.

Not that your position isnt possible. But I'd say it's, in my opinion, clearly a weaker position in a variety of ways. Excluding all the issues with actual modern science and strictly in terms of Biblical exegesis.

Isaiah is poetic and not a biology lesson, but poetry still communicates real meaning. When Isaiah describes wolves and lambs living together, lions eating straw, and children safely playing near snakes, the point isn’t better livestock management or improved human security. A lion doesn’t stop eating meat because of a fence. It stops because violence itself is gone. These images aren’t about predators being kept out of camps; they’re about danger and harm no longer existing at all.

And that leads to a simple question I don’t think you’ve really answered: what do you think “they shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain” actually means if not the removal of death and violence? If animals are still killing animals as they always have, then “not hurting or destroying” becomes a very limited and selective claim. At that point, the language loses most of its force. If killing and consuming a creature is not destroying it, then what is?

You’re correct that Isaiah doesn’t explicitly say “all animals are immortal,” but neither does it support the idea that God’s good future still runs on bloodshed. The Bible consistently presents the future as a restoration of what was lost, not a contradiction of how God has always worked. If death and predation were always part of God’s good design, then Isaiah isn’t describing healing—he’s describing God changing His own method.

That’s why Romans 5 and the rest of Scripture matter here. Death is treated as an enemy, something that entered, something creation groans under, and something Christ came to defeat. I’m not forcing modern science into the text; I’m asking whether the story the Bible tells about death actually makes sense if death was never a problem to begin with.

So again, this isn’t about whether death before the Fall is possible. It’s about coherence. If “nothing shall hurt or destroy” doesn’t mean the end of death and violence, then what does it mean—and why does the Bible speak of death as something to be overcome rather than embraced?

At this point, I think the repeated charge of “concordism” is doing more to shut the discussion down than to clarify it. I’m not asking Genesis or Isaiah to line up with modern science, nor am I trying to smuggle biology into ancient texts. I’m asking whether the Bible’s own story about creation, corruption, death, and restoration actually hangs together. That isn’t concordism—it’s basic theological coherence. Appealing to ANE background or word studies is helpful, but when those tools are used to insulate a conclusion from the Bible’s wider witness, they stop being aids and start being filters. If every appeal to the rest of Scripture is dismissed as concordism by definition, then the conversation can never move forward, because the Bible is no longer allowed to interpret itself.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Your response has this theological assumption that there was no death before the fall, and it is carrying your argument. But youre not addressing the fact that that theological position itself is not substantiated by the text.

You can't use your theology to circumvent my textual evidence. Especially, and this is very important, if your theology additionally is not in line with contextual background of the old testament.

It is a recipe for disaster.

If you had the contextual background on your side, it would be a justified effort. If you had word studies on your side, it would be a justified effort.

But here, you have neither, and you're denying both. And that is an issue.

And you're confused about why God would command mankind to subdue creation.

Well, on earth as it is in heaven. God just subdued the waters of chaos. Mankind is simply carrying out the mission in accordance with what God has just done at a cosmic scale. The ultimate point being that "very good" is in relation to things like the establishment of order of the cosmos. It's not about whether or not there was death. Textually and contextually, the idea of immortal animals in the garden is completely alien to the Bible.

I don’t think I’m using theology to circumvent your textual evidence so much as refusing to let lexical data alone carry more weight than it can bear. Usage patterns inform meaning, yes—but they don’t exhaust it, especially when we’re dealing with a narrative context that is, by definition, unique. Genesis 1 isn’t just “another ANE text,” and it isn’t describing a normal political or military situation. So pointing out that kabash is violent everywhere else doesn’t settle what it means when there is no enemy, no resistance, and no hint in the text itself of conflict or bloodshed. That’s not me denying the word study; it’s me saying the word study can’t do all the work by itself.

And I don’t think it’s fair to say my position is just “theology carrying the argument” while yours is purely textual. Everyone here is doing theology. Saying “very good” refers only to cosmic order and not to life, death, or violence is itself a theological conclusion, not something the text explicitly limits it to. Likewise, saying animal mortality is simply assumed because of ANE background is also a theological judgment about what Genesis must mean. The difference is that I’m trying to read Genesis in light of the Bible’s larger storyline, where death is later treated as an enemy, a curse, and something creation needs to be rescued from—not merely a neutral feature of order.

As for subduing the waters of chaos, I agree that Genesis presents God bringing order. But again, ordering chaos doesn’t require killing. God speaks, separates, names, and blesses—He doesn’t battle monsters or shed blood the way many ANE myths do. That’s actually one of the ways Genesis does break from its cultural background. So when humans are told to “subdue,” it makes sense to read that as participating in God’s ordering work, not as introducing violence into a world that the text has otherwise presented as peaceful and life-giving.

So I don’t think the idea of a deathless original creation is “alien” to the Bible just because it isn’t spelled out in modern terms. It emerges from how Scripture consistently treats death—as something that enters, corrupts, enslaves, and ultimately must be undone. You’re right that the text doesn’t shout “immortal animals.” But I think it’s at least as problematic to insist that death was always there and morally unremarkable, when the rest of the biblical story goes out of its way to say the opposite.

Ok, let's talk about internal logic of the text. Genesis never says that there was no death before the fall. "Very good" doesn't mean "immortal" or anything even remotely related. You have to substantiate that, you cannot merely assert it.


Again, your position assumes that the death in question is related to the animal kingdom. Romans and Corinthians are likewise outside of the old testament original context.

You're not using the text to substantiate your position, you're asserting concepts about Genesis not justified by word studies, and you're dragging the text outside of its original context without evidence.


As you've noted, absence of something is not demonstration that it didn't exist. It's not suggestive at all of animal immortality.

I mowed my lawn last night, it was good.

Did I say anything about animal immortality?

You're asserting, you're not using textual evidence or contextual background.


Again, you're asserting, not justifying. The ANE is the cultural background. I'm assuming the default, not arguing in favor of removing the Genesis text from its default.

You can claim that Genesis is unique in this regard, but again, you need to justify that textually, not merely by assertion. And I'm sorry but simply saying "but it was good" isn't textual justification. That's just importing theology into a term that has nothing to do with animal immortality.

I use word studies. I use contextual background.

You are simply asserting your personal theology. And that's not exegesis, that's eisegesis.

I think you’re framing the issue in a way that quietly stacks the deck. You keep saying I’m “asserting” while you’re simply “assuming the default,” but assuming the default is itself a theological move. The ANE background isn’t the text; it’s a comparative lens. It can inform our reading, but it doesn’t get to decide in advance what Genesis must mean, especially when Genesis already departs from that background in major ways.

Genesis never explicitly says, “There was no animal death before the Fall.” I’ve never claimed it does. But Genesis also never says there was animal death, and that’s where your argument overreaches. You’re treating ANE assumptions as though they automatically fill in the silence of the text. Silence cuts both ways. The question is which reading best fits the internal logic of Genesis and the story it begins.

And that internal logic matters. Genesis 1 presents life being created, blessed, and sustained. Food is given as plants. Violence, killing, bloodshed, and death are entirely absent from the narrative until after human rebellion. Then—only then—do we see curses, frustration, thorns, pain, and eventual return to dust. That’s not proof-texting; it’s narrative structure. You can say “absence proves nothing,” but narrative sequencing absolutely communicates meaning.

On Romans and Corinthians: I’m not “dragging” Genesis outside its context. I’m letting later Scripture interpret earlier Scripture, which is how the Bible itself works. Paul isn’t inventing a new theology of death; he’s reading Genesis as a story where something went wrong and needs to be undone. If you bracket off the rest of Scripture every time it becomes inconvenient, you’re no longer asking what the Bible teaches—you’re asking what Genesis can be made to say if isolated from its own reception history.

As for word studies, I don’t reject them—I just don’t absolutize them. Lexical data tells us what words can mean in various settings, not what they must mean in every setting. A unique, pre-Fall creation narrative is precisely the kind of context where meaning cannot be settled by later political or military usage alone. That’s not eisegesis; it’s literary sensitivity.

So no, I’m not arguing “very good = immortal animals.” That’s a strawman. I’m arguing that reading death as a built-in, morally neutral feature of God’s good creation creates tension with the narrative flow of Genesis and the rest of Scripture, where death is treated as a problem, an enemy, and something to be overcome. You may still think the ANE default wins the day—but let’s be honest that that, too, is a theological judgment, not a neutral one.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Sure. And that's why with things like my word study, I referenced the Hebrew terms across the old testament. Again, subdue for example, it's used at least a dozen times in the old testament. And it is always harsh.


Only under the assumption that the death being referred to, relates to the animal kingdom, which is the assumption that I am asking you to justify, not merely to assert.

Also, I referenced Psalm 104 with God giving lions their prey. The text doesn't say anything about the fall or sin or evil. It just says that God made the creatures in His wisdom, even those that are predators. If the psalmist truly thought that death (particularly in animals) were bad, it would be odd for him to praise the Lord when referencing it.

But again, it's ultimately still a matter of, is the concordist approach to scripture valid? And I would say, the obvious answer is no. Anyone trying to use the Bible to refute something like animal death before the fall is incorrect on multiple counts.


Isaiah never says that there wasn't death to begin with. Again, your position is asserted, not actually substantiated by the text or context.

Isaiah also doesn't say that there will be no death either. It says that domesticated animals will be protected from predators. But that's different than an idea in which all animals become immortal or that predators stop existing as a whole. I can protect my pet chickens from predation by building a fence around their coop to keep out foxes and coyotes. That doesn't mean that life becomes immortal or that predators disappear.


Same as above.

Same as above.

I think you’re still collapsing several distinct issues into one and then treating the conclusion as if it’s already been established.

First, on kabash: yes, its other uses are forceful. No one is disputing that. The question is whether usage patterns in post-Fall, political, and military contexts can be determinative for a pre-Fall, cosmic-ordering narrative. Saying “it is always harsh elsewhere” is descriptive, not decisive. There is no other pre-Fall context to compare it to, so lexical data can inform the range of meaning, but it cannot settle how the term functions in a setting where there is no rebellion, no enemy, and no moral disorder. Treating lexical frequency as if it overrides narrative context is simply a category mistake.

Second, you keep insisting that the only way my position works is if one assumes animal death is in view. But that cuts both ways. Your position assumes that animal death is morally and theologically neutral in Genesis, and that assumption is doing real work for you. Genesis 1–3 never states that animals were mortal in the sense you’re proposing either. So appeals to “silence” don’t favor one position over the other; they just show that Genesis is not trying to give a biology lesson.

Psalm 104 doesn’t solve this problem. It’s a hymn about God’s present providence over the world as it exists now. It is not a commentary on Eden, origins, or the moral status of death. The psalmist praising God for sustaining predators in the current order does not tell us whether that order is identical to the original creation or whether it includes accommodations to a fallen world. That’s an inference you’re making, not something the text states.

Isaiah is similar. You’re right that it doesn’t explicitly say “there will be no death,” but neither does it read like a mere chicken-coop fence analogy. “Nothing shall hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain” is a comprehensive theological claim about the character of God’s restored rule, not simply livestock protection. If you think that phrase does not imply the removal of death or violence, then you need to explain what “destroy” means there and why it should be read so minimally. Simply calling it “ambiguous” avoids the interpretive work.

Which brings us to concordism. Framing this as “Bible vs. science” or “using Scripture to refute animal death before the Fall” is a distraction. The issue is not modern biology; it’s the Bible’s own theological arc. Scripture consistently treats death as an enemy, an intruder, something to be overcome—not as a creative tool God celebrates. You can argue that this language applies only to humans, but that limitation itself has to be argued, not assumed.

So at bottom, the disagreement isn’t that one side is using word studies and the other isn’t. It’s that you’re privileging ANE background and lexical data in a way that flattens the Bible’s internal theology, while accusing the other side of “assertion” for taking that theology seriously across the canon. Context matters—but which context matters most is precisely the point under debate.

We are getting to the bottom of the bucket and are beginning to rehash old arguments.

 

[Mercy Shown]

You baby boomers are always so assured of yourselves. What are your academic credentials by the way? I need to know what sort of 'other mind' I'm talking to.

While I'm at it, you've made the mistake of assuming that I have incorporated evolution INTO my theology. I have not. My position is non-concordist. In other words, as Gould would have said, I keep my theology and my geological and biological science separate from each other.

The Bible is mainly prophetic and literary in essence, whereas our human sciences are not. They each do different things and for different reasons. I do not synthesize them. Why you would assume I do without asking me first, I have no idea.

But go ahead, keep multiplying words without actually digging in with full analytic discernment.

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.

 

[Mercy Shown]

No. Creationism, for example, is about the way life began. Which is not something evolutionary theory is about.

You know better than that. If creationism were merely about how life began, there wouldn’t be a finished creation at the end—Genesis presents a fully formed, ordered, and blessed world, not just a starting point.

“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?

 

[Job 33:6]

Isaiah is poetic and not a biology lesson, but poetry still communicates real meaning. When Isaiah describes wolves and lambs living together, lions eating straw, and children safely playing near snakes, the point isn’t better livestock management or improved human security. A lion doesn’t stop eating meat because of a fence. It stops because violence itself is gone. These images aren’t about predators being kept out of camps; they’re about danger and harm no longer existing at all.

And that leads to a simple question I don’t think you’ve really answered: what do you think “they shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain” actually means if not the removal of death and violence? If animals are still killing animals as they always have, then “not hurting or destroying” becomes a very limited and selective claim. At that point, the language loses most of its force. If killing and consuming a creature is not destroying it, then what is?

You’re correct that Isaiah doesn’t explicitly say “all animals are immortal,” but neither does it support the idea that God’s good future still runs on bloodshed. The Bible consistently presents the future as a restoration of what was lost, not a contradiction of how God has always worked. If death and predation were always part of God’s good design, then Isaiah isn’t describing healing—he’s describing God changing His own method.

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.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think you’re still collapsing several distinct issues into one and then treating the conclusion as if it’s already been established.

First, on kabash: yes, its other uses are forceful. No one is disputing that. The question is whether usage patterns in post-Fall, political, and military contexts can be determinative for a pre-Fall, cosmic-ordering narrative. Saying “it is always harsh elsewhere” is descriptive, not decisive. There is no other pre-Fall context to compare it to, so lexical data can inform the range of meaning, but it cannot settle how the term functions in a setting where there is no rebellion, no enemy, and no moral disorder. Treating lexical frequency as if it overrides narrative context is simply a category mistake.

Second, you keep insisting that the only way my position works is if one assumes animal death is in view. But that cuts both ways. Your position assumes that animal death is morally and theologically neutral in Genesis, and that assumption is doing real work for you. Genesis 1–3 never states that animals were mortal in the sense you’re proposing either. So appeals to “silence” don’t favor one position over the other; they just show that Genesis is not trying to give a biology lesson.

Psalm 104 doesn’t solve this problem. It’s a hymn about God’s present providence over the world as it exists now. It is not a commentary on Eden, origins, or the moral status of death. The psalmist praising God for sustaining predators in the current order does not tell us whether that order is identical to the original creation or whether it includes accommodations to a fallen world. That’s an inference you’re making, not something the text states.

Isaiah is similar. You’re right that it doesn’t explicitly say “there will be no death,” but neither does it read like a mere chicken-coop fence analogy. “Nothing shall hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain” is a comprehensive theological claim about the character of God’s restored rule, not simply livestock protection. If you think that phrase does not imply the removal of death or violence, then you need to explain what “destroy” means there and why it should be read so minimally. Simply calling it “ambiguous” avoids the interpretive work.

Which brings us to concordism. Framing this as “Bible vs. science” or “using Scripture to refute animal death before the Fall” is a distraction. The issue is not modern biology; it’s the Bible’s own theological arc. Scripture consistently treats death as an enemy, an intruder, something to be overcome—not as a creative tool God celebrates. You can argue that this language applies only to humans, but that limitation itself has to be argued, not assumed.

So at bottom, the disagreement isn’t that one side is using word studies and the other isn’t. It’s that you’re privileging ANE background and lexical data in a way that flattens the Bible’s internal theology, while accusing the other side of “assertion” for taking that theology seriously across the canon. Context matters—but which context matters most is precisely the point under debate.

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.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don’t think I’m using theology to circumvent your textual evidence so much as refusing to let lexical data alone carry more weight than it can bear. Usage patterns inform meaning, yes—but they don’t exhaust it, especially when we’re dealing with a narrative context that is, by definition, unique. Genesis 1 isn’t just “another ANE text,” and it isn’t describing a normal political or military situation. So pointing out that kabash is violent everywhere else doesn’t settle what it means when there is no enemy, no resistance, and no hint in the text itself of conflict or bloodshed. That’s not me denying the word study; it’s me saying the word study can’t do all the work by itself.

And I don’t think it’s fair to say my position is just “theology carrying the argument” while yours is purely textual. Everyone here is doing theology. Saying “very good” refers only to cosmic order and not to life, death, or violence is itself a theological conclusion, not something the text explicitly limits it to. Likewise, saying animal mortality is simply assumed because of ANE background is also a theological judgment about what Genesis must mean. The difference is that I’m trying to read Genesis in light of the Bible’s larger storyline, where death is later treated as an enemy, a curse, and something creation needs to be rescued from—not merely a neutral feature of order.

As for subduing the waters of chaos, I agree that Genesis presents God bringing order. But again, ordering chaos doesn’t require killing. God speaks, separates, names, and blesses—He doesn’t battle monsters or shed blood the way many ANE myths do. That’s actually one of the ways Genesis does break from its cultural background. So when humans are told to “subdue,” it makes sense to read that as participating in God’s ordering work, not as introducing violence into a world that the text has otherwise presented as peaceful and life-giving.

So I don’t think the idea of a deathless original creation is “alien” to the Bible just because it isn’t spelled out in modern terms. It emerges from how Scripture consistently treats death—as something that enters, corrupts, enslaves, and ultimately must be undone. You’re right that the text doesn’t shout “immortal animals.” But I think it’s at least as problematic to insist that death was always there and morally unremarkable, when the rest of the biblical story goes out of its way to say the opposite.

I think you’re framing the issue in a way that quietly stacks the deck. You keep saying I’m “asserting” while you’re simply “assuming the default,” but assuming the default is itself a theological move. The ANE background isn’t the text; it’s a comparative lens. It can inform our reading, but it doesn’t get to decide in advance what Genesis must mean, especially when Genesis already departs from that background in major ways.

Genesis never explicitly says, “There was no animal death before the Fall.” I’ve never claimed it does. But Genesis also never says there was animal death, and that’s where your argument overreaches. You’re treating ANE assumptions as though they automatically fill in the silence of the text. Silence cuts both ways. The question is which reading best fits the internal logic of Genesis and the story it begins.

And that internal logic matters. Genesis 1 presents life being created, blessed, and sustained. Food is given as plants. Violence, killing, bloodshed, and death are entirely absent from the narrative until after human rebellion. Then—only then—do we see curses, frustration, thorns, pain, and eventual return to dust. That’s not proof-texting; it’s narrative structure. You can say “absence proves nothing,” but narrative sequencing absolutely communicates meaning.

On Romans and Corinthians: I’m not “dragging” Genesis outside its context. I’m letting later Scripture interpret earlier Scripture, which is how the Bible itself works. Paul isn’t inventing a new theology of death; he’s reading Genesis as a story where something went wrong and needs to be undone. If you bracket off the rest of Scripture every time it becomes inconvenient, you’re no longer asking what the Bible teaches—you’re asking what Genesis can be made to say if isolated from its own reception history.

As for word studies, I don’t reject them—I just don’t absolutize them. Lexical data tells us what words can mean in various settings, not what they must mean in every setting. A unique, pre-Fall creation narrative is precisely the kind of context where meaning cannot be settled by later political or military usage alone. That’s not eisegesis; it’s literary sensitivity.

So no, I’m not arguing “very good = immortal animals.” That’s a strawman. I’m arguing that reading death as a built-in, morally neutral feature of God’s good creation creates tension with the narrative flow of Genesis and the rest of Scripture, where death is treated as a problem, an enemy, and something to be overcome. You may still think the ANE default wins the day—but let’s be honest that that, too, is a theological judgment, not a neutral one.

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.

 

[Job 33:6]

We are getting to the bottom of the bucket and are beginning to rehash old arguments.

I'll give an example of why contextual background breaks the tie in circumstances of textual ambiguity.

Imagine an elephant drinking from a pond, and someone 2,000 years ago wrote on a piece of paper, “There is water in its trunk,” and stored it in a cave.

Now, a modern person comes along, sees a car trunk full of water, finds the ancient note, and exclaims, “See! The trunk has water!”

Without additional evidence, it’s obvious that the original author was talking about an elephant, not a car. The modern context cannot overwrite the historical meaning.

Similarly, if the biblical text is ambiguous about death or predation, the original cultural and historical context takes priority. You cannot justifiably claim the text is describing something the original audience wouldn’t have understood or intended, otherwise the interpretation is being imposed on the text, not derived from it.

And that's why if you want to argue that the text breaks from its historical background (that it is referring to a car trunk), you need explicit evidence for that separation from its contextual background and cultural default. And not merely in theological matters related to monotheism, but explicitly about this topic.

And here’s the kicker: if you cannot ground the text in its original context, then the Bible loses its meaning, because anyone at any future generation could just re-invent the meaning of the text. They could say it’s about water in a car trunk, water in a tree trunk, or water in whatever trunk they want to believe in. If you untether the text from its original context (the elephant), you destroy its meaning, unless you can clearly substantiate that break from the context in the Biblical text itself. And that of course is a recipe for schism and theological dispute, hence why we are here today having this discussion.

And that's why it's just not sufficient to say "well Genesis says that it was very good, so I guess that means that life was immortal before the fall".

And here is a summary from AI on my side of the table:
"if he cannot provide that textual evidence, his argument fails to meet the burden of proof. The text doesn’t automatically support his inference; it remains ambiguous. In such cases, the default interpretation grounded in context wins by principle — it’s the most rational and justifiable approach, and avoids projecting ideas onto the text that weren’t there for the original audience.

Effectively, if he ignores context without evidence, he’s left with a theological or personal reading rather than a textually grounded one — which is exactly why we debate these things."

And regarding evidence, we have Isaiah which includes death eg. 65:20-25, we have "very good" in Genesis which is completely ambiguous and has nothing to do with whether or not animals die. And we have Romans 5,

Romans 5:12-14 ESV
[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— [13] for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

Death spread to all men because all sinned (debatable if it is spiritual death), additionally says nothing about animals, would additionally sound unusual if it reigned from Adam to Moses, as if physical death stopped reigning at Moses.

The book of Romans isn't even from the same century as Genesis, it was written perhaps a thousand years later. It is way out-of-context.

There are just so many issues with trying to use these passages as evidence for animal immortality before the fall.

And do you know what happens when the church ignores historical and cultural context of the Bible? We end up divided over how to determine which interpretation is correct, because we don't have a way to ground our interpretation. A tree trunk, an elephant trunk, a car trunk. If the historical contextual background is untethered, no one will know which interpretation is right.

And you know what follows? Science steps in and takes over the discussion anyway. People just turn to atheism and the discussion ends with people leaving the church.

And I guess if that's what YECs want to continue to insist on, then I guess we'll just have to let that play out.