Genesis: Sin and death

[Starforsaken]

For a while I've been trying to find some answers about this. If the story of adam and eve is true, then it would also be true that no one died untill they sinned. If nothing died does that include animals too or just the incest babies and adam and eve themselves? If this genesis story is true, this would also mean dinosaurs with teeth adaptations for killing prey, slicing bone, crushing skull, chasing down prey; all these guys played nice and ate bushes untill the day sin entered the world? What then of the dinobones that have bite marks from other predators on them; are these from after death/sin entered the world? I've seen some really bad arguments by YEC's who say that the bite marks on the bones arent bites but scratches from the global flood waters and acid in the water. If anyone wants to elaborate on that please do.

This is all the kind of stuff that makes me believe the whole adam and eve flood stuff are myths used to demonstrate concepts for people of those ideas to understand.

 

[BrandonGray]

Genesis 1:29-30
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food: 30and to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for food: and it was so.

So god gave us and all beasts plants to eat. I don't see any problem with finding bones with bite marks on them. If your a YEC like me, there was plenty of time from the fall of man until the extinction of dinosaurs to eat each other. I agree with you on the acid thing though, I don't think it happened.

 

[Mallon]

Of course there was death before sin. Eating plants = plant death. The early Hebrews, not knowing any better, didn't think plants were actually alive, so this didn't occur to them.
YECs often make the claim that even T. rex ate plants before the fall, but those big choppers were no good for consuming plant matter. No grinding surface. And we all know that God's creation was "good".
And speaking of bite marks: where are all the dinosaur bite marks left on cow bone, human bone, and rhino bones? We see them all over Triceratops and Edmontosaurus bones.

 

[Starforsaken]

I was a YEC for a long time but I drift further and further away, I could hardly be called one anymore, but I'm not shutting my mind to anything. So then dinosaurs with adaptations for hunting, eating flesh etc just one day started using their sharp teeth for chewing leaves, stems and other vegetation? What of the ones that were built with the speed to run fast when all they would be doing was.... chasing down some plants?

 

[Jadis40]

I was a YEC for a long time but I drift further and further away, I could hardly be called one anymore, but I'm not shutting my mind to anything. So then dinosaurs with adaptations for hunting, eating flesh etc just one day started using their sharp teeth for chewing leaves, stems and other vegetation? What of the ones that were built with the speed to run fast when all they would be doing was.... chasing down some plants?

This is one of the biggest problems I see with YEC. It doesn't make any logical sense that one day animals were vegetarians, then suddenly they were re-wired to be carnivores. I believe that God, from the very beginning, designed specific animals, like the tiger, the lion, the jaguar, the shark, the hawks, eagles to be predators.

I also believe that some dinosaurs, who lived millions of years before mankind, were also predators.

 

[shernren]

I'll derail this thread a little bit to respond to some stuff that has been brought up here: PreFlood Animal Diet

I'll take this as a starting point:

Amen. My careful reading of scripture makes it clear in my mind that there was no animal suffering and death before the fall. This is an important fact that is stated in the Bible and if you don't understand this you end up thinking God created a world full of cancer and other terrible things from the very start.

and look at the book of Job and what it states concerning the problem of theodicy.

I don't have to repeat the story. Job was a righteous, God-fearing man who in one fell swoop lost his children, his riches, and (a little later) his health. At first his friends were content to console him in silence for seven days. But when he roused a lament cursing the day of his birth, those friends of his decided that Job had probably fallen guilty of some sin or other and was in denial. What follows is intense and vivid debate about sin and evil in creation and men's lives.

Let us first note what Job's complaint is. It is important to understanding the book of Job. Job rails that God has been unfair to him, and that God has attacked him.

Job 3:
23 Why is life given to a man
whose way is hidden,
whom God has hedged in?

Job 6:
4 The arrows of the Almighty are in me,
my spirit drinks in their poison;
God's terrors are marshaled against me.

5 Does a wild donkey bray when it has grass,
or an ox bellow when it has fodder?
6 Is tasteless food eaten without salt,
or is there flavor in the white of an egg?
7 I refuse to touch it;
such food makes me ill.
8 "Oh, that I might have my request,
that God would grant what I hope for,
9 that God would be willing to crush me,
to let loose his hand and cut me off! 10 Then I would still have this consolation—
my joy in unrelenting pain—
that I had not denied the words of the Holy One.

In other words, "How can God do this to me?" If you think about it, that is a far stronger cry than that of Charles Templeton (whose apostasy was brought up in the PreFlood thread), who merely protested at the presence of cruelty and evil in the world. Any answer that can satisfy Job and convince Job that God is still good would definitely have satisfied Templeton.

So what do the friends reply?

Eliphaz: (Job 4)

3 Think how you have instructed many,
how you have strengthened feeble hands.

4 Your words have supported those who stumbled;
you have strengthened faltering knees.
5 But now trouble comes to you, and you are discouraged;
it strikes you, and you are dismayed.
6 Should not your piety be your confidence
and your blameless ways your hope?
7 "Consider now: Who, being innocent, has ever perished?
Where were the upright ever destroyed?
8 As I have observed, those who plow evil
and those who sow trouble reap it. 9 At the breath of God they are destroyed;
at the blast of his anger they perish.

Bildad: (Job 8)

3 Does God pervert justice?
Does the Almighty pervert what is right?

4 When your children sinned against him,
he gave them over to the penalty of their sin.
5 But if you will look to God
and plead with the Almighty,
6 if you are pure and upright,
even now he will rouse himself on your behalf
and restore you to your rightful place. 7 Your beginnings will seem humble,
so prosperous will your future be.

Zophar: (Job 11)

10 "If he comes along and confines you in prison
and convenes a court, who can oppose him?

11 Surely he recognizes deceitful men;
and when he sees evil, does he not take note?
12 But a witless man can no more become wise
than a wild donkey's colt can be born a man. [b]
13 "Yet if you devote your heart to him
and stretch out your hands to him,
14 if you put away the sin that is in your hand
and allow no evil to dwell in your tent,
15 then you will lift up your face without shame;
you will stand firm and without fear.
16 You will surely forget your trouble,
recalling it only as waters gone by.
17 Life will be brighter than noonday,
and darkness will become like morning.
18 You will be secure, because there is hope;
you will look about you and take your rest in safety.
19 You will lie down, with no one to make you afraid,
and many will court your favor. 20 But the eyes of the wicked will fail,
and escape will elude them;
their hope will become a dying gasp."

Elihu: (Job 34)


31 "Suppose a man says to God,
'I am guilty but will offend no more.
32 Teach me what I cannot see;
if I have done wrong, I will not do so again.' 33 Should God then reward you on your terms,
when you refuse to repent?
You must decide, not I;
so tell me what you know.

In other words: "You did so well in the past because you did not sin; in the present, you have been punished because you sinned; in the future, if you do not sin you will do even better."

Classic, perfect theological responses. And yet we know the ending even though they don't: these brilliantly dogmatic answers are all condemned by God as speaking wrongly of Him, and Job, in his direct accusations of God attacking Him, is portrayed as the one who is ultimately righteous and who knew God closer.

What's the deal here? How could the theologians get it wrong? What did Job get right? And which of them does this:

look more like?

to be continued!

 

[Assyrian]

Now that sounds familiar...

Matt 5:45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

Great post shernren.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to shernren again.

Rats

 

[shernren]

Here's the problem. Job thinks he's been had because God has it in for him. (And he's not allowed to see Job 1 and 2, not the bits of it that go on in the heavenly court at least.) And Job's friends think he's been had because he did something wrong with God. (And they're not allowed to see Job 42, so they have no idea that they're going to need some serious sacrifices to get right after their blunders.)

With Job shaking a fist at heaven, and Job's friends thinking heaven is shaking a fist at him (and being inexplicably wrong about that), only God Himself can save the day. Of course! It isn't Job's own sin that did him in, was it?

Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said:
"Who is this that darkens my counsel
with words without knowledge?
Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
"Where were you when Adam and Eve cursed creation
by eating the forbidden fruit?
Tell me, if you understand.
Where were you when their sin rent the earth's foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
How does sin shake its footings,
or how did the Fall break its cornerstone-
while the morning stars turned in horror
and all the angels cried in grief?
"Who let the sea ravage the land
when it burst forth from the womb,
when the earth shook beneath it
and killer waves rent the islands?
... did you cause the lioness to hunt prey
and the lions to satisfy their hunger with meat
when they crouched in their dens or lie in the thickets
after the Fall had changed them into savage predators?
Doesn't the eagle soar at sin's command
and build his nest on high?
He dwells on a cliff and stays there at night;
a rocky crag is his stronghold.
From there he seeks out his food;
his eyes detect it from afar.
His young ones in futility feast on blood
and where the slain are, there is he."

Job 38-39, Modern Creationist Bible

Of course, this is a parody both of creationist thought and the Bible. But is it really that far off the mark? Would a creationist have given any other answer to Job? Would they have given the answer God actually gave?

I just (as in minutes ago, right after finishing the Job thing) came across this: Walking through shadows where Ken Ham (tries to) use Job to bolster his statements:

Basically, this is the answer to the issue of death and suffering. Job acknowledged that compared to what God knows, he knew nothing. He repented of his human arrogance and totally submitted his life to the all-knowing sovereign God.
The bottom line is that we are not going to have all the answers as to why things like Rob's sickness have been allowed to happen. Only God knows everything—we are just fallible human beings who, like Job, need to recognize that we know nothing compared to what God knows.
The Bible's account of origins in Genesis, however, does make sense of the world around us. This has greatly helped me in dealing with the issue of death and suffering. God's Word tells us clearly where death and sickness originated. We understand we live in a fallen world. Every person needs to be spiritually healed, and total healing doesn't come until we leave this sin-cursed universe.
God has a sovereign plan far greater than we could imagine. Thus, we need to put our trust in God's Word and the fact that He is in total control. 'He is the Lord; let him do what is good in his eyes' (1 Sam. 3:18).

The emphasis is added. Note the incongruity: two paragraphs before and one paragraph after all emphasizing the mystery and sovereignty of God's plan, and all of a sudden a curveball screaming "But we actually do know what's going on!" which has nothing to do with the message of Job, which is how to deal with suffering precisely when we do not know and are not allowed to know what's going on.

Again, it sounds awfully more like Job's friends than Job ...

 

[ArcticFox]

Excellent question! That is, why do animals have offensive and defensive mechanisms if they were never intended to fight one another?

There are some possible answers, but none at the moment seem completely satisfactory. One thing never to forget though is that God is not restricted to functionality; God very frequently details aesthetics for his people to follow (note the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant, for starters). To what degree are animals aesthetically glorifying to God?

I've used this example before: take a car. What is the primary purpose of a car? Is it to get you from place to place? For most of us, that is probably true. But for some, they have one, or two, or more cars whose primary purpose is NOT travel. The primary purpose of many of their cars is actually aesthetics. They like them, they like the look, the feel, and the status of having one. They rarely actually drive them, and when they do, they often just go for a cruise with no particular destination.

So, here you are, looking at a suped-up Barricuda, and asking yourself, 'Why was this made this way?' You will ultimately be confused if you do not include aesthetics in the mix (as well as comfort). Why do we not approach Creation this way, since all throughout the Bible Creation is spoken of as displaying the glory of God in its beauty and splendor?

In the end, there is no answer for this question, and I believe it to be the best argument against a literal interpretation of Genesis and the Fall; but I don't let a piece of unknown information keep me from believing what I see as clearly spoken of in the Word of God.

 

[shernren]

Excellent question! That is, why do animals have offensive and defensive mechanisms if they were never intended to fight one another?

There are some possible answers, but none at the moment seem completely satisfactory. One thing never to forget though is that God is not restricted to functionality; God very frequently details aesthetics for his people to follow (note the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant, for starters). To what degree are animals aesthetically glorifying to God?

I've used this example before: take a car. What is the primary purpose of a car? Is it to get you from place to place? For most of us, that is probably true. But for some, they have one, or two, or more cars whose primary purpose is NOT travel. The primary purpose of many of their cars is actually aesthetics. They like them, they like the look, the feel, and the status of having one. They rarely actually drive them, and when they do, they often just go for a cruise with no particular destination.

So, here you are, looking at a suped-up Barricuda, and asking yourself, 'Why was this made this way?' You will ultimately be confused if you do not include aesthetics in the mix (as well as comfort). Why do we not approach Creation this way, since all throughout the Bible Creation is spoken of as displaying the glory of God in its beauty and splendor?

In the end, there is no answer for this question, and I believe it to be the best argument against a literal interpretation of Genesis and the Fall; but I don't let a piece of unknown information keep me from believing what I see as clearly spoken of in the Word of God.

The problem is that an argument from aesthetics assumes a priori the existence of the aesthete, and the knowledge of the aesthete's taste. If I believe that the design of a Barracuda (whatever that is) is motivated by aesthetics, then I must believe that somewhere there is an aesthete, and that particular aesthete likes the features that are present in a Barracuda.

I'm sure it's no problem finding a Barracuda fan. But how does one confirm God's aesthetic tastes?

 

[shernren]

Thus far we have seen Job's predicament, that God seems to be causing trouble in his life. We have also seen two answers. There has been the theologians' answer, that "you are troubled because you sinned"; God has dismissed that answer out of court already. There has been the creationist answer, that "you are troubled because Adam sinned"; but it does not appear at all in Job, especially not where God Himself could have used it to full effect.

What are the options left? What is the final answer?

I can already tell you that I really don't know.

The first option is that I am plain wrong in condemning either answer. This is the option that seems quite likely to be taken up by the creationists reading this; doubtless they will find places where the Bible seems to advocate the creationist answer to the question of the origin of life's sufferings. But I doubt it will happen.

The second option is that there is another, better, accurate answer. But I don't know what the answer is. I know what I am going to present, which is based on the remaining chapters of Job: that God seems to have no problem with death and suffering, at least in the animal world; that Behemoth is a figure of Death; and that Leviathan is a figure of Satan. How on earth that leads to an answer any different from the first two is beyond me. I have put the ladder together slotting the rungs in place; but I find that I am not strong enough to climb it the whole way. Maybe there is an answer, but it is up to someone wiser to find it.

The third option, the most provocative one, is that there is no answer, or at least none to be found in the Bible. Maybe we will never know why evil came into the world. We do know for sure what God chose to do about it, and that is to be killed by it and rise again and ascend to heaven all in the span of two months; the ultimate non-interventionist policy one can find. Perhaps that is supposed to be enough for us. Perhaps we have been hedged in and about, as Job describes, until the only knowledge available to us is that God has come to suffer with us and that God eventually promises relief. Perhaps God has forbidden us - or our own infirmities have - the knowledge of the final answer.

There, now I've gotten that off my chest. Off we go again!

 

[shernren]

Up to this point the supernatural has only been seen in snatches and hints. Most prominently in Job 4, where Eliphaz tells Job just who has inspired his speeches:

"A word was secretly brought to me,
my ears caught a whisper of it.
Amid disquieting dreams in the night,
when deep sleep falls on men,
fear and trembling seized me
and made all my bones shake.
A spirit glided past my face,
and the hair on my body stood on end.
It stopped, but I could not tell what it was.
A form stood before my eyes,
and I heard a hushed voice:
(Job 4:12-16 NIV)

Is it God? We will see later.

But anyways, here in chapter 38, the curtain is drawn on the supernatural altogether and God comes bursting onto the scene with a whirlwind and a thundering challenge:

Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm.
He said: "Who is this that darkens my counsel
with words without knowledge?
Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
(Job 38:1-3 NIV)

What follows is a mighty description of God's handiwork in creation. Does Job know how the earth was founded? Or how one star follows another in constellations' movements? Does he know how the dawn bursts forth or the seas restrained? Does he know where rain comes from or hail is stored?

"Can you beat Me at this?" God asks. Why exactly is a very important question, which I will look at only in a following post. But then at the close of chapter 38 God seems to segue into something different:

"Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
and satisfy the hunger of the lions
when they crouch in their dens
or lie in wait in a thicket?
Who provides food for the raven
when its young cry out to God
and wander about for lack of food?
(Job 38:39-41 NIV)

The order of the inanimate creation (stars, sky, rain, ocean) begin to blend into the order of the animate creation (lions, ravens). But doesn't it seem strange? God begins with precisely the most ravenous, dangerous predator around. There is no fiercer image in the Bible than the lion - the lion to which the Devil is compared, the Lion of Judah, the lions Samson and David battled, the lions which adorned the Jewish palace. God is expecting Job to look upon the lion and praise Him!

Now that's strange. As I pointed out earlier on, creationists are pretty desperate to not give God credit for the lion's carnivorous tendencies - the atheist says only a cruel God could have had carnivorous lions, and therefore the God we worship must have had vegetarian lions if He must have had lions at all! And yet here we have God, quite effortlessly breaking out of the creationist box, telling Job from the start (of His description of the animals) to wonder at His wisdom when he sees the lions' predations. To see in flesh-eating lions not the Fall but God's glory, contrary to the plea of the creationist.

It gets worse from here.

"Do you know when the mountain goats give birth?
Do you watch when the doe bears her fawn?
Do you count the months till they bear?
Do you know the time they give birth?
They crouch down and bring forth their young;
their labor pains are ended.
Their young thrive and grow strong in the wilds;
they leave and do not return.
(Job 39:1-4 NIV)

God emphasizes His control over nature; even up to now, animal reproduction is something man has so little control over (witness how many captive breeding programs end in failure) and yet God has no problem counting the months till the mountain goats give birth and the does bear their fawns. And yet this is not the placid picture of a complete animal family we imagine. The young thrive in the wild, not under their mothers' care; they leave and do not return. The mothers' long pregnancy and painful birth only culminates in loss.

"Who let the wild donkey go free?
Who untied his ropes?
I gave him the wasteland as his home,
the salt flats as his habitat.
He laughs at the commotion in the town;
he does not hear a driver's shout.
He ranges the hills for his pasture
and searches for any green thing.
(Job 39:5-8 NIV)

The wild donkey is not only uncontrollable, it mocks man in their attempts to control it! We are not surprised when God challenges us to bind the Pleiades or loose Orion; after all, the remote stars are surely beyond our control to move (as they will be for a very long time). And yet the donkey! Why, weren't we supposed to have dominion over the animals? What has gone wrong here?

"Will the wild ox consent to serve you?
Will he stay by your manger at night?
Can you hold him to the furrow with a harness?
Will he till the valleys behind you?
Will you rely on him for his great strength?
Will you leave your heavy work to him?
Can you trust him to bring in your grain
and gather it to your threshing floor?
(Job 39:9-12 NIV)

Again the wild ox has defied what was supposed to be man's dominion. But now not only has he rebelled, his rebellion leaves man behind to do heavy work, to toil in servitude to wring bread from the ground.

"The wings of the ostrich flap joyfully,
but they cannot compare with the pinions and feathers of the stork.
She lays her eggs on the ground
and lets them warm in the sand,
unmindful that a foot may crush them,
that some wild animal may trample them.
She treats her young harshly, as if they were not hers;
she cares not that her labor was in vain,
for God did not endow her with wisdom
or give her a share of good sense.
Yet when she spreads her feathers to run,
she laughs at horse and rider.
(Job 39:13-18 NIV)

It sounds like Simon Cowell is describing the ostrich here: "you're ugly, you're cruel, and you're stupid!" The only thing it knows how to do properly is to run and laugh! And the worst of it is that God (speaking of Himself in the third person here, as if emphasizing His role) takes full responsibility for making the ostrich foolish and nonsensical.

"Do you give the horse his strength
or clothe his neck with a flowing mane?
Do you make him leap like a locust,
striking terror with his proud snorting?
He paws fiercely, rejoicing in his strength,
and charges into the fray.
He laughs at fear, afraid of nothing;
he does not shy away from the sword.
The quiver rattles against his side,
along with the flashing spear and lance.
In frenzied excitement he eats up the ground;
he cannot stand still when the trumpet sounds.
At the blast of the trumpet he snorts, 'Aha!'
He catches the scent of battle from afar,
the shout of commanders and the battle cry.
(Job 39:19-25 NIV)

"Speaking of horse and rider," ... notice how fiercely the horse is described, and how it has been given a mind of its own. Why, it's almost as if the horse itself has decided to go to war (and thoroughly anticipates and enjoys it!) instead of the human riding it! The trumpet blast and battle cry merely release the pent-up destructiveness the horse on its own has matured.

"Does the hawk take flight by your wisdom
and spread his wings toward the south?
Does the eagle soar at your command
and build his nest on high?
He dwells on a cliff and stays there at night;
a rocky crag is his stronghold.
From there he seeks out his food;
his eyes detect it from afar.
His young ones feast on blood,
and where the slain are, there is he."
(Job 39:26-30 NIV)

We have come full-circle and returned to the image of the bloodthirsty predator: Job 38 ends with the roaring lions, Job 39 with the eagle's relentless predation. But while in Job 38 the emphasis is on God's providing prey, Job 39 gives all the credit of the ugly business to the eagle itself. He stakes out a fortress-cum-sighting tower; he searches out prey to destroy; he kills, and scavenges, and teaches his brood to do the same from young.

Mind you, this is God Himself telling Job to look at this and look at that! This is God Himself coming to the courtroom that is Job (the book) and making His opening speech. Nobody has forced Him to say this. He could very well have spoken of the beauty of daffodils or the breathtaking flight of the albatross, as He did with the stars and sea and sky, but instead He speaks of pain and suffering and loss and death. And He never puts the blame on anything or anyone else, certainly not the Fall as creationists would have it. The horrors of Job 39 are as much His handiwork as the beauties of Job 38.

It almost seems as if He has come to the courtroom with dirty hands and devotes an entire chapter to describing them.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Isn't the lesson of Job that even the righteous will suffer? Wasn't this earth and all in it created to showcase sin and death?

 

[shernren]

Isn't the lesson of Job that even the righteous will suffer?

Well yes, I believe that is the main lesson of Job. At the same time, though, the big issues here are:

1. Why do the righteous suffer? This is what we are all trying to answer - the "theologians" by blaming Job's sins, the creationists by blaming Adam's sins, the atheist by blaming God (for not existing), and God Himself showing up at the courtroom with His hands dirty.

2. Why exactly do we call Job righteous anyways? If you think about it, we see a glimpse of his righteousness in chs. 1-3 and the last chapter. But all the way in between Job is cursing God like an experienced atheist. At least that's how it always appears at first glance. How on earth would a righteous man utter this horrifying parody of Psalms?

"What is man that you make so much of him,
that you give him so much attention,
that you examine him every morning
and test him every moment?
Will you never look away from me,
or let me alone even for an instant?
If I have sinned, what have I done to you,
O watcher of men?
Why have you made me your target?
Have I become a burden to you?
Why do you not pardon my offenses
and forgive my sins?
For I will soon lie down in the dust;
you will search for me, but I will be no more."
(Job 7:17-21 NIV)

Wasn't this earth and all in it created to showcase sin and death?

You can certainly believe that if you want, but I'm not sure what apologetic value it has.

 

[ArcticFox]

The problem is that an argument from aesthetics assumes a priori the existence of the aesthete, and the knowledge of the aesthete's taste.

Yes and no. Yes, it does require an assumption that God exists, but it does NOT require a knowledge of his tastes. As for the existance of God, you are asking a religious question that I am attempting to answer as best I can given the religious context. If you are asking the question scientifically without any presupposition of a God, than it is impossible to answer, because the answer necessarily requires reference to God. Even if you do not believe in him, perhaps you can still see the point that I am trying to make?

Quite to the contrary, we do not have to know what tastes the maker of the car has, for all we have to do is look at the car. Now, let's say for example, that the car is damaged. In fact, it's been in an accident. The accident also caused a small fire to rip through the console and inside of the vehicle, but the car is still functional and in generally the same condition, minus all the dings, scratches, and burn marks. You would have to do some assumption at guessing what it looked like before the accident, but you could get pretty close.

Now, Creation is a whole lot more complicated, of course. But the situation still stands. An originally beautiful, God-glorifying world that has been twisted and tainted by sin, and now groans in its pain (see Rom. 8:22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.)

There is a theology of the sin-damaged creation. It is expressed pretty concisely in Romans 8.

As I stated before, making the assumption that an intelligent, glory-conscious and glory-focused God would create the world only according to human concepts of efficiency is inaccurate, in my biblically informed opinion; in fact, God's primary purpose of Creation would be his glory. Therefore, displaying 'inefficiencies' in nature or in the human body does not detract from the nature of the original Creation, for it could exist for two reasons: a result of the Fall, or a result of aesthetics. Why do we have hair on our heads if it is purely for warmth? Shouldn't we also have it on our feet, since we are more likely to lose a toe to frostbite? Or how about our private areas, where some have no hair -- wouldn't that be crucial to protect for reproduction?

BTW, A Barricuda is a car that was popular during the 60's I believe and into the 70's, but is now only a classic from my knowledge. I may be wrong.

 

[Assyrian]

BTW, A Barricuda is a car that was popular during the 60's I believe and into the 70's, but is now only a classic from my knowledge. I may be wrong.

Ah that explains it.

Pretty

Pretty ugly.

Now, Creation is a whole lot more complicated, of course. But the situation still stands. An originally beautiful, God-glorifying world that has been twisted and tainted by sin, and now groans in its pain (see Rom. 8:22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.)

There is a theology of the sin-damaged creation. It is expressed pretty concisely in Romans 8.

This would have been my view for years, but as an Irish Christian I was also aware of the views of Celtic Christianity which took a much more positive view of the natural world as God's glorious creation, rather than twisted and tainted.

The Old Testament seems to have the same view. None of the writers picked up on the idea of nature being cursed and fallen. Instead the natural world gave praise to its creator.

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Psalm 148:3 Praise him, sun and moon, praise him, all you shining stars!
4 Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!
5 Let them praise the name of the LORD! For he commanded and they were created.
6 And he established them forever and ever; he gave a decree, and it shall not pass away.
7 Praise the LORD from the earth, you great sea creatures and all deeps,
8 fire and hail, snow and mist, stormy wind fulfilling his word!
9 Mountains and all hills, fruit trees and all cedars!
10 Beasts and all livestock, creeping things and flying birds!

Psalm 104:20 You make darkness, and it is night, when all the beasts of the forest creep about.
21 The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God.

No one ever suggests that lion's carnivorous nature might be the result of the fall. These are creatures God created and their very existence gives him praise.

Then we get this passage in Romans that talks about nature being cursed because of the fall... Except, if we look at it, it doesn't. Paul never says creation groaning was the result of the fall, simply that it was God's will, so that nature could share in our inheritance too. No mention of Adam, sin or the curse of Eden. In fact, I can't find that teaching anywhere in the bible.

 

[theFijian]

Aesthetics is in the eye of the aesthete.

 

[Assyrian]

Anaesthetics are in the hands of the anaesthetist

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sin and death existed in the ancient world as a result of Lucifer's rebellion. God 'killed' the ancient world because of this.

'In the beginning' the world, with all of it's monsters, was dead, covered with water. God then made life forms that were more compatable with the man he created, in a re-creation of the earth.

Eden was a temporary place that existed just long enough for man to sin, all according to God's plan. Outside of Eden lay the real world were man would actually live.

God pronounced his creation 'good' because it was perfectly suited for it's purpose: to demonstrate sin and death in a beautiful setting.

 

[laptoppop]

One small point:

How on earth would a righteous man utter this horrifying parody of Psalms?

"What is man that you make so much of him,
that you give him so much attention,
that you examine him every morning
and test him every moment?
Will you never look away from me,
or let me alone even for an instant?
If I have sinned, what have I done to you,
O watcher of men?
Why have you made me your target?
Have I become a burden to you?
Why do you not pardon my offenses
and forgive my sins?
For I will soon lie down in the dust;
you will search for me, but I will be no more."
(Job 7:17-21 NIV)

I, for one, take comfort in such passages. There have been times in my walk when I've been confused by how things are working out, and yes, I've been very angry at God. It seems like God is more concerned about hypocrisy than about honest anger. He can work with an honest person railing against Him easier than someone smug in their self-righteousness. I do not mean to say disrespectful, but still displaying to Him what is really going on. After all, He isn't fooled anyway!