• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Genesis: Sin and death

Status
Not open for further replies.

Republic

Member
Oct 9, 2006
10
2
✟22,638.00
Faith
Salvation Army
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.

And I assume that you actually have some source to back this wild assertion up? They weren't as stupid or ignorant as you make them out to be. I believe that there is a certain type of "death" which isn't considered "death" by God. The death of some cells, for example, has to happen for humans to fully form.

You also riddle the Bible with mockery by in effect claiming that it is only written by man and not by God.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
And I assume that you actually have some source to back this wild assertion up?
Sure. Everyday observation. Here's a live plant:
l-asp.JPG


And here's a dead one:
dead_plant.jpg


What makes the above plant any less alive than, say, you or I? It needs to eat, breathe, reproduce, and grow like the rest of us.
They weren't as stupid or ignorant as you make them out to be.
I never called them stupid. But what exactly constitutes "life" doesn't seem to be something they thought much of. Consider this: why did Adam need to eat if he wasn't originally susceptible to death?
I believe that there is a certain type of "death" which isn't considered "death" by God. The death of some cells, for example, has to happen for humans to fully form.
Great! Now comes the part where you take your own advice: what evidence do you have support this wild assertion? What constitutes God's mysterious boundary between life and death? Why is it okay for, say, plants to die, and cells to exhibit programmed cell death, in light of the Bible's revelation that there was "no death" before the Fall?
You also riddle the Bible with mockery by in effect claiming that it is only written by man and not by God.
But... it WAS written by man -- from man's own errant perspective, even. I know you're new here, but we've clubbed that dead horse enough. Please see the archives.
 
Upvote 0

Republic

Member
Oct 9, 2006
10
2
✟22,638.00
Faith
Salvation Army
Mallon said:
Sure. Everyday observation.

lol, I can't believe that you misunderstood what I was asking proof of. Do you have a source that the Hebrews didn't know that plants were living?

Mallon said:
But... it WAS written by man -- from man's own errant perspective, even. I know you're new here, but we've clubbed that dead horse enough. Please see the archives.

I trust you believe that the Bible is inspired by God? In fact, the apostle Paul in his second letter to young Timothy says clearly that the Bible is "God-breathed". Now, the Bible was physically written by man, probably written in people's own style, but the message is God-inspired. If it is not accurate on earthly things, then on what logical basis are you to believe its message when it speaks about heavenly things?

I also highly doubt that you've proven that the Bible is not "God-breathed" or that the Bible is not inerrant.

I'll deal with the other part later as I've got to go now.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
I trust you believe that the Bible is inspired by God? In fact, the apostle Paul in his second letter to young Timothy says clearly that the Bible is "God-breathed". Now, the Bible was physically written by man, probably written in people's own style, but the message is God-inspired. If it is not accurate on earthly things, then on what logical basis are you to believe its message when it speaks about heavenly things?

I also highly doubt that you've proven that the Bible is not "God-breathed" or that the Bible is not inerrant.

I'll deal with the other part later as I've got to go now.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
(2 Timothy 3:16-17 NIV)

In this list of what the Bible does, just where does it say that we have to trust it for earthly things? If the Bible was written to speak of heavenly things, is it not appropriate to trust it about heavenly things? And if the Bible was not written to speak of earthly things, would it then be appropriate to trust it about heavenly things anyway?
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
lol, I can't believe that you misunderstood what I was asking proof of. Do you have a source that the Hebrews didn't know that plants were living?
1) You are saying that there was no physical death before the Fall.
2) I am saying there was. Plants died when they were consumed by Adam and the animals.
3) Even the Hebrews acknowledged plant life and death (Psalm 37:2).
4) Therefore, it seems obvious to me, at least, that the sort of death brought about by the Fall was not simply physical death, but a spiritual one.
Now, the Bible was physically written by man, probably written in people's own style, but the message is God-inspired. If it is not accurate on earthly things, then on what logical basis are you to believe its message when it speaks about heavenly things?
It ISN'T entirely accurate on earthly matters. The earth is not flat, the atmosphere doesn't contain windows and the smallest seed isn't from the mustard plant. That hardly negates the truths spoken about our Lord, however. As shernren said, the Bible was written to teach us of spiritual matters -- so why should we be taken aback when it occasionally faulters on earthly ones? My trust is in the infallibility of God; not the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
This thread is officially being raised from the dead. Important posts that lead up to my next post are posts #6, #8, #11, #12, and maybe #14.

Unfortunately for me, my much-loved commentary entitled "Now My Eyes Have Seen You: Images of Creation and Evil in the Book of Job" by Robert S. Fyall is at home in Malaysia. But I suspect that it will be for the better as I won't have off-hand references to the arguments that the author used. The author put a lot of emphasis on explanations involving comparative mythology, particularly a deep and nuanced knowledge of Ugaritic and Canaanite linguistics and ancient texts. I personally don't think the author himself was wrong to use such arguments; but I know many people here won't be comfortable with such arguments either, hence my reluctance to use them.

I will see what I can recover without in-depth reference to comparative mythology. It may not be as strong or convincing, but I think I will argue that it makes more sense of Job, nonetheless, than the good old creationist canard "Behemoth and Leviathan are dinos!", or the usual explanation that Behemoth is the hippo and Leviathan the crocodile. Since my orientation week is on right now I will try my utmost best to finish it up within the week.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
This next passage is part of the context of the speeches about Behemoth and Leviathan, yet it is rarely, if ever, dealt with when discussing them:

The LORD said to Job:
"Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
Let him who accuses God answer him!"

Then Job answered the LORD:
"I am unworthy--how can I reply to you?
I put my hand over my mouth.
I spoke once, but I have no answer--
twice, but I will say no more."

Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm:
"Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
"Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?
Do you have an arm like God's,
and can your voice thunder like his?
Then adorn yourself with glory and splendor,
and clothe yourself in honor and majesty.
Unleash the fury of your wrath,
look at every proud man and bring him low,
look at every proud man and humble him,
crush the wicked where they stand.
Bury them all in the dust together;
shroud their faces in the grave.
Then I myself will admit to you
that your own right hand can save you.
(Job 40:1-14 NIV)

Now, let's revisit the story. Satan has challenged God to test Job's righteousness; God does, but nobody on Earth realizes it. The theologians say that Job must have sinned. Job maintains his innocence, and holds God's justice and God's apparent wrath in tension. Elihu argues that God is doing all this for a higher purpose and that Job is being blind to it.

Then God shows up. But instead of telling Job why He did this (if you look carefully, for God to do this would mean that Satan wins the challenges he set forth in Job 1 and 2), He takes Job through a tour of nature. First He lets Job see the majesty of nature, through astronomical wonders; then He lets Job see cruelty and wantonness in nature, through a bestiary of nature red in tooth and claw.

At the beginning of Job 40 God reissues His challenge: "Let Job correct Me!" Job has begun to realize that he is way out of his league. Note, however, that he doesn't plead forgiveness yet, and note also that he will say no more. He will not say that God is wrong - but he will not say that God is right either. If you compare Job to a court case, this is a motion to suspend the case until further evidence is in. At this point, I myself am not sure what God is trying to do in this transition. Is He guiding Job further along the right track? Or is He trying to argue Job over to His side? One way or another, the following verses reveal an insidious turn in the road - because it is a turn that has not been looked at enough.

God issues a challenge to Job: "Would you condemn Me to justify yourself?" He then defines what He means by condemning God: Job would condemn God if he thinks that God isn't doing His (hehe) job correctly. Can Job humble every proud man, or crush every wicked man? Can Job do God's job?

At this point, most interpretations would have us believe, God goes:

Can you humble the proud?
Can you crush the wicked?
For behold - the Big Dinosaur! / the Hippopotamus!

Doesn't make sense, does it? To me the passage makes more sense if we can see that God has already wrapped up His stroll through the zoo, by repeating His question in 40:1. The argument has taken a turn from God's revelation in the natural world to God's revelation in moral justice. For God to bring, as evidence, another big dumb beast into the court doesn't make sense. How does parading the strength of a dino show that Job can't humble the proud? How does a hippo's thick swishing tail (or male reproductive apparatus) show that Job can't crush the wicked?

From an aesthetic point of view it doesn't make much more sense. Job (book, not person) is reaching its climax here and God is clearly on the edge of revealing His ace up His sleeve, His hidden weapon or secret password, even a deus ex machina. He sets the stage by brutally confronting Job on the power of His moral justice, and then He pulls up the curtain to reveal ... another old animal? That's the fire-in-the-hole? Certainly a better ending could be written, especially when the One writing it is God testifying in court!

From this alone I would conclude that any creationist notion of the Behemoth and Leviathan being dinosaurs needs to deal with this turn in the road. Any such understanding completely ignores the significance of Job 40:1-14. But I'm not merely critical here, I want to be constructive as well. So, having established (if you think my arguments are valid) that Behemoth and Leviathan are not mere dinos, or mere physical beasts of any sort, I'll lay my cards on the table and say what I think they are: mythical / poetic representations of the powers of Death and of Satan.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Interesting idea it certainly works with Leviathan which is an apocalyptic theme running through the OT. But behemoth? That comes from behemah, a beast or dumb animal. Certainly we have in the OT the concept of angelic cherubim, both good and bad (Ezek 28) and the cherubim like their Babylonian equivalents have animal features. But the word used to describe this is chai, living creatures, rather than behema or behemoth.

Ok I've just checked the LXX and the Greek word used is θηρίον 'Beast' which might link in with Apocalyptic beasts in the Greek scriptures, esp Revelation. But that is really pushing it. The ethymological flow seems to be going the wrong direction.

even a deus ex machina. He sets the stage by brutally confronting Job on the power of His moral justice, and then He pulls up the curtain to reveal ...
Which raises a question I have been wonder about recently. Given that Job is built on monologues, is the book of Job actually a play?
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Which raises a question I have been wonder about recently. Given that Job is built on monologues, is the book of Job actually a play?

Yes. There is a prose prologue and epilogue with the drama proper beginning with Job's first complaint. Then you have the highly structured sequence of 3 sets of speeches by Job's comforters each followed by Job's rejection of their accusations and a renewal of his complaint every time in more intense and dramatic terms. The Elihu acts almost as a presenter for God himself, leading to the climactic speeches at the end.

Not quite the more conversational dramas we are accustomed to, but definitely a drama-type format. Note that except for the prologue and epilogue, there is practically no narration in the book. It is all speeches, with the few verses of narration functioning almost as stage directions.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Interesting idea it certainly works with Leviathan which is an apocalyptic theme running through the OT. But behemoth? That comes from behemah, a beast or dumb animal. Certainly we have in the OT the concept of angelic cherubim, both good and bad (Ezek 28) and the cherubim like their Babylonian equivalents have animal features. But the word used to describe this is chai, living creatures, rather than behema or behemoth.

Ok I've just checked the LXX and the Greek word used is θηρίον 'Beast' which might link in with Apocalyptic beasts in the Greek scriptures, esp Revelation. But that is really pushing it. The ethymological flow seems to be going the wrong direction.


Fyall takes Behemoth as a reference to the Ugaritic god of death, Mot (http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/canaanite-faq.html#Mot WARNING: this site caused my computer to slow down unaccountably) and Leviathan as a reference to the god of chaos within that pantheon Yam. If we accept his hypothesis it raises some interesting questions about the relationship of the OT to its surrounding mythology. Genesis 1 represents a desacralization of nature; might Job 40-41 represent a similar dethroning of evil itself as the neighbouring pantheons have described it?

Which raises a question I have been wonder about recently. Given that Job is built on monologues, is the book of Job actually a play?

Here are two interesting web resources which will probably flavor my further responses:

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/12566.htm
http://www.alfredplacechurch.org.uk/sermons/job1.htm
 
Upvote 0

mumluvsherboys

Active Member
Dec 14, 2006
244
0
✟22,867.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
My whole problem with the entire question, although it is a very good one, is that we are not animals. We are human beings. Animals live savagely, we do not... or we are not supposed to according to the word of God. There is a seperation. I do not believe animals had any diseases before the fall of mankind. I also do not believe animals are capable of sinning. But they need to survive and God did make a perfect life cycle in order that they survive. I have also come to believe with God ANYTHING is possible. Some people say things just don't make sense, well, who ever said God made perfect sense. He does not. We cannot understand Him and his Works to the extent He understands Himself. Attempting to understand him is glorious. Saying you do, is untrue. I can honestly say there is noone here or ever lived that fully understands our origins except Christ Himself. And you notice that our origins was not His focus. He knew so much and still he taught love. As that was the most important thing to know in the whole wide world.

God bless you all!
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
I also do not believe animals are capable of sinning.
I'm very surprised to hear a YEC say this, and I'm interested in knowing why you think this, mumluvsherboys. Despite all the killing they must do, homosexuality they sometimes express, and cannibalism some resort to, you still do not feel that animals are capable of sinning?
If that's the case, then what is your objection to animal death before the Fall, if such things are not sinful?
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
My whole problem with the entire question, although it is a very good one, is that we are not animals. We are human beings.

Human beings are biologically animals. The real problem is that most YECs implicitly or explictly read this basic fact as "Human beings are just animals." No TE takes that position. Being animals does not make us "just animals".

Animals live savagely, we do not... or we are not supposed to according to the word of God.

Many animals do live savagely, but many animals do not--if by savagery you mean being predators, or fighting and killing each other.




But they need to survive and God did make a perfect life cycle in order that they survive.

A life cycle that necessarily included death. Otherwise they would not "need to survive" or need anything "in order to survive".

And you notice that our origins was not His focus. He knew so much and still he taught love. As that was the most important thing to know in the whole wide world.

Exactly. So origins is probably not the focus of scripture either, even when it touches on origins. The focus is God and God's love.
 
Upvote 0

mumluvsherboys

Active Member
Dec 14, 2006
244
0
✟22,867.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I'm very surprised to hear a YEC say this, and I'm interested in knowing why you think this, mumluvsherboys. Despite all the killing they must do, homosexuality they sometimes express, and cannibalism some resort to, you still do not feel that animals are capable of sinning?
If that's the case, then what is your objection to animal death before the Fall, if such things are not sinful?

I do not believe God gave animals the same laws as us or any law other than their own instinct or what we, as humans, teach them.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
I will not argue that my treatment of Behemoth (Job 40:15-27), based on Robert Fyall's work, is widely agreed with or easy to understand. I find it convincing; you may not. But I want to elaborate more on three points based on the passage: why I find the conventional views unconvincing, why my view may not be easy to accept, and what that view actually is.

I find neither the creationist view (that Behemoth is a sauropod) nor the conventional view (that Behemoth is a large river mammal or the elephant) holds much weight with me. Part of it is undoubtedly the fact that neither of these views seem to take into account the insidious turn in the road I last posted about. But even looking at just the description of the Behemoth, something just doesn't quite ring true:

"Look at the behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
What strength he has in his loins,
what power in the muscles of his belly!
His tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like rods of iron.
He ranks first among the works of God,
yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.
The hills bring him their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
Under the lotus plants he lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
The lotuses conceal him in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround him.
When the river rages, he is not alarmed;
he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.
Can anyone capture him by the eyes,
or trap him and pierce his nose?
(Job 40:15-24 NIV)


The passage seems positively placid compared to what's coming in the next chapter, but all through it there seems to be a dark undercurrent. Where in all of this, for example, is the surging of the Jordan involved? If the wild animals play nearby without any concerns, why does God have to approach with His sword, and why does anyone want to capture him by the eyes? Would you really pierce the nose of a hippo, or a sauropod? Why the emphasis on the Behemoth's strength if it really is such a placid, peaceable beast?

This brings me to my second point: why my identification is hard to identify (heh, heh) with. If, in Behemoth, we are actually dealing with a Scriptural interpretation of a pagan symbol of Death, then we are dealing with Death at two reserves. Imagine that two millenia from now Christmas has ceased to exist, and the single record we have of any festivity is the song I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus! From that one song, would we be able to accurately reconstruct what Christmas was like? Would we detect the humour in the song at all, or would we think it's just another raunchy tune from the old days of seedy morality? We could only pick up the fact that Santa Claus is jolly and promiscuous, and might well try to see which historical figure he was. Only by examining all the other stories and movies and songs about Santa Claus would we know that he is actually a symbol of Christmas, and only when we understood what Christmas is would we be able to fully identify Santa.

In the same way, what we are seeing (if of course my hypothesis is accurate) is Scripture editing a pagan concept for its own use. Just looking at Job, we will never get an accurate idea of what Behemoth is. We can take a general view and say that Behemoth represents any big power over which God is still sovereign; but to know what Behemoth actually is we have to examine what all other literature about it says, and most of that literature comes from Ugaritic and Canaanite mythology. On a practical level, I don't have any of those references on hand; on a pedagogical level, appealing to comparative mythology to explain Scriptural concepts is not a popular move.

But off we go anyway. I will just give hints that Behemoth is really Death in a scary suit; whether they are believable or not is up to you. What I am convinced of is that it is definitely more believable than the idea that Behemoth is just another big dumb beast.

The first clue to notice is of course the central little bit of it: why does the Maker have to approach Behemoth with His sword? Why, at the end, does God note that no human can fight it, and at the beginning that it is so strong? That makes sense if we are talking about Death. What about Death being "made along with you"? It makes sense if we realize that when God created man He foreknew (glossing over the whole predestination-free will debate) that man would bring Death into the world by sinning.

Those are big clues. Small clues are that "eating grass" can actually have the sense of devouring. Think of a fire raging across a dry field, or a man getting caught in the blades of a combine harvester, and you can see that there is at least an alternative. The hills bring him their produce - because they cannot refuse him. And why is his habitat hidden, concealed in the shadow, with reeds and lotuses and poplars? Well, Death is shadowy and comes to destroy the living - it is no surprise that his dominion is dark and stalely silent. And the reference to the river Jordan rushing against his mouth may well be another hint of attribution to Mot, who is depicted as having huge jaws as a symbol of the wide reach of death.

If any of this has convinced you, the only question left is why describe Death? This we will see later on.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
I do not believe God gave animals the same laws as us or any law other than their own instinct or what we, as humans, teach them.
Sorry, I'm having a hard time deciphering your answer. Are you saying you do believe there was animal death before the Fall (since animal death isn't sinful)?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.