No death? Not even cellular?

[SuperNova]

SuperNova, you sound confident and so let me ask you a question which has been bugging me: How did God intend to keep animal populations stable in a world where animals don't die? And how did God intend to keep the world viable if He was going to let animal populations increase to infinity?

Well this is a mistery isn't it. Mainly because since God's perfect plan of creation was tainted by sin we'll never know what the world could have been like. Are there possible answers to this question? Yes. But any one would be speculation because that world no longer exists. Could it be that we were ment to spread out to other planets possibly? Or that the land mass was larger above the water? Could it be that God knew we were going to sin and screw it all up anyway so he never really worried about that part? Or could it be that before the fall the presents of God was so much more abundant that there was a sustaining grace that kept the world triving? Who knows. But it does say that even the animals at first ate only vegitation. Only God knows the answer to that question because the answer was to be his perfect plan. A plan that never fully took place. And I'm sure the answer makes perfect logical sence.
As far as death is concerned there is a reason why death was the result of sin. There is a logical reason why the wages of sin is and was death. It's not mearly to punish us for sin. If there were no death Christ could not have died on the cross , nor could there be animal sacrifice before Christ and therefore the wages of sin must be death. This is why God said if you eat of the tree you will surely die and why when they ate of the tree they didn't just fall dead where they stood. He did mean a spiritual death but he also ment eventually you will die physically. There is no other alternative but death for a world of sin because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. This is why the access to the tree of life was removed because if man were to live forever then Christ's death on the cross would not have been possible. This tells me that when God removed access to the tree of life he knew even then that Christ would have to come and die for our sins. Death was the logical action taken by a loving creator who according to his Love had to provide a way of forgiveness and salvation.

 

[TheBear]

I have no problem believing that there was no death before the fall. I have no problem excluding plant life from that because the Lord made it food. I do know 2 things about the world before the fall. 1) The earth, the atmosphere and the environment in general was vastly different and 2) There were no genetic defects in our genome to worry about. This is why in the beginning it was perfectly reasonable for Adam and Eve's children to marry but it eventually became a problem because genetic defects started to emerge. And a hybrid is always stronger than an imbred because of it. You can deduce in the bible that either A) We weren't originally made to die or B) We were ment to have extremely long lifespans and the fall ruined either plan. If you read through Genesis you can see lifespans getting progressivly shorter. Starting in the 1000 year range and ending in the 100 year range until finally you get to today when someone dropping at 50 of a heart attack isn't unheard of. Either death wasn't in the originaly plan or we were ment to live at least 1000 years or so before the fall.

Take an honest and critical look at the following questions. You don't need to answer them here. They are only meant for you to consider.

Why would immortal bodies need to eat anything? Why did God create all human and animal life with a digestive system? Why does most animal life have some kind of teeth? What would be the purpose of such an intricate and elaborate design, if all mankind and animals were created immortal? Why did God's first dialogue with Adam include the allowed and forbidden food sources?

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

TheBear-

If we are taking Genesis literally, then the animals did not die before the Fall not because they didn't eat from the Tree of Life (they may have, but that is irrelevant, since the Tree of Life would only effect humans, as humans are fundamentally different than animals, since they are in the image of God), but by the fact that they didn't exist but a day or so before Adam. Had Adam made the right choice and partaken of his intended immortality, then all of Creation would have lived as well. Instead, he made the wrong choice and all of Creation became subject to decay, as St Paul teaches in Romans 8.

Romans 8:20-22 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

That's at least a stab at your question about if the animals had to eat from the Tree of Life.

PS

Why would immortal bodies need to eat anything?

They were not created immortal...they had the potential for immortality if the right food was eaten. (Kind of like the Eucharist, today...heh.)

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Absolutely right.

Spiritual death = the spiritual separation from God.

Yes, but consider that Christ died a physical death, not a spritual death.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Yes, but consider that Christ died a physical death, not a spritual death.

that is not true, He suffered both.
"My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"-God the Father turns His eyes away from the sin poured out on the Son, Jesus is alone, separated from God, spiritual death.


.....

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

that is not true, He suffered both.
"My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"-God the Father turns His eyes away from the sin poured out on the Son, Jesus is alone, separated from God, spiritual death.


.....

How can God be separated from Himself? Me thinks you might have a wee bit of heresy regarding Christ's dual-nature mixed in your theology.

Also, that line is from a Psalm and it ends quite differently than that one line you listed.

 

[TheBear]

TheBear-

If we are taking Genesis literally, then the animals did not die before the Fall not because they didn't eat from the Tree of Life (they may have, but that is irrelevant, since the Tree of Life would only effect humans, as humans are fundamentally different than animals, since they are in the image of God), but by the fact that they didn't exist but a day or so before Adam.

Even if animals were created only 5 minutes before man, how does one draw the conclusion that therefore animals were created immortal? Also, what is this fundamental difference between man and animals? My belief, and scripture is consistent on this, is that unlike animals, man has a spirit.....(and look how nicely that fits in with the likeness of God. )

Had Adam made the right choice and partaken of his intended immortality, then all of Creation would have lived as well. Instead, he made the wrong choice and all of Creation became subject to decay, as St Paul teaches in Romans 8.

"partaken of his intended immortality" - What exactly does that mean? Does it involve eating from the Tree of Life? If so, how often? Once? Daily? Keep in mind, Adam needed to eat from the Tree of Knowledge only once, to become like God knowing good and evil.

As for Romans 8, the entire chapter needs to be read to put it in proper context. When studied in context of the whole chapter, we see that Paul is talking about spiritual life. If you don't believe that, I suggest you read vs 1-2, then ask yourself a question.

1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,* who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. (Romans 8:1-2)

Follow-up question - Did Paul physically die or not?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

that is not true, He suffered both.
"My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"-God the Father turns His eyes away from the sin poured out on the Son, Jesus is alone, separated from God, spiritual death.

How can God be separated from Himself? Me thinks you might have a wee bit of heresy regarding Christ's dual-nature mixed in your theology.

Also, that line is from a Psalm and it ends quite differently than that one line you listed.

here is an essay that addresses the issue from your viewpoint:
http://www.afcministry.com/Was_Jesus_separated_from_the_Father.htm

here is an essay from my perspective:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3505/GodForsakenByGod.html

What He staggers under is that He will actually bear the separation from God that is the inevitable consequence of sin.

it is certainly not heretical but has been the consistent testimony of the reformed churches since Calvin. i am simply unaware of theology at this level outside of my own tradition so i do not know where your viewpoint comes from, or what churches teach it. you perhaps can enlighten me on that and give me some denominational links to this doctrine.

i have perhaps 4 books on my library shelf from the Puritans speaking strongly of the spiritual separation of the Father from the Son at Calvary and how this causes a separation that had never before happened.....

here is another excellent essay on the topic:
http://www.mbrem.com/jesus_Christ/atone2.htm

Death is primarily the separation of the soul from God; and physical death, or the separation of the soul from the body, is only a by product and a relatively unimportant consequence of that greater catastrophe. Jesus did not suffer the pangs which are experienced by lost souls in hell, but in paying the penalty for His people, He did suffer death in its most essential nature, which is separation from God. And while His sufferings were not identical, either in intensity or in length of time endured, with those which His people would have suffered had they been left to their own sin, in view of the infinite worth and dignity of the Sufferer they were nevertheless a full equivalent to those sufferings.

i'll leave it up to you to support your contention that Jesus did not suffer separation from God. reference to which denominations teach it would be a help to following up on your argument.

....

 

[SuperNova]

Take an honest and critical look at the following questions. You don't need to answer them here. They are only meant for you to consider.

Why would immortal bodies need to eat anything? Why did God create all human and animal life with a digestive system? Why does most animal life have some kind of teeth? What would be the purpose of such an intricate and elaborate design, if all mankind and animals were created immortal? Why did God's first dialogue with Adam include the allowed and forbidden food sources?

We ate for pleasure. It was a paradise. God looked at his creation and called it "very good". I doubt God ment death and decay was "very good". The bible also speaks of the coming wedding feast for us and Jesus. Why would we need to eat in heaven if it's eternal? Purely for the sence of taste. As for teeth, there are many many herbavore and omivore animal life which has sharp pointed teeth. The sloth for example. Many bears eat vegitation. So do pandas and koalas. It's also thought now that the T-rex was either a herbavore or a scavenger and not a predador because its teeth aren't rooted very deep in the bone. Teeth are also for eating fruit and vegitation. The dialog of God on the topic of forbidden food sources was to tell them that All plants are for food but the tree in the center. He wanted to make it clear that all other trees are OK. I doubt meat entered into Adam or Eve's mind at the time.

Also think about this. When intepreting Genesis don't make the mistake of using the world today as a comparison of what the pre-fall world was like. It was a sinless paradise. Remember that. The world today is a sinful, tainted, decaying shell of a version of what it was before sin entered into it.

Watch this video. This man can speak on the subject much better than I can There are other videos on that site too which I find facinating.

http://www.nwcreation.net/media/does_it_matter_high.wmv

From http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/

 

[shernren]

Okay, so I take it that Psalms uses a different word for "death" from the Torah. Could this be because they were written by different people? Does the psalm attributed to Moses (as I recall, there were some) use the Torah word for "death" or the Psalm word for "death"? Anywhere else? I don't recall you telling me about it before this but I'll check it at blueletterbible when I can.

Critias I did a check-up on that word "maveth", compared to "muwth", at www.blueletterbible.org. (Go to Search > Dictionary and use "death" as your definition.) It's interesting. I don't see a "physical > muwth / spiritual > maveth" distinction. Instead muwth is used as a process / action, much like a verb, whereas maveth seems to speak more of the state / thing-in-itself of death and being dead, much like a noun or a modified-noun adjective (e.g. "snail-like" referring to the state of being / resembling a snail). This only serves to reinforce my conviction that to the Jews at least there was no very clear distinction in concept between a physical death that leaves the "soul" intact, and a spiritual death.

Dominus, I'm quite curious what exactly you'd believe about the crucifixion, in lieu of Jesus being forcibly separated from God. Why did Jesus say those words - "God, why have you forsaken me?" ?

SuperNova:

Could it be that we were ment to spread out to other planets possibly?

But I thought creationists assumed that creation is finite.

Or that the land mass was larger above the water?

It would still have been finite.

Could it be that God knew we were going to sin and screw it all up anyway so he never really worried about that part?

That to me is the most terrifying explanation I can imagine. (I am not criticising you, but your idea.) I thought a central idea of Christian theology was human free will, i.e. that for Adam to choose not to sin, was as possible and logical as for Adam to choose to sin. Why would I worship a God who designed the world to collapse if Adam sinned and implode if he didn't?

Or could it be that before the fall the presents of God was so much more abundant that there was a sustaining grace that kept the world triving?

As much as I treasure and adore the presence of God, I don't think He would make an infinite number become finite. That's a logical impossibility and therefore a line He would not cross. Asking Him to limit animal populations without death is like asking Him to make a five-sided triangle.

But it does say that even the animals at first ate only vegitation.

Where? I know that there are verses where Adam is given the greens to eat, but I don't think I've seen that extended to animals.

Only God knows the answer to that question because the answer was to be his perfect plan. A plan that never fully took place. And I'm sure the answer makes perfect logical sence.

And it does. Animals died.

As far as death is concerned there is a reason why death was the result of sin. There is a logical reason why the wages of sin is and was death. It's not mearly to punish us for sin. If there were no death Christ could not have died on the cross , nor could there be animal sacrifice before Christ and therefore the wages of sin must be death. This is why God said if you eat of the tree you will surely die and why when they ate of the tree they didn't just fall dead where they stood. He did mean a spiritual death but he also ment eventually you will die physically. There is no other alternative but death for a world of sin because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. This is why the access to the tree of life was removed because if man were to live forever then Christ's death on the cross would not have been possible. This tells me that when God removed access to the tree of life he knew even then that Christ would have to come and die for our sins. Death was the logical action taken by a loving creator who according to his Love had to provide a way of forgiveness and salvation.

Fine, so how did/do animals sin? And if they didn't/don't sin, then why do they die, since only human death would have been necessary for Jesus's crucifixion?

We ate for pleasure. It was a paradise. God looked at his creation and called it "very good". I doubt God ment death and decay was "very good".

How do you know that? How do you know what God would have called "very good", and what He wouldn't have?

The bible also speaks of the coming wedding feast for us and Jesus. Why would we need to eat in heaven if it's eternal?

Why is there meat at the feast?

17And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, "Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great."

As for teeth, there are many many herbavore and omivore animal life which has sharp pointed teeth. The sloth for example. Many bears eat vegitation. So do pandas and koalas. It's also thought now that the T-rex was either a herbavore or a scavenger and not a predador because its teeth aren't rooted very deep in the bone. Teeth are also for eating fruit and vegitation.

Teeth for meat are very different. Where did, for example, the serrated teeth of sharks come from? What plant were those designed for?

When intepreting Genesis don't make the mistake of using the world today as a comparison of what the pre-fall world was like. It was a sinless paradise. Remember that. The world today is a sinful, tainted, decaying shell of a version of what it was before sin entered into it.

I have only the world today to use as a reference to imagine the world that was. If you give me two theories for the same concept, out of which one I can imagine with today's world (i.e. that animals died) and one I can't (i.e. that animals didn't), guess which gets my vote while I have only this world?

 

[SuperNova]

Where? I know that there are verses where Adam is given the greens to eat, but I don't think I've seen that extended to animals.

Genesis 1:29-30

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

Fine, so how did/do animals sin? And if they didn't/don't sin, then why do they die, since only human death would have been necessary for Jesus's crucifixion?

As you may recall before Christ died for our sins animal sacrifice was the way we attoned for our sins. Burnt offerings unto the Lord and so on. Animal death was neccesary because of the same reason human death was. Before Christ animals had to be sacrificed for our sins. This is why Jesus is called the lamb of God.

How do you know that? How do you know what God would have called "very good", and what He wouldn't have?

I think the man in the video explains it better than I can.
Basicly God calls many things in the bible very good. If he looked at a creation full of death and decay and called it very good then what else does very good mean? I don't think a perfect creator would look at anything that wasn't perfect and call it very good. It wouldn't be in his nature.

Why is there meat at the feast?

Is there? I haven't seen a menu.

Teeth for meat are very different. Where did, for example, the serrated teeth of sharks come from? What plant were those designed for?

Never the less. There are plenty of examples of herbavores that have teeth one would expect to be for eating meat. There are plenty of sea plants a shark would enjoy had it been a pre-fall shark. But since I gave you a bible verse to back up the claim that all animals ate plants before the fall this is a useless part of the discussion.

I have only the world today to use as a reference to imagine the world that was. If you give me two theories for the same concept, out of which one I can imagine with today's world (i.e. that animals died) and one I can't (i.e. that animals didn't), guess which gets my vote while I have only this world?

Not an invalid point you've made. Because this world, even as different as it is from what it once was, is the only one you've been able to observer it's your only example. But realize this. One of the goals the Lord has for the end times is for the new heaven and earth to be as this world was suppose to be at the beginning of creation. To return his creation to his original intent. An eternal world where there is no sin and the lion lies down with the lamb. We can look in the bible of what God plans for eternity for those who follow him and use that as our example of what he originally ment for the world to be like and what it was like before sin. We have never observed it and it's vastly different from our world but we can read about it in the bible.

 

[shernren]

Okay, my memory verses are getting rusty. Hmm.

As you may recall before Christ died for our sins animal sacrifice was the way we atoned for our sins. Burnt offerings unto the Lord and so on. Animal death was neccesary because of the same reason human death was. Before Christ animals had to be sacrificed for our sins. This is why Jesus is called the lamb of God.

Our sins were never atoned for by sacrifice itself. David says in his psalm that God never desired the blood of bulls and goats, but a contrite heart. And Hebrews makes clear that the blood sacrifice had no redemptive power in itself but instead pointed to Jesus' blood sacrifice. So why was this pointer necessary?

Basicly God calls many things in the bible very good. If he looked at a creation full of death and decay and called it very good then what else does very good mean? I don't think a perfect creator would look at anything that wasn't perfect and call it very good. It wouldn't be in his nature.

It depends on what He would call perfect. If animal death was wrong in His sight why did He perform the first animal death, to provide skin clothing for Adam and Eve?

Never the less. There are plenty of examples of herbavores that have teeth one would expect to be for eating meat. There are plenty of sea plants a shark would enjoy had it been a pre-fall shark. But since I gave you a bible verse to back up the claim that all animals ate plants before the fall this is a useless part of the discussion.

Really. Give me an example of a sea plant which a shark needs serrated, disposable teeth for.

Not an invalid point you've made. Because this world, even as different as it is from what it once was, is the only one you've been able to observer it's your only example. But realize this. One of the goals the Lord has for the end times is for the new heaven and earth to be as this world was suppose to be at the beginning of creation. To return his creation to his original intent. An eternal world where there is no sin and the lion lies down with the lamb. We can look in the bible of what God plans for eternity for those who follow him and use that as our example of what he originally ment for the world to be like and what it was like before sin. We have never observed it and it's vastly different from our world but we can read about it in the bible.

Well it's been pointed out by others that the Bible describes this perfect world in many different ways. Sometimes it is said that the lion will lie with the lamb. Sometimes, that there will be no lion. Sometimes that he who does not reach a hundred in this new earth will be considered accursed, with the implications that there will be accursed there, they will die before hundred, and that those who die after a hundred will be considered normal. Read Isaiah 65 for an interesting description of the new heavens and new earth, where lions spare lambs but death apparently does not spare people!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Basicly God calls many things in the bible very good. If he looked at a creation full of death and decay and called it very good then what else does very good mean? I don't think a perfect creator would look at anything that wasn't perfect and call it very good. It wouldn't be in his nature.

this is a common problem. the virtual synomousness of good and perfect. they are not the same thing, especially not to the Hebrews. Good means complete, lacking nothing necessary. Perfect means without error, without flaw.
Look at the fall, Adam was good, not perfect, therefore he was able to disobey God.

It is this confusion, i believe that is driving some of the force behind AiG's no death before the fall position. (the major force is to pin the problem of theodicy in time on their opponents)

....

 

[TheBear]

We ate for pleasure.

Says who? Scripture? If so, please show us this scripture.

Adam was created to till the fields and tend the Garden - for manual labor. According to Genesis 2, there was no plant growth yet, because of two factors. God did not cause it to rain yet, and there was 'no man to till the ground' yet. So what did God do? He caused it to rain and created man.


"4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." (Gen 2:4-7)


Nowhere in scripture does it say Adam ate exclusively for the pleasure of the taste. I'm sure he got much pleasure out of everything he ate, but I'm also thinking that after a hard day's work of tilling and planting, etc, he was pretty hungry too.

 

[TheBear]

God looked at his creation and called it "very good". I doubt God ment death and decay was "very good".

The phrase "very good" is, at best, subjective. Ice cream is "very good" to me, But if I eat too much, it's not healthy for me. Also, if I leave it out too long, it will melt. Ice cream can also stain my shirt. Still to me, ice cream is "very good".

Scripture says God was pleased with His creation. Scripture does not say that His creation was devoid of the process of death. Where are you getting this?