PWas Eden and all that was created in it created perfect?

[Merrik]

Was Eden and all that was created in it created perfect? We were having a discussion in my christian theology class today about whether God (who is perfect) can create imperfection. Some of the key points that were brought up were:
1. Humans were created with free will and thus created with the ability to sin and therefore imperfect.
2. Since God is perfect and he has to be consistent with his nature, he cannot create imperfection.
3. When God said "good" was he referring to perfection or the ability to support life?

The discussion really didn't have an end due to time and I was wondering what others thought.

 

[Mallon]

A great question. I've often wondered: What was outside the Garden of Eden? It couldn't have been perfect if Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden to the world beyond. We don't often hear discussion about this topic, but I think it has major implications for Christian theology, particularly YECism.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Also, what is perfection? For some reason, many YECists seem to think this perfection includes no animals killing each other, roses not having thorns, etc.

 

[Merrik]

A great question. I've often wondered: What was outside the Garden of Eden? It couldn't have been perfect if Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden to the world beyond. We don't often hear discussion about this topic, but I think it has major implications for Christian theology, particularly YECism.

But what if the world outside the garden of eden was perfect until the Fall. Because the Bible talks about the world being "good" so to speak. Does that mean the having free will makes us imperfect? Will we have free will when we get to heaven being that there will be no sin? or even can you have free will without having sin or do the two go hand in hand to some degree?

 

[Mallon]

But what if the world outside the garden of eden was perfect until the Fall.

I don't think the Bible implies that. After all, why restrict Adam and Eve to the Garden if everything outside the Garden is perfect? The Bible also implies that Adam and Eve were only made immortal by eating from the Tree of Life. If there were no other Trees of Life outside the Garden (which the Bible states), then isn't death outside the Garden what is naturally implied?

Will we have free will when we get to heaven being that there will be no sin?

Another great question. Could the Fall happen again in heaven if we have free will there? Maybe we'll know enough about sin on earth this time to choose God over temptation. Adam and Eve didn't have that experience. How could they have known what death even was if they never experienced it?

 

[Merrik]

I don't think the Bible implies that. After all, why restrict Adam and Eve to the Garden if everything outside the Garden is perfect? The Bible also implies that Adam and Eve were only made immortal by eating from the Tree of Life. If there were no other Trees of Life outside the Garden (which the Bible states), then isn't death outside the Garden what is naturally implied?

No where does it say that Adam and Eve were restricted to the garden though. In Gen. 1:28 or 29 i believe it says that he gave them the whole of the earth. Just a thought.

 

[Mallon]

No where does it say that Adam and Eve were restricted to the garden though. In Gen. 1:28 or 29 i believe it says that he gave them the whole of the earth. Just a thought.

They couldn't have wandered far from the Garden if they wanted to live forever, though. The Tree of Life -- the very thing that kept them immortal -- was in the Garden. There must have been death outside the Garden.

 

[juvenissun]

Also, what is perfection? For some reason, many YECists seem to think this perfection includes no animals killing each other, roses not having thorns, etc.

So, do you mean everyone except YEC think the Garden of Eden, and everything related to it, is a metaphor?

If not, how would some non-YEC think about what should animals do in the Garden? Should they kill each others in the Garden?

Even you think the Garden is a metaphor, are you able to avoid the question above? What is the meaning of animals that killed each other in the Garden? May be you are saying that the Garden is not any better than the earth after the Fall. If so, what is the figurative meaning of the Garden?

Are you ultimately suggesting that the whole Genesis account is a trash?

 

[Dark_Lite]

So, do you mean everyone except YEC think the Garden of Eden, and everything related to it, is a metaphor?

If not, how would some non-YEC think about what should animals do in the Garden? Should they kill each others in the Garden?

Even you think the Garden is a metaphor, are you able to avoid the question above? What is the meaning of animals that killed each other in the Garden? May be you are saying that the Garden is not any better than the earth after the Fall. If so, what is the figurative meaning of the Garden?

Are you ultimately suggesting that the whole Genesis account is a trash?

Not quite sure how you read all of that from my post. I'm simply saying that perfection does not have to include this magic world where animals don't kill each other, roses don't have thorns, etc. In fact, the creation account says that creation was "very good." Not perfect.

 

[juvenissun]

Not quite sure how you read all of that from my post. I'm simply saying that perfection does not have to include this magic world where animals don't kill each other, roses don't have thorns, etc. In fact, the creation account says that creation was "very good." Not perfect.

I have no problem with that. I was addressing the YEC remark.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I have no problem with that. I was addressing the YEC remark.

I was saying that generally such a thought (that perfection was in the garden and that this perfection includes some strange world that goes against nature as we know it: no disease, immortality, roses without thorns, dinosaurs and man existing together) is generally included in YEC thought. It's yet another one of the wild pseudoscientific hypotheses made up to make the whole idea of young earth creationism work.

The garden may or may not be a metaphor. The description found in the creation account is likely based in some kind of history. But I don't think that history is exactly as described in the creation account, obviously.

 

[juvenissun]

I was saying that generally such a thought (that perfection was in the garden and that this perfection includes some strange world that goes against nature as we know it: no disease, immortality, roses without thorns, dinosaurs and man existing together) is generally included in YEC thought. It's yet another one of the wild pseudoscientific hypotheses made up to make the whole idea of young earth creationism work.

The garden may or may not be a metaphor. The description found in the creation account is likely based in some kind of history. But I don't think that history is exactly as described in the creation account, obviously.

What I am saying is that perfect or not perfect of the Garden should have nothing to do with YEC or not YEC. For example, you are not a YEC. Does that mean you think there must be death in the Garden? I don't think so.

 

[Dark_Lite]

What I am saying is that perfect or not perfect of the Garden should have nothing to do with YEC or not YEC. For example, you are not a YEC. Does that mean you think there must be death in the Garden? I don't think so.

It may not be explicitly tied to YECism, but there is a correlation between those who believe in YECism and those who believe that there was no death in the garden.

 

[juvenissun]

It may not be explicitly tied to YECism, but there is a correlation between those who believe in YECism and those who believe that there was no death in the garden.

That is what I asked: Do ALL evolutionists think that there WAS death in the Garden? Or they simply closed their eyes to this question, but only picked on YEC?

 

[Dark_Lite]

That is what I asked: Do ALL evolutionists think that there WAS death in the Garden? Or they simply closed their eyes to this question, but only picked on YEC?

Most theistic evolutionists probably think the Garden of Eden is metaphorical, or a story based on a much less fantastical set of events than are depicted in the story. Overall, the answer to your question would be "yes there was death in the 'garden.'"

What I mentioned in the first place was the made-up science that has to go along with YECism in order to make it work.

 

[juvenissun]

Most theistic evolutionists probably think the Garden of Eden is metaphorical, or a story based on a much less fantastical set of events than are depicted in the story. Overall, the answer to your question would be "yes there was death in the 'garden.'"

What I mentioned in the first place was the made-up science that has to go along with YECism in order to make it work.

OK, then you also gave an answer to the OP. The Garden made by God (a metaphor or not) is not perfect. In fact, it is way way from being perfect.

Don't you have a more serious theological problem then?

 

[metherion]

OK, then you also gave an answer to the OP. The Garden made by God (a metaphor or not) is not perfect. In fact, it is way way from being perfect.

Don't you have a more serious theological problem then?

This assumes that perfection = lacking death as one of its main requirements, however. What is there to support this? Even in Isaiah, where it talks about the predators eating grass and laying down with their (current) prey and children playing with adders, it still makes mention of people's life spans.

And furthermore, would an ecosystem with no death be perfect? With no death, no members would die out, and things would become overcrowded, messy, and eventually nothing would be able to fill God's command of being fruitful and multiplying. And think of this: if there is no death, then among other things, no sperm would die. Yet... guys produce millions per go. What on earth would happen all the ones that don't fertilize eggs? They can't die...
And of course, nobody would get to eat anything, because the mere act of eating kills what you eat, animal OR plant.

And the Lord VERY SPECIFICALLY likes the smell of burned sacrifices, and to burn a sacrifice you must kill it. Would a world without what pleases God BE perfect? (Numbers 29:2)

Metherion

 

[juvenissun]

This assumes that perfection = lacking death as one of its main requirements, however. What is there to support this? Even in Isaiah, where it talks about the predators eating grass and laying down with their (current) prey and children playing with adders, it still makes mention of people's life spans.

And furthermore, would an ecosystem with no death be perfect? With no death, no members would die out, and things would become overcrowded, messy, and eventually nothing would be able to fill God's command of being fruitful and multiplying. And think of this: if there is no death, then among other things, no sperm would die. Yet... guys produce millions per go. What on earth would happen all the ones that don't fertilize eggs? They can't die...
And of course, nobody would get to eat anything, because the mere act of eating kills what you eat, animal OR plant.

And the Lord VERY SPECIFICALLY likes the smell of burned sacrifices, and to burn a sacrifice you must kill it. Would a world without what pleases God BE perfect? (Numbers 29:2)

Metherion

Very good.

First, the earth in the Millennium is not Heaven. So all lives will still die during the Millennium.

Second, this is why we need to consider that plants and cells may not be treated as lives by God. Plants are created separately from animals. They are food for real lives.

Third, the Garden of Eden is not Heaven either. I don't think animals will be in the Heaven. Sorry if you have pets.

Fourth, who said that there were animals in the Garden? The Garden is a place God sets for Adam (and Eve). Animals might exist outside the Garden, where they may die.

 

[metherion]

First, the earth in the Millennium is not Heaven. So all lives will still die during the Millennium.

Okay, however, if that chapter of Isaiah is used that way then it can not ALSO be used to justify a view that in a perfect world, animals will not eat each other therefore animals eating each other is not perfect. I’m not saying you used it that way, but I’ve seen it referenced as such in many other discussions.

Second, this is why we need to consider that plants and cells may not be treated as lives by God. Plants are created separately from animals. They are food for real lives.

However, that doesn’t fit in with the view of Jesus we can see through his parables. Take the parable of the sower who cast his seed on many grounds. On some the crows at it, on some it withered, on some the thorns choked it out and killed it, and on some it grew on fertile ground and produced 100sfold. But it can’t be KILLED unless it was ALIVE. There are more examples of such.

Also, either it’s ALL life, or none. There is no purpose in thinking that only animal death counts EXCEPT to try and find an unsupported loophole. It can’t grow and be fertile and reproduce and flower unless it is ALIVE. And if it is alive, and then eaten, it dies. PERIOD.

Third, the Garden of Eden is not Heaven either. I don't think animals will be in the Heaven. Sorry if you have pets.

Yes, it is true the Garden was not Heaven, but the question was not “Is Heaven perfect” but ‘Is/was the Garden and God’s creation perfect?’

Fourth, who said that there were animals in the Garden? The Garden is a place God sets for Adam (and Eve). Animals might exist outside the Garden, where they may die.

The Bible says so. The serpent is an animal. All the animals were brought TO the man in Gen 2:19 for him to name them. And if outside the Garden is not perfect, the question of God creating imperfection STILL remains because the outside of the Garden was imperfect.

Oh, and also, at the end of Genesis 3, God creates garments of skins for Adam and Eve. Skins only come from dead animals. So either God created already dead things before driving them from the Garden (which would straight up mean that death is not imperfect since God can create things only resulting from it, namely dead animal skins), or God actually slew animals to make said garments.

Also, I know you didn’t address it, but I WOULD like to stress my point about sperm. It would be impossible for nearly any animal to reproduce without wasting a great many sperm in the process, humanity included. And the death of sperm would be death of something animal. And it would be impossible for any creature to fulfill God’s command without said death being involved. Whether you believe God created Eden directly or created all life indirectly, God still is responsible for designing reproduction to work that way, so He made it impossible to reproduce without death occurring, and could thus not fulfill God’s command without death occurring, so God commanded something that would end in death of one sort or another.

Metherion

 

[juvenissun]

Okay, however, if that chapter of Isaiah is used that way then it can not ALSO be used to justify a view that in a perfect world, animals will not eat each other therefore animals eating each other is not perfect. I’m not saying you used it that way, but I’ve seen it referenced as such in many other discussions.

Sorry that I was bogged down by some unworthy arguments in the other thread.

One of the problem in using the word perfect (or good as in Gen 1:10) is that there is no definition of it. If God makes a thing, who are we to say that it is not perfect? I was arguing that the existence of death is a sign of imperfection. Because in the sinless Garden, what could be bad except death? It is hard to argue that death is part of the good, since death means a separation from God.

Remind you that the Garden is the only place except the Heaven, where God has personally been there. I don't think God would say that animals kill each other in the Garden is "good". God brings animals to Adam for names. But the Bible does not say that animals also live in the Garden.