Death before the Fall

[A Beautiful Truth]

I think the number one issue between YE vs. OE is not the science, but the issue of death before the Fall.

Science has its place, but the YEC's that I have encountered only accept science that fits into their interpretation of scripture. They openly admit this. Therefore, I think it is pretty fruitless to debate science with YEC's.

I will give my science arguments to the seeking unbeliever, therefore, and give theological arguments to YEC who are willing to listen.

I have given an argument that deals with death before the Fall and understanding Romans 8:19-22 in the Christianity forum. I don't know how many here from the Cosmogony Forum go over to the Christianity Forum so I thought I'd mention it.

~Charleen

[Paul]

I would not describe myself as a traditional YEC. I explicated my own position or inclination in the main NS 101 forum.

I do believe in the Flood and the supposed "scientific" evidence against it would have to be as clear cut as 3+7=10 for me to really reconsider how I understand those scriptures but in no case would I come to believe that God has lied or that the scriptures are not inspired in their every single word. I sometimes make a mistake in adding 3 and 7 ... in fact in my own illustration in a post in the main forum, I goofed and assumed 3+7=11 ... which was embarassing but which served to strengthen the point I was making: we cannot trust the operation of our natural faculties more than we trust the words of God.

I think "natural revelation" does have its place. But theology must come first. The data we have from God's own hand in scripture and the teachings that we have inherited from the Apostles is God's word to us. So it ought to have primacy. Our study of "natural revelation" ought to be fit into that or arranged around that -- just as the medievals saw in certain colored flowers signs of the salvation history they knew by faith -- and not the other way around. Lower truths ought to be understood in light of higher truths.

Nevertheless what we see in natural revelation can be an aid sometimes in how we understand supernatural revelation. But the supernatural revelation ought not be made subject to the natural revelation or our understanding of the same.

[trueseeker]

Charleen,

I am a YEC, and I see no conflict with the concept that there was death before the fall, I suppect that there was physical death. Either way, I don't see why you consider that the number one issue between YE and OE perspective. I would say the main difference between YE and OE Christian perspectives is whether the accounts of creation through the tower of Babel are literal or figurative.

Or, you might have a gap or Hugh Ross theory that only the creation account is figurative, but somewhere after that the scriptures become literal.

[bigsplit]

I too have often wondered about the death before the fall of man or death in general. There is one line of scripture in the NT where Christ predicts the destruction of the Temple. I have often heard this particular prophecy used by some to argue that this is evidence that prophecies of the bible have been and are fullfilled. I have no particular argument for or against that particular lesson this scripture implies. However, having read this passage and pondered it long before I knew the history of the temple I drew a conclusion about what Christ was saying that expands the meaning of this statement.

I interpreted "not a single stone left unturned" as Christ understanding and teaching the 2nd law of thermodynamics, long before it was thought up by science. I drew this conclusion because of Christ continual messages against materialism and lust of the flesh. About his insistance that only Spirit is eternal and that all things made of matter will eventually be destroyed. The laws of Thermodynamics after all are not the creation of man, they are laws that dictate the realities of our physical Universe. Jesus must have understood these laws long before scientists did, and I always thought that this was the message Christ had in mind when he spoke those words to his friends.

This brings us back to death before the fall. The fact is the spirit never dies and still doesn't. Death is not a real concern to God, it is the law of the physical Universe that our flesh inhabits. It is man's lack of faith and his/her lust of the flesh which causes death to be the dreaded event that it is. Death is a part of life and to fear death is to fear life. "Ye tho I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil for thou art with me." We know that we walk in the mists of death and we know that oneday our physical bodies will die. The question is do we have faith the spirit is eternal? This poses an even tougher question of if the spirit is eternal what happens to it afterwards? Will I go to heaven or hell? Are there such places? These questions frieghten us and cause us to fear death which is only a transformation.

So to answer the question of death before the fall, there is no such thing as death to begin with as we are all eternal beings and going to heaven. the question is will we get to stay? I believe before the fall there was in fact the transformation from physical to spiritual or earthly death, I have no reason to believe that the 2nd law of thermodynamics did not exist before the fall. I think what changed in the garden that day was those secondary questions arose as to where will my spirit go after I die. It was the mindset of Man that changed not the physical Universe in which mankind lived and was created after the Fall.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Today @ 02:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=331602#post331602)
trueseeker:

Charleen,

I am a YEC, and I see no conflict with the concept that there was death before the fall, I suppect that there was physical death. Either way, I don't see why you consider that the number one issue between YE and OE perspective. I would say the main difference between YE and OE Christian perspectives is whether the accounts of creation through the tower of Babel are literal or figurative.

Or, you might have a gap or Hugh Ross theory that only the creation account is figurative, but somewhere after that the scriptures become literal.

Trueseeker,

I have appreciated your posts very much in other threads. We agree on a lot.

I think, as a YEC, you are a gem. I have never before met a YEC who also accepted death before the Fall. I hope more will see your reasoning for you are reasoning from scripture.

As for creation, I do take creation literal. In Hebrew, literal includes long ages. The argument about always having an ordinal in a numbered sequence to mean 24 hours is an argument that is not a Hebrew grammar rule. You will see that great Hebrew scholars accept no such rule.

If you look at the Hebrew word for "day" you will also see that it is also translated as "time" in many other verses. There is more to this argument from scripture, but I guess that is a different topic and you probably have heard it before.

As to the flood, you have probably heard the traditional OE argument on that as well which I adhere to. If the "whole earth" had the contextual meaning as what is traditionaly thought of in our world-traveling society, then the famine in Joseph's time extended to South America, South Africa, New Zealand as well, etc. Also, when Paul said the "whole world" had heard about the faith of the Romans, was he referring to even those in China, those who resided in the Andes, and the natives in Austrailia and Irain Jaya? No, I think it is context to Paul's world as it was to Joseph's and as it was to Noah's.

All of mankind resided in Noah's region and did not spread out until after the Tower of Babel, therefore, all of mankind was wiped out in Noah's flood. But you have probably heard all of this before.

I guess, then, the reason I say it is the death before the Fall issue that is the biggest obstacle for YEC is because I probably wrongly assume that the OE "Day" and "flood" arguments have been well understood by the YE camp. I did not feel the death before the Fall issue has been so well explained, so I have purposed to argue this point as the key point. But, you are right, I could be wrong that this is the "central" issue between our camps.

Yours,

Charleen

[trueseeker]

Charleen wrote:
'...I do take creation literal. In Hebrew, literal includes long ages...'

I have discussed the issues with a lot of OEC, but I have not heard any of them say they take the creation story literally. With the exception of a few who have said they will take the creating of Adam on as literal. Which in many ways is what YEC feel is the most important issue, that man was created not evolved and that there was a original Adam and Eve and original sin - the fall. Eliminating these most of us feel changes the centeral theme of the Bible.

Regarding the other events on the days of creation, it is not just because the word YOM is used that YEC feel they must have only been a single day. Also the description of a night and a day on each YOM, and because of the order in which things were created. For example - plants were created before the sun, moon and stars. That could literally be a day before, but how could it literally be ages before?
________________

Charleen wrote:
'...As to the flood, you have probably heard the traditional OE argument on that as well, which I adhere to...All of mankind resided in Noah's region and did not spread out until after the Tower of Babel, therefore, all of mankind was wiped out in Noah's flood. But you have probably heard all of this before.'

Yes, and I don't have a problem with this type of interpretation of the event if it fit with all of the verses describing it, but I don't feel like it does.

Gen. 6:13 '...the earth is filled with violence because of them.'
It seems to me that God is saying men have covered the planet here, and brought their violence with them. It may sound odd, but I think there may have been more people on the earth before the flood, than there are living today. So my perspective is that a local flood wouldn't have destroyed all of them.

Also if it was just a local flood, why would God want Noah to take all the animals? There would have been plenty of animals outside the flood region to migrate back in and repopulate it. Especially birds, why take birds if the flood is only local?

Gen. 7:21-22: 'all flesh that moved of the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life died.'

It just seems to me that the way it is described, it must be the entire earth.

Blessings!

[A Beautiful Truth]

Yesterday @ 05:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=332214#post332214)
trueseeker:

Charleen wrote:
'...I do take creation literal. In Hebrew, literal includes long ages...'

I have discussed the issues with a lot of OEC, but I have not heard any of them say they take the creation story literally. With the exception of a few who have said they will take the creating of Adam on as literal. Which in many ways is what YEC feel is the most important issue, that man was created not evolved and that there was a original Adam and Eve and original sin - the fall. Eliminating these most of us feel changes the centeral theme of the Bible.

Let me affirm that I also believe that Adam and Eve were literally specially created by God, relatively recently--thousands, not millions of years ago. Adam and Eve had no previous ancestors, no evolutionary line of descent. I also believe this for every species in the animal kingdom. I believe polar bears were created to be polar bears and not even evolved from a single bear pair off the ark. I believe zebras were also specially created and not evolved from a horse pair off the ark, I also believe that lions, tiger, cheetahs were specially created as well and not evolved from a single "cat" pair off the ark. As you can see, I believe in less evolution than most YEC's who attribute these changes from "kinds" off of the ark. You may object to this being called evolution, but it is only the YEC scientists who would call this merely micro evolution. Especially given the time frame off the ark, getting that kind of diversity off the ark is incredible. In five thousand years, if the Lord terries, what will become of humans? (a joke, of course) Besides, I am always amazed that YEC like to even use science. Since they believe their Bible interpretation is right, why do they even care to try to find ways to "bolster" their interpretation through science? Do they think science has any bearing on the believability of scripture? If they do, then their accusations of OEC are hypocritical.

Regarding the other events on the days of creation, it is not just because the word YOM is used that YEC feel they must have only been a single day. Also the description of a night and a day on each YOM,

Trueseeker, I think that you may not have heard the OEC responses to your concerns. For that reason, and not because I am trying to persuade you, I would like to respond to your objections. I want you to know that a Bible believing Christian who holds to an old earth can also believe that the Bible is totally error free. Again, I am not trying to push this or anything, but I don't think you have heard the OE answers.

First, please notice the seventh day. There is no evening, no morning. Would the seventh day also be confined to 24 hours? No--the seventh day continues on as evidenced elsewhere in scripture. While God still works on our behalf, He has rested from special creation. His seventh day of rest will cease when He creates a new heaven and earth.

Also consider the argument that as it starts with evening and ends with morning, this would fit into the "day" pattern given as if to say, there was nothing--evening, then there was something--morning. It is not without the given pattern of "day" and it is reasonable, even if it is not your take on it.

and because of the order in which things were created. For example - plants were created before the sun, moon and stars. That could literally be a day before, but how could it literally be ages before?

It is a matter of the point of view of the observer. Notice that the point of view is specified in Genesis 1:2 from the surface of the waters. From this vantage point, the order in the creation account is understood differently than a YE interpretation which fails to recognize that the events are to be interpreted from this frame of reference.

A quick side note about frames of reference--does the sun rise and set as scriptures say? Well, it does from the vantage point of earth from where the author of the Psalm wrote. Galileo tried to drive this vantage point idea home.

And so it is with Genesis one. The vantage point from the surface of the waters needs to be considered in order to properly interpret--just like the vantage point of the writer of the Psalms. But I dare say if it were not for some key inventions in past centuries, many Bible readers would say that the sun did the moving because "the Bible says so" in the Psalms--it rises and sets--it does the moving.

So, considering now the vantage point of the earth, the order of events is much different than the YE interpretation.

In day four when the sun, moon and stars are mentioned, it says "Let the lights" and "God made" and "God placed" because it was God who had created them--and they show up to the observer on earth on day four after the cloud cover on earth breaks up enough to see them. The writer did not mention them earlier for they were not yet visible from the vantage point of the surface of the earth so the writer here explains, now that the sun, moon, and stars are visible, that it was God who created them.

The light in vs. 3 was orginally from the sun, but the actual sight of the sun was hidden until day four.

And this is again why I wonder that YEC even uses science apologetics. What scientific explanation could they give to what this light could have been? "The glory of the Lord"--perhaps, some energy yet to be fully explained?--could be. But if the Bible cannot be tested scientifically, and you just take it by faith, then you might as well be a Mormon or a Buddhist. Those religions fail scientifically but are taken by faith nonetheless. I needed to know that I can believe in the scriptures, not because I was born into America and America is a Christian country, but because the scirptures could stand up to objective testing and be found true. Ours is the only Holy Book that can stand up to scrutiny. However, the YEC interpretation of the Holy Book cannot. The YE interpretation of Genesis would need to be taken entirely by faith. If it is all by faith, how do you know which religion is right? No, you need to know why you believe. Likewise, do we accept the resurrection because a couple of guys said so? No--we have hard evidence and Paul made a point to give hard evidence. I believe it is the same with creation. If God did it, He is not going to hide what He really did and only show a particular group of Christians called YEC--no--for He made the Heavens themselves to decalare the glory of God so everyone can see. What God has made holds mankind accountable in knowing that there is a God who created--why would He only show YEC's His evidence in creation? As I said, even atheistic scientists see problems with evolution, but there is no such evidence for a young earth.

But our God can be found by those who do not even seek for Him. And our God calls the world into accountability--even scientists. And while non-Christian scientists can see the failures of Darwinian evolution, they do not see the failures of an old earth. It seems if God calls us all to accountability, it should not be just YEC who can see the evidence for a young earth. As I said, even non-YEC scientists who are atheists can see evidence for design against evolution.
________________

Gen. 6:13 '...the earth is filled with violence because of them.'
It seems to me that God is saying men have covered the planet here, and brought their violence with them. It may sound odd, but I think there may have been more people on the earth before the flood, than there are living today. So my perspective is that a local flood wouldn't have destroyed all of them.

Again, the "earth is filled" is Noah's earth. Like the famine in Josephs time spread to Joseph's world, the faith of the Romans spread to all of Paul's Roman world, etc. You must remember that these guys were not world travelers like we are today. The world for them meant something different to them than it does today where we have mapped the whole world.

Also if it was just a local flood, why would God want Noah to take all the animals? There would have been plenty of animals outside the flood region to migrate back in and repopulate it. Especially birds, why take birds if the flood is only local?

For his economy, his sacrifice, his food after the flood. It would have taken a while for the animals to migrate back and God wanted to him to be able to start right back up again. Animals are very important to the kind of society that Noah had. And, remember, since I don't believe in a global flood, I do not believe Noah had to take penguins or other animals that were not in his region.

Gen. 7:21-22: 'all flesh that moved of the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life died.'

It just seems to me that the way it is described, it must be the entire earth.

Well, again, I believe it was Noah's world as in other scriptures the world is spoken of as a region. I do not believe that mankind spread out until the Tower of Babel.


Blessings!

Thank you, you have been a blessing.

~Charleen

[trueseeker]

Charleen wrote:
'... As you can see, I believe in less evolution than most YEC's who attribute these changes from "kinds" off of the ark. You may object to this being called evolution, but it is only the YEC scientists who would call this merely micro evolution. Especially given the time frame off the ark, getting that kind of diversity off the ark is incredible...Besides, I am always amazed that YEC like to even use science. Since they believe their Bible interpretation is right, why do they even care to try to find ways to "bolster" their interpretation through science? Do they think science has any bearing on the believability of scripture? If they do, then their accusations of OEC are hypocritical....'

Well I am quilty as charged. My perspective right now is that the diversity off the ark has been incredible. To me science is observing the physical universe to try and understand our reallity. I accept the Genesis accounts as actual observation of events that happened in the physical universe, and I add my observations, and I struggle to understand exactly what the descriptions meant in Genesis and exactly what my observations mean.

Although I am a YEC, I agree with you that some YEC people are hypocritical in their judgementalism toward OEC people and some evolutionists for that matter who are honestly trying to find the truth as well. I sincerely hope you don't think I fall into the hypocritical category just because I am a YEC and also try to observe the natural universe.
_____________

Charleen wrote:
'...I want you to know that a Bible believing Christian who holds to an old earth can also believe that the Bible is totally error free...'

I do understand what you are saying, and I have heard many OEC interpretations of Genesis. Many OEC are just struggling to understand the descriptions of the events in Genesis like I am. Of course it makes more sense to me, that the descriptions are describing actual days and a global flood, that is why I am a YEC.
_________________

Charleen wrote:
'And this is again why I wonder that YEC even uses science apologetics...I needed to know that I can believe in the scriptures...because the scriptures could stand up to objective testing and be found true. Ours is the only Holy Book that can stand up to scrutiny. However, the YEC interpretation of the Holy Book cannot. The YE interpretation of Genesis would need to be taken entirely by faith. If it is all by faith, how do you know which religion is right? No, you need to know why you believe....'

Your argument is circular here. You say the Bible can stay up to scrutiny, and we should know why we believe, but we YEC shouldn't try to test our interpretation of scripture against science, we should only accept it by faith or reject it.
_____________

Charleen wrote:
'If God did it, He is not going to hide what He really did and only show a particular group of Christians called YEC--no--for He made the Heavens themselves to decalare the glory of God so everyone can see.

Amen. But still not everyone does see.
_____________

Charleen wrote:
'What God has made holds mankind accountable in knowing that there is a God who created--why would He only show YEC's His evidence in creation? As I said, even atheistic scientists see problems with evolution, but there is no such evidence for a young earth.'

I think a fairer statement is that you haven't seen any evidence that is convincing to you. The truth is all of human knowledge is like a blade of grass on a football field, compared to all there is to know. And much of what we think we know is incorrect. I suppect that God will open our eyes one day to reveal a lot more understanding of our existance. And none of us will have had it exactly right.

I won't carry on further point by point, but I do understand what you are saying. If I didn't interpret Genesis the way I do, I would think that the universe was much older than I do from a YEC stand point. The main and most important evidence to me that the earth is young is because of my personal interpretation of the description of events in Genesis. You and others may see that as foolish, ignorant, unscientific, having blind faith, but I freely admit it anyway.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Today @ 05:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=333202#post333202)
trueseeker:

Although I am a YEC, I agree with you that some YEC people are hypocritical in their judgementalism toward OEC people and some evolutionists for that matter who are honestly trying to find the truth as well. I sincerely hope you don't think I fall into the hypocritical category just because I am a YEC and also try to observe the natural universe.

No, indeed.

Charleen wrote:
'And this is again why I wonder that YEC even uses science apologetics...I needed to know that I can believe in the scriptures...because the scriptures could stand up to objective testing and be found true. Ours is the only Holy Book that can stand up to scrutiny. However, the YEC interpretation of the Holy Book cannot. The YE interpretation of Genesis would need to be taken entirely by faith. If it is all by faith, how do you know which religion is right? No, you need to know why you believe....'

Your argument is circular here. You say the Bible can stay up to scrutiny, and we should know why we believe, but we YEC shouldn't try to test our interpretation of scripture against science, we should only accept it by faith or reject it.

No, I probably did not explain myself well enough. What I meant was that to take the YE interpretation of the Genesis order of events is to take the account by faith for most scientifically aware YEC understand that the YE interpretation is a far cry from non-YEC science.

For example:

In the YE interpretation, the earth was created *before* the sun and stars. Only YE scientists and YE Christians believe this. This is not made evident by investigation of the natural world, otherwise you would see it evidenced for the world to see. It seems, then, that it is indeed by faith for there is no natural explanation for this descrepency.

In non-YE science the earth formed out of a solar nebula. See, the material of earth is made up of exploded stars--"star dust" if you wish. Therefore your flesh even has the elements that were made in the cores of stars that had burned and gone nova--all before earth was created.

This fits well within the OE interpretation that believes that In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth to mean everything including stars, planets, etc. The Genesis order of events after that are only focused on earth and, as I said, what the observer would see from the vantage of earth's surface...

There are other examples as well if you would like to hear them...


Charleen wrote:
'What God has made holds mankind accountable in knowing that there is a God who created--why would He only show YEC's His evidence in creation? As I said, even atheistic scientists see problems with evolution, but there is no such evidence for a young earth.'

I think a fairer statement is that you haven't seen any evidence that is convincing to you. The truth is all of human knowledge is like a blade of grass on a football field, compared to all there is to know. And much of what we think we know is incorrect. I suppect that God will open our eyes one day to reveal a lot more understanding of our existance. And none of us will have had it exactly right.

Yes, but....the heavens declare the glory of God...and God is at least knowable in part, being understood through what has been made, so that man is without excuse. Again, if only YEC could see it, then how are those who study cosmology "without excuse"?

I won't carry on further point by point, but I do understand what you are saying.

Thank you for understanding.

If I didn't interpret Genesis the way I do, I would think that the universe was much older than I do from a YEC stand point. The main and most important evidence to me that the earth is young is because of my personal interpretation of the description of events in Genesis. You and others may see that as foolish, ignorant, unscientific, having blind faith, but I freely admit it anyway.

Because I think you are wrong does not mean that I also think you are foolish. If this were a salvational kind of issue, if we were debating Christianity, I would approach this differently. I feel no need to even sway you from your YE position because you are already a Christian and that is what is paramount. Please don't think I think you are foolish or ignorant. And being scientific, last I checked, was not one of those core issues. Having blind faith--well, you don't have blind faith when it comes to the resurrection, at least you shouldn't, so what does it matter if your faith is "blind" when it comes to creation--it really doesn't matter. Your faith is in Him and I respect you, I would not belittle you!

~Charleen

[grmorton]

This was something I wrote back in 1998.

I have recently received a letter from a famous young-earth creationist. I have a respect for this gentleman because he does think out of the ordinary young-earth box. He informed me that he could not accept my harmonization because of the existence of death before the fall. He strongly believes that the Scripture rules this out. Because of the respect I feel for this individual and the widespread belief among young earth creationists that man was originally created immortal, I am going to address this head on.

The first issue that must be addressed is the issue of immortality. Who or what was offered immortality in the Scripture? Genesis 2:17 says

Genesis 2:17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

What is interesting is that this verse actually does not say that they will live forever, it merely states the opposite. It says that in the day they eat, they will die. Does this actually imply that Adam and Eve would live forever? Traditionally this is the way that this verse has been interpreted, but in the day one eats a toadstool, they will die. Their liver will fail and they will die within 24 hours. Yet if someone tells them that the day they will eat a toadstool, they will die, it does not imply that they otherwise would live forever. To conclude that Genesis 2:17 implies immortality is a non sequitur. Do these verses teach that mankind was given eternal life? Maybe not.

The function of the Tree of Life was obviously to give eternal life. Of this tree God says:

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

What is clear from this verse is that the tree’s fruit could give the eater immortality. If Adam and Eve already possessed immortality, why was the tree there? There are three possibilities. 1. The tree was there to provide eternal life for people after the fall. 2 The tree was there to provide a one time ‘reward’ of immortality after a period of life on earth. 3. The tree was there to provide continuing ‘treatments’ of immortality. The context clearly falsifies the first option, the idea that the tree served some purpose for life after the Fall.. God removed the Tree specifically to avoid the fallen creatures from partaking of the tree. So this would suggest that the only reason for the tree was to provide immortality for the UNFALLEN Adam and Eve, either as a single or continuing dose, options 1 and 2.. But both of these options imply strongly that they did not originally possess immortality. As noted above one can not give a trait like immortality if they already have immortality. Both of these two possibilities contradict the widespread view that Adam and Eve were created immortal (in spite of the fact that no statement to that effect actually occurs in the Scripture.)

What about the New Testament references to death entering the cosmos through sin? Romans 5:12 needs to be discussed in this regard. It says:

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

The verse would be reconciled to the lack of original immortality by merely noting that death did spread to all men because the Tree of Life was removed. If immortality was to be given to men by either a single or continuing dose (options 1 and 2) then the tree’s removal would have severe consequences for the history of humanity. Death would have entered the human order via the removal of the tree. Such a view is consistent with Revelations 22:2 which says,

Rev. 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

This verse hints that the tree is for continued healing, not a one time dose. This then allows one to understand that other verses can be interpreted as death entering the normal order for mankind by the removal of the Tree of Life rather than by the direct effect of eating the tree. Death entered the world through the consequences of Adam's actions. This is also consistent with the proclamation made by God that death would follow Adam's sin. It did. They were the walking dead after the tree was removed from their reach. They were doomed die the day they lost access to the Tree of Life.

Romans 5;17-18 says:

Romans 5:17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. (NIV)

Because the Tree was removed, the consequence was the condemnation for all of humanity. One other interesting item about the above verses is that death was spread to MEN, not to animals. This is supported by the fact that the word 'men' is the Greek word, anthropos. This Greek word means men NOT animals. Adam’s sin spread to men. This passage, cannot be used to support the concept that Adam’s sin affected the animals.

What about the passage in Romans 8?

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

The creation can groan even if it was not originally offering immortality to the animals. Humans have an ability to destroy which surpasses anything else in the creation. We are driving animals to extinction; we are fouling the environment. Creation groans even without immortality.

One final item, it is illogical to believe that animals had immortality for several reasons.

First, if animals couldn’t die, why did God create them with reproductive abilities? If no cow could die, then God need not have created two cows and told them to populate the earth; He could have created 10,567,890,002 cows and been done with it. None of them could die, and there would be no need for replacements. Sex and reproduction were needless. The fact that God told the animals to reproduce strongly implies that they were going to need replacements, implying death was part of their natural state.

Could it be that God planned for man to sin? If this were so, then traditional views of God’s causation of evil would not be correct. God would have created a world in which man was doomed to sin regardless of man’s own decision. This violates the theology of most of the young-earth creationists yet they don’t notice this contradiction.

Secondly, if animals were not able to die, it would imply things like the following. If a twenty-ton meteor, moving at 20 kilometers per second were to smash onto the head of a fox in the field, then in a cartoon-like manner, the fox would get up and run away after this event. An ant, crawling on grass which was eaten by a cow, would have had to have been able to withstand the crushing of the cow’s teeth, and a passage through the ruminant’s four stomachs. It would be able to resume its life after elimination from the cow no matter how far from home the cow had taken it.

Thirdly, eating would not be necessary. If animals were unable to die, then, they would also be unable to die from starvation. So God giving the various animals food would have been pointless. They really didn’t need to eat at all because they couldn’t die.

Finally, there is a strange dichotomy between what YECs say about death and what they themselves actually admit as being the case. When an animal in the prefall world ate a plant, hundreds of thousands of plant cells would DIE. These cells, and the plant itself would be digested and incorporated into the structure of the animal. So, plant death was a reality no matter what the theology says. Death, plant death and cell death, existed prior to the fall. Those denying death before the fall are only interested in denying animal death.

Yet this raises an interesting question. Could animal cells die before the flood? There is really little fundamental difference between plant and animal cells in relation to their fundamental structure. Both have DNA, both have cell membranes etc. Why is it that only cells with chloroplasts were believed to be subject to death prior to the fall? Were chloroplasts an Achilles heel for survival? It would be doubtful. Along these lines, skin is partly composed of a tough layer of dead skin cells which help protect humans. Adam had skin and thus presumably DEAD skin cells. This would mean that there was death before the fall.

Could it be that plants don't have the breath of life and this is why plant death is not important? Obviously the plant has no breath of life. Plant cells have no breath of life. But then neither again do animal cells, at least not in the sense that the term 'breath of life' is generally understood. So was it possible for an animal to eat the leg of another animal prior to the fall, as long as the animal itself is not killed? Such a possibility sounds preposterous, yet animal cells no more have the breath of life than do plant cells. If the differentiation between plant and animal death is solely based upon the criterion of the breath of life, that preposterous case can not be ruled out.

To conclude, it seems highly likely that there was death before the Fall. There was most certainly plant death and cellular death, and the existence of the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden suggests that it was there to give Adam and Eve something that the did not originally possess – immortality. And if they were not immortal, then they were mortal. Adam and Eve were offered immortality originally through the Tree of Life in some fashion. And this involved giving them a quality they didn’t originally possess--immortality.

[dizzle]

Glenn you and I have discussed this. You do not fall within the parameters of this section. I will PM you your restored post if you like.

[PanTerra]

Very interesting post, Grmorton. That was a lot to chew on.

[grmorton]

Dee Dee Warren:
Says I don't fall in the parameters of this group.



Beg to differ. I believe God created the first life. Evolution didn't do that. I believe Genesis is Historical. That certainly isn't a belief of materialists or naturalists.

I know you will not like me addressing this, but Dee Dee, you just don't like what I say. Show me where a person who believe God miraculously created life doesn't belong in this list. I have posted here before with out this censorship.

The guidelines says:

"This forum is for creationists and Intelligent Design advocates only."

I believe God designed the world by designing, INTELLIGENTLY, an evolutionary system, which is a better design than most christians want.

The guidelines say:
"So in other words, the question that a poster must ask himself is this: In what significant ways do my views on the origin of life and the universe differ from a non-theistic materialistic view practically speaking? If there are no significant differences, then this forum is not for you."

It is a significant difference from materialism to believe that God created the first life.

I also beleive in the direct creation of man , I believe in a talking snake. What is your problem with this Dee Dee?


I fit the criteria. Are you changing it to fit the moment?

You guys....so inconsistent.

[dizzle]

***If you would like to take issue with this notice do not address it in this thread as that will just get you in more trouble.***
Contact the forum moderator or an Administrator in Private Message.
If you feel you must repetitively complain, whine, or otherwise publicly bellyache, please take it to the Locker Room unless told otherwise.

[A Beautiful Truth]

grmorton,

I had started a thread by the same title, "Death before the Fall" in the Christianity forum and laid out an argument from Romans 8. If you are permitted in the Christianity forum, perhaps you could dig out that thread and contribute there?

~Charleen

[grmorton]

Charleen Lohman:

grmorton,

I had started a thread by the same title, "Death before the Fall" in the Christianity forum and laid out an argument from Romans 8. If you are permitted in the Christianity forum, perhaps you could dig out that thread and contribute there?

~Charleen

The censorship here is stupid. I believe that God directly created mankind, I believe that satan took the form of a talking snake and tempted the first woman. I believe that God created the first life. I agree with the ID folk that the anthropic principle probably does mean design, yet the censors think one can't contribute here. you can post my web page if you wish.

[GrayPilgrim]

Taking issue with a Moderators Notice in a thread is a no-no.

[judge]

From very early times it is apparent that believers saw this issue as crucial to understanding the faith. They believed that Adam realy lost something at the "fall".

The immortality of Adam is explicitly defined by the Church. The Sixteenth Council of Carthage (418 A.D.), the decrees of which were approved by Pope Zozimus, teaches: "If anyone shall say that Adam was created mortal so that he would have died in the body whether he had sinned or not, let him be anathema." And the same doctrine is confirmed by the decrees of Orange and Trent.
The Scriptures, both the Old and the New Testament, have very many passages which speak of the "death" which came to us from Adam but there are none plainer than the Book of Genesis which gives the words of God to the pair in the garden: "But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death."

Jesuit writer, Professor T. B. Chetwood,

Chetwood, T. B.. God and Creation, New York, Benzinger Brothers, 1928, p.145 ff.


See here....http://www.custance.org/Library/SOTW/Part_I/chap7.html

for more detail

[rmwilliamsjr]

12-08-2003 @ 06:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=330926#post330926)
Charleen Lohman:

I think the number one issue between YE vs. OE is not the science, but the issue of death before the Fall.

Science has its place, but the YEC's that I have encountered only accept science that fits into their interpretation of scripture. They openly admit this. Therefore, I think it is pretty fruitless to debate science with YEC's.

I will give my science arguments to the seeking unbeliever, therefore, and give theological arguments to YEC who are willing to listen.

I have given an argument that deals with death before the Fall and understanding Romans 8:19-22 in the Christianity forum. I don't know how many here from the Cosmogony Forum go over to the Christianity Forum so I thought I'd mention it.

~Charleen

I think the question has been answered by both OEC and TE Christians sufficiently to understand that the death promised Adam/Eve if they eat of the tree is 1st-spiritual death immediately and 2-nd physical death to follow as a consequence of sin.

To believe otherwise is to end up in the position i refer to as the 'pets in heaven' problem. You logically end up with Christ's sacrifice for all humanbeings and animals. see the way Socrates handles 'living soul' here or the way AIG handles vertebrates. The logic of their position saves animals, for the death of animals becomes significant in Adam's fall.

but to me, more interesting is the fact that the YEC position is a smoke screen for placing the question of theodicy into the equation, and forcing OEC to bear the burden of theodicy in order to explain their position to the YEC.

first, i think the question of theodicy is fundamentally unsolvable within traditional Christianity. i think we know pieces of it but it is a paradox and you end up trusting God to explain it all later. But what the YEC essentially do is force the OEC to deal with theodicy in order to explain the presence of death before the Fall. This is unfair, because all Christians, TE included deal with theodicy, but the order of who needs to explain what and when seems easier when you posit the fall before even animal death. It allows the fall to take what looks like the brunt of the forcefulness of the theodicy question. But before the fall the only one around is God so the YEC naturally assume and push the theodicy question onto God in an OEC system. thus discrediting the OEC as blaming evil on God rather than Adam.

i think it is a nasty trick of debate and nothing more.

[rmwilliamsjr]

12-08-2003 @ 06:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=330926#post330926)
Charleen Lohman:

I think the number one issue between YE vs. OE is not the science, but the issue of death before the Fall.

Science has its place, but the YEC's that I have encountered only accept science that fits into their interpretation of scripture. They openly admit this. Therefore, I think it is pretty fruitless to debate science with YEC's.

I will give my science arguments to the seeking unbeliever, therefore, and give theological arguments to YEC who are willing to listen.

I have given an argument that deals with death before the Fall and understanding Romans 8:19-22 in the Christianity forum. I don't know how many here from the Cosmogony Forum go over to the Christianity Forum so I thought I'd mention it.

~Charleen

here is an essay i wrote on the issue.
i hope it helps.
original with functional links at: http://www.livejournal.com/users/rmwilliamsjr/10590.html



death before the fall
This i-hope-to-be-short essay is meant to be a reply to AiG and two of its representatives on a yahoo group.

In particular it is this:
AiG on death before the Fall
type of argument that i wish to dispose of, to put out of my thinking as completely wrong.
So i can get on to thinking about scientism and creationomics.



I deliberately use one of their pages with the significant Scriptural passages on it, for it must be to Scripture that we address our arguments...

quote:

Some people try to say that this death only refers to man, and not to the animals. However, it is clear from taking the whole of Scripture that animals were vegetarian (like man) before the Fall, and understanding the Biblical doctrine of the atonement (as will be discussed in a future illustration) there could be no animal death or bloodshed before the Fall either.

end of quote--------------

The argument is that theodicy, the problem of evil, occurred in time at the Fall of Adam. The YEC would force OEC(as well as TE) to deal with theodicy before the fall in the fact that some animals must have died in these two views, versus the idea that there was no death at all before the fall in the YEC thinking.

I can't put it any clearly than to boldly state that the death of animals is of NO ETHICAL significance at all.
A person must be involved as in the clothing of Adam and Eve with animal skins by God, or the sacrifice of animals in the OT temple. Animal on animal death and violence has no ethical component at all. Animals can not be held accountable for their actives, therefore to say that the death of animals is ethically bad is missing the points of ethics. Ethics is purely a system of behavior to be modelled on God's behavior and imposed on man's. Without a PERSON either God or man, there can be not ethical conduct. The deaths of animals is neither good nor evil, it is simply a-moral, a-ethical. period.

Adam's disobedience was an ethical statement, as such it was evil, a willing disobedience towards a clear command of his Creator and God.
As such the penalty was immediate spiritual death, followed by a physical death as a direct result of the sins Adam committed. First the fall then all the rest of the
dirty, nasty little things he did thereafter.

The immediate response ought to be that God declared the world Good at each days's creative activites, how could the death of animals at any point be good?
The answer is that the Good in creation is as it relates to the actor, to the person of God. God declares the creation, as distinct for Him to be good. This is not to say that every relationship within the creation is somehow moral and good. Relationships between the things of creation are without ethical content. The rocks, the stars etc are not good in and of themselves but rather good in their relationship to God and later in the relationship to mankind. Good is an ethical catagory for persons, for actors with moral responsibility. The second way that God pronounces the Creation good is certainly the way He did the work. This is a good work. It has reference to God as Creator, He is responsible for the goodness of the activity. Like when i finish this essay, i think that i did a good work in defending my position. That does not mean that the work in itself is good, ethical speaking. But that the work i put into the essay is good, good as it contacts and flows from my mind through my fingers. The ethics is always rooted into a person. That is why the fact of a lion killing and eating a young antelope is of no ethical significance. Neither the lion nor the antelope are ethical actors, to be held accountable for their actions in any way. Therefore the death of one, and the subsequent continuing living of the other has no goodness as do our actions.

quote:

1 Corinthians 15:26 calls death an enemy. Death is an intrusion. Some try to make out that this death is only 'spiritual' death and not 'physical' death. However, the Bible verses cited make it clear that Christ's death on the Cross is related to the death that came into the world because of the first man's sin. This was a physical death. When Adam sinned, man died spiritually in the sense that he was separated from God, and he also began to die physically.

end of quote--------------

It is spiritual death followed by a actual physical death as a direct result of 1-spiritual death 2-actual sins committed. both kinds of death of a responsible person are seen.
If you argue as the YEC do that in Adam all livings things died, then in Christ would all living things come alive. Simply NOT true, neither part. Christ's death was for His elect alone, not all mankind, not all living creatures. again period.

but i think the YEC know this, for they do not propose that your child's favorite cat join us in heaven, they know better than to argue such nonsense in theology. They save their nonsense for the science side of the arguments. The argument that an old earth position is wrong because it requires death before the fall and this is wrong is actually a smokescreen for a larger argument; which is to force the issue of theodicy on the OEC before the Fall in time. This is one because theodicy is perhaps the hardest problem in theology to deal with, second it is in a significant way unsolvable, so by making it a subtopic in the OEC system they hope to derail the OEC into solving the unsolvable as a means to building their complete answer to the question of origins.

I won't take their bait. The death spoken of in Genesis, Romans, and Corinithians is spiritual death first, followed by physical death. Both, in order, in a significant cause and effect order. Spiritual death and sin CAUSES physical death. Death is a significant experience, death is an ethical catagory ONLY for persons, not animals. To believe otherwise is to completely 'spread' the cause of the death of Christ across all living creatures, not just people, let alone the elect.

quote:


Genesis 1:29-30 makes it obvious that originally, animals and man were vegetarian. Some would say therefore that plants died before sin. However, the Bible in Genesis 1 makes it clear that animals and man have a 'nephesh'-that is, a 'life spirit,' or soul. Plants do not have this. Plants were given for food-they are not living in the same sense that animals are. Man was told he could eat animals after the Flood in Genesis 9:3. Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 make it clear that death came into the world because of sin.

end of quote------


No it is not obvious. The whole push the the argument, into Gen 9:3 is towards mankind. The fact that God gives the green things to animals to eat may very well be the same way that we speak of cows as grass on the hoof. There is no reason to believe that all animals must be vegetarians from this statement. Nor it is the general consensus of the Church that this is so. You can prove human vegetarianism as do the Seventh Day Adventist from these verses if you desire, but not all animals. But literally i don't care if you desire vegetarian lions until the fall have at it. It doesn't change the argument the ethics is person based not animal. Besides if you eliminate carnivous, the OEC have a LOT less death to justify before the Fall anyhow.

My whole argument is that the evolutionary mechanism that created the living world as we know it, fits just fine into the Biblical creation two tablet origins story as told in Genesis 1 and 2. Creation is a good work by God, the death of animals is of no moral concern as long as persons are not involved. The fall explains theodicy in as far as it is explanable in terms of moral responsible actors- persons not animals.

a continuing conversation:

> Romans 8:22 "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and
travaileth in
> pain together until now."
>
> After Adam's sin the Earth "groaneth and travaileth in
>pain". We
> know that God did not create such an earth that "groaneth and
>travaileth in
> pain" because God told us in Genesis that all he had done "was
>good". Something
> happened between the end of day six when God said it is GOOD and the
> creation that "groaneth and travaileth in pain". It was sin, the sin of
> Adam. It corrupted the whole of creation.
>


it is a long way from a fallen creation to the assertion that the
animals were originally created as vegetarian on day 5 or 6 then
re-created as carnivores just after Adam's fall. a big gap.

but there is nothing in your verses as quoted that persuade me that
Scripture teaches that animal death can not precede Adam's fall.

Everything seems to teach the opposite, that death is significant only
for humanity. as commonly defined in Christian theology death is
defined as the separation of body and soul/spirit with the
decomposition of the body, and the transport of the soul/spirit
somewhere else. the significance of death as the punishment for sins
only makes sense if it is only applied to Adam's sin and his
posterity, he as federal head. Otherwise you end up with a general
living things universalism, certainly not what you desire. Having your
pet cat in heaven is maybe a nice thing to tell a young child but
certainly bad theology.

I can assert, as you have Paul teaching in Roman's that creation is
under the curse. but that this includes the status of animal death as
evil as a result of sin is yet to be shown. Simply asserting it is not
sufficent to persuade.


>One can not RESTORE creation to a state in which it has NEVER
>been that being free from death.

snip more name calling and poisoning the well thinking.

the restoration of the world after Revelation has been accomplished is
in fact better than the primal world, the proof i submit is that God
did it this way. that is, in some very significant, very serious way
God desired the suffering, death, etc that the world has gone through,
is going through, will go through until the end of time, IN ORDER that
something better emerges from it. I trust God knows what He is doing.

I can only believe, with scant proof from Scriptures, that this is a
showing of divine love, divine freedom. and in a good way this
'balances' the suffering, death etc we see.

but none of this speculation requires animal death or suffering to be
raised to the same level as that of human, which is exactly what you
do if you propose that in Adam all living things fell, death of all
animals resulted, previously vegetarian animals were transformed into
carnivores in the blink of an eye.

Furthermore you extend the sacrifice of Jesus to cover all of creation
so that all dead animals become alive in Christ in the last days. That
is foolish, simply to assert that no death in the animal world existed
prior to Adam's fall? why lock yourself into such patent contradictions?

The restoration of Creation in the Last Days is the Restoration of
Adam's descendants to a vegetarian world populated by ex-carnivores
now vegetarian? plus all the rest of non-human life? Why propose such
nonsense? isn't human beings living in the glory of God enough? why
bring the props?

[A Beautiful Truth]

Yesterday @ 03:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=357043#post357043)
rmwilliamsjr:



I think the question has been answered by both OEC and TE Christians sufficiently to understand that the death promised Adam/Eve if they eat of the tree is 1st-spiritual death immediately and 2-nd physical death to follow as a consequence of sin.

To believe otherwise is to end up in the position i refer to as the 'pets in heaven' problem. You logically end up with Christ's sacrifice for all humanbeings and animals. see the way Socrates handles 'living soul' here or the way AIG handles vertebrates. The logic of their position saves animals, for the death of animals becomes significant in Adam's fall.

Richard,

It is nice to "see" you again. I still remember your kindness on the Yahoo! discussion group while I was taking the usual name calling attacks from my YE brethern. I remember your encouragement, thank you again. You will find Theologyweb is actually moderated. Even so, I have been called names here as well--O'well...

Yes, you are right about this being a "pets in heaven" problem for the YEC. I have raised this issue in serveral threads myself. If you take I Cor. 15, and Romans 5 to include animals in the death, then you have the nessesary logical step to include animals in being made righteous and also resurrecting--it would mean that animals are spiritual beings who will receive a spiritual body at the resurrection. It means they would be coming back at the last trumpet as well, having been raised. It also, ultimately, means that Christ's blood was even shed for rats, if one takes the argument that animals are included in the death in Romans 5 and I Cor. 15.

This is indeed a problem for the YE no-death-before-the-Fall proponents. (But I have found out in arguing this that the only YEC's who speak up are those that have no problem with death before the Fall. You read it right--there are YEC who don't have a problem with death before the Fall. I think they are in the minority of YEC, and I give them credit for their honesty--and bravery--I must add--for the brunt they must also take from their YE brethern for believing in death before the fall.)

but to me, more interesting is the fact that the YEC position is a smoke screen for placing the question of theodicy into the equation, and forcing OEC to bear the burden of theodicy in order to explain their position to the YEC.

Richard, I see from your title that you are an "avid reader". I wonder, if you had the time, would you please read something I posted about the Natural Law Theodicy? I would give you a link, but I don't know how. It is here on Theologyweb, in the "Theology" forum under the thread "Is Meticulous Control a Serious Error." (When you go to the Theology forum, do a search for that title and you will find it.) I discuss the Natural Law Theodicy in post #16, but if you also read post #9, and #22, you would get a better idea of the whole argument for a Theodicy. No pressure, of course, but if you had the time/interest, please let me know what you think. I think OEC's have the best "answer" to the problem of evil and suffering.

Your essay to answer the AiG assertion of no animal death before the fall is good.

And it is very good to point out that we argue against their no-death-before-the-fall position from scripture alone.