An Apologetic for Pre-Fall Animal Death

[A Beautiful Truth]

An Apologetic for Pre-Fall Animal Death
By A Beautiful Truth


How much freedom do you think we would give up if God supernaturally intervened everyday in our lives, preventing every disaster, healing every sickness, stopping every accident?

In a world where God supernaturally intervened and routinely defied the natural laws on a regular basis, we would not have a world with true moral freedom and where real consequences of that freedom are understood. Because of predictable freedom in this world, man can be morally accountable for his actions.

If man pulls the trigger, the gun fires. If man gets too close to the edge, he falls. If man touches fire, he gets burned. We live in a predictable environment because God has set up certain natural laws. While God has, does, and will intervene from outside the natural laws He ordered, He does this specially and not generally in our physical world so as not to interfere with man’s moral freedom.

What if this world was designed for being this predictable environment for man from the beginning? Say this earth was purposefully prepared as a “staging ground” for mankind to make important choices about life. Perhaps the earth has always been as it is now, with its natural laws, and what changed at the curse in Genesis 3:17-19 was man’s relationship with the earth—his ability to subdue and rule the creation that God had thoughtfully designed and prepared for him.

Before we consider what change happened at the Fall, let’s look at some similarities between pre-Fall earth and post-Fall earth. We need to ask, if the whole pre-Fall earth was a paradise and if the Garden paradise was completely Heaven-like, then:


Why did God give a physical life-sustaining Tree that would prevent man’s physical death if physical death was not a possibility in pre-Fall earth and Eden? (Notice that animals were not given this life sustaining Tree of Life) (Gen. 3:22, 23)

Why was it physically necessary for man and the animals to eat food? (Gen. 1:29, 30)

Why did mankind have to do physical work in the Garden? (Gen. 2:15)

How could Adam understand the concept of God’s warning about death if Adam was unfamiliar with the concept of death? (Gen. 2:17)

Why did the Garden have physical boundaries before the Fall? (Gen. 2:8, 10, 15)

Why did God order Adam to subdue the earth if the earth was already like Heaven before the Fall of man? (Gen. 1:28)

All of these factors tell us that pre-Fall earth and even the Garden of Eden were not as Heaven in many ways. They also tell us that God may have given the Garden, defined by its boundaries, for physical protection for man before the Fall. If the whole earth were a paradise, then why the Garden of Eden with its clear geographical boundaries?

Notice the Garden was a special place on the earth planted by God after He made man. God had a reason for setting Eden apart, and giving mankind a Tree that kept him from death. It is reasonable to believe that God gave the Garden because God wanted pre-Fall man protected from the rest of the earth and God gave the Tree because God wanted pre-Fall man protected from physical death which would have resulted if he did not eat of the Tree. Why else the Garden? Why else the Tree of Life? These questions have no answer if the whole earth was no different than the Garden and if mankind could not or would not have died without supernatural intervention by God via the Tree of Life.

It is only in properly understanding man’s original purpose can we properly understand the curse. Understanding the purpose and the curse is found in Genesis, Romans 5 and 8, and I Cor. 15 as we read of the initial conditions of earth and man, the current conditions of earth and man, and the final conditions of earth and man. What happened at the Fall was that this earth, which was created as a home to be subdued and ruled righteously by man, was made empty and vain of that original purpose when man sinned. At the Fall, the earth was subject to emptiness as it was no longer fulfilling God’s original purpose. Since then, the creation has been enslaved to the sinful, corrupt rule of man—the “slavery to corruption” as Paul writes in Romans 8. Instead of God wiping out man and the earth when it failed to fulfill the purpose for which it was created, God subjected the earth to man’s corrupt rule—but in hope. God had a plan and was willing to subject the earth to man’s sinful rule temporarily so that His hope for both man and creation could be fulfilled in Christ.

So what has this to do with animal death before the Fall? I say that creation did not change at the Fall of man, but rather man’s relationship with the creation changed at the Fall of man. Man’s original job was to rule and subdue the earth and cultivate the ground. Listen to the curse God gave to Adam:

Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shall thou return. Gen. 3:17-19

The curse was given to the earth’s caretaker/gardener—man. Adam’s hand would no longer be used by God to yield the beauty of the miraculous Garden, but now something his hand had never yielded before while under God’s blessing—thorns and thistles. Adam’s work became empty and vain without God’s blessing.

In addition, Adam was denied further access to the Tree of Life which would have sustained him physically from death. The day Adam sinned, he experienced spiritual death through sin and, as a consequence, God took away Adam’s ability to live forever with the Tree of Life. “…lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the Tree of life, and eat, and live forever therefore God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken”. (Gen. 3:22) As a direct consequence of his sin, man would now also die physically.

Some people conclude that even the physical death of animals began at the Fall and the curse. However, the curse in Genesis and the understanding given concerning that curse in Romans 8:20-22 speaks nothing of animal death being introduced, but the earth was cursed to not yield what it had while Adam was under God's blessing. The earth was cursed to be under Adam's corrupt hand instead of his blessed hand. Concerning the death referred to in Romans 5 and I Cor. 15, we see it pertaining only of humans. If we did include animals in these passages, then we need to be consistent and include animals in being justified, being made righteous, and being participants in the resurrection. But since animals are not spiritual beings and cannot sin, they cannot be “justified” or made righteous, and they will not be resurrected. These scriptures clearly do not refer to animals. Christ’s blood was not shed for animals, but for man alone.

But I hear the objection, “How could God allow the poor baby animals to be savagely eaten by ferocious predators if it were not a result of man’s sin?”, as if God’s character is diminished if He set up this natural order for some reason unbeknownst to the questioner. In considering God’s character, the questioner needs to consider portions of scripture that point to God being the author of carnivorous animal behavior as well as scriptures that point to animal death not being the same as human death, which is the last enemy to be defeated. Consider Isaiah 25 as the prophet looks ahead to a day when God will wipe away all tears from our eyes and take away our sorrows, a time when death will be swallowed up in victory: “And the Lord of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain; a banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, and refined, aged wine.” (Isaiah 25:6) If animal death is included as the last enemy, then why would God, whether literally or figuratively, include fatted animals to be served at a lavish banquet in a celebration of no more death and suffering? This shows that while the death of humans is counted as an enemy, the death of animals is not. If the death of animals is not considered an enemy when God “swallows up death for all time” (vs. 8), it strengthens the case that the death of animals was not part of the curse which was a result of man’s sin.

Also consider Job as God speaks to him concerning the wonders of His created world. God speaks of predator-prey relationships as coming from His hand as well as the bizarre behavior of the ostrich that abandons her young. If these animal characteristics were a result of man’s Fall and not rather a result of God’s mysterious awesomeness, then Job would not have been left speechless, but would have been able to reply. But God’s intention was to leave Job speechless; these animal characteristics are from God’s hand, not Adam’s.

Consider also Psalm 104: 21, “the young lions roar after their prey and seek their meat from God.” In this Psalm where the psalmist is clearly reflecting back upon the creation account in Genesis, God is seen as the provider of the prey for the predators. If carnivory was evil, (and our God is not the author of evil), then why does the psalmist attribute this evil to God as He refers back to the very good creation? God is the author of the ecosystem, and the perfectly balanced food web is a very good part of this earthly creation.

The “evil” of animal death, especially through carnivorous activity, is in the eye of the beholder. One person sees it as evil; another person sees predator-prey relationships as an intricate way to keep earth’s ecology in balance. While one view is opinion, the other is a fact and the goodness of that fact is supported in God’s creation as well as in God’s word.

The intention of this creation was never to make earth just like Heaven, but in God’s wisdom, this earth with its natural properties and real consequences is the best way to get there. God had particular purposes in mind for creating earth as He did and allowing animal death does not diminish God’s character. We need to allow God’s wisdom to be beyond our limited understanding.

Whatever the case, God’s character when it comes to honesty should be the question, not his willingness to allow animal death. I bring up God’s honesty because those who would hold to His character being diminished for allowing animal death do not realize what this means for the witness of God in the investigateable truth He reveals to us by way of the creation.

The scriptures say God wanted to leave evidence for His creation. The scriptures say God wanted His creation to be a witness of His mighty deeds. God made the earth a witness that can be investigated by man, thereby leaving a witness of His mighty act of creation. (Rom. 1:20, Ps. 19:1-4, Ps. 50:6)

I think the days in Genesis are long ages that are called days in keeping with the intended framework of a workweek. God’s seventh day is evidence for this—God’s seventh day is still continuing (see Hebrews 4, John 5:17). If the creation account in Genesis explains God’s major creative acts (the ones readily understood by all man) and if these major creative acts took longs periods of time and that is what is meant by “day”, then we can know God had a purpose for that, for He is a God of purpose and design. I believe that purpose and design was ultimately for man—to give him a predictable environment in which he can live, work, make decisions, AND to be a world that can reveal the glory of God in His handiwork through investigation.

Granted, there are many things that cannot be a physical witness because they are no longer accessible for testing. For example, a scientist today cannot go back in time and measure Adam’s age when he was created. BUT IF THEY COULD measure Adam’s age, they would have evidence that Adam was not old, but was just created. How? By measuring his cholesterol count, look for liver spots; look for wrinkles and other visible signs of aging, etc. A scientist could tell that Adam did not age from a baby, but was rather a brand new creation. Of course, we cannot measure Adam’s age, but what we can do is investigate the creation that God has given us as a witness of His creative acts for all mankind to see and be accountable.

The scriptures indicate that while the witness of creation cannot lead a soul to salvation, the creation itself can make man accountable for recognizing a Creator: For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse (Rom. 1:20) and even certain of His characteristics like his glory and righteousness: The heavens declare the glory of God…(Ps. 19:1) The heavens shall declare his righteousness…(Ps. 50:6)

What if God created this earth over billions of years, coupling the natural laws He supernaturally ordered with fiat miracles He supernaturally performed in order to ultimately give mankind a creation that is not only a creation with predictable natural laws where decisions can be made and where man can be morally accountable for his actions, but also a creation that is testable, investigateable, a creation that can make even a modern man accountable to know that there is a Creator?

I believe animal death was a natural part of the earth’s systems as was the weather, the effects of gravity, balanced ecosystems, (which are a miracle unto themselves) and the rest of it. If we understand that the pre-Fall earth was created with certain natural systems and animals were created with certain behaviors, what did this mean for Adam as he resided safely in the Garden? Could man’s God-given command to subdue the earth have something to do with extending the miraculous properties of the Garden to the rest of the world, to the wild beasts outside of those miraculous boundaries of Eden? Perhaps the whole earth could have been cultivated by man under God’s supernatural blessing into an Eden paradise where the lion would lay with the lamb and the lion would eat the “straw” of the miraculous vegetation of Eden.

God made an actual job for man to do. The word “subdue” actually means something. The word and therefore the command are meaningless if there was not something about this earth that needed subduing.

Because man sinned, the creation “groans” as it waits for the sons of God to be revealed to fulfill the purpose for which it was made—to be ruled in righteousness.

When seen in this way, animal death is part of a natural system that was created for a very good purpose. Animal death is part of a larger natural system that enables man to have moral freedom in a predictable, natural environment that can be investigated. I believe animal death was also part of an earth that was meant to be brought under man’s righteous authority before he sinned. Because of sin, our world today is totally empty, vain and without meaning if not for our hope—the blessed Christ, the "second Adam" who redeems us from the curse of sin.


P.S. I've added Socrates to my ignore list as his persistent immature tone insults a person's intellegence. If any other poster sees something in Socrates' response to my article that actually made it through moderation and would like to see me address it, he may revise the original question in a mature manner and pose it to me that way.

[Socratism]

I thought your treatise was very well thought out and interesting.

Let me first say that I have no preference for "animal death before the Fall" one way or another.

Most of your posting was quite logical and as I result I found myself agreeing with many parts of it.

However, I did not find the portions which directly affected the question at hand to be conclusive. I await with interest any comments from those who take the opposite view.

[Solly]

Questions come to my mind of late, which Charleen has sought an answer to here.
However, I come to the text from a theological angle, rather than a scientific one.

Why the Tree of Life in the garden (on which I started my thread). While there is the obvious analogy with Christ, after the fall, what is its purpose before the fall. Humanity was presumably created mortal with capacity to die, unless sustained by God. What about the animals? If Adam had not sinned, would those same animals still be living today?

Therefore, is physical (actual or potential) death before the fall compatible with the Biblical text? Death is given the significance of being a punishment, but does that rule out that it existed before, actually for animals, and potentially for humanity? The rainbow was given a covenant significance after the flood, but it existed before as a natural phenomenon.

Also, though the text does use day, is this really meant to be scientifically testable account, or rather a theological polemic against the Creation myths of the surrounding nations (here thinking not in terms of when the events took place, but when they were recounted, and specifically brought into the canon) and covenant proclamation of God's purposes for creation, and our place in it.

[Socrates]

Let me first say that I have no preference for "animal death before the Fall" one way or another.
As I've pointed out before, the "no death of nephesh chayyah" view comes from the clear teaching that animals were created vegetarian and will be restored that way (Isaiah 11, 65). These passages say ‘They shall not hurt or destroy …’ ‘They shall do no evil or harm …’, showing that the predation that occurs now is not the ideal.

Charleen brings up Psalm 104, which is merely God's provision for a fallen world. So is the death penalty, but this doesn't mean that there was murder before the Fall.

[Socrates]

Also, though the text does use day,
Yes, and it's linked with the days of the working week in Ex. 20:8-11. This makes no sense unless Creation Week was a real time frame. Calvin and the Westminster Confession affirmed that God created "in the space of six day".


is this really meant to be scientifically testable account,
Nope, not science but history.


or rather a theological polemic against the Creation myths of the surrounding nations (here thinking not in terms of when the events took place, but when they were recounted, and specifically brought into the canon)
This presupposes that the original of Genesis was later. But there is good evidence that Moses edited far older tablets.

Also, the only way something could be a good polemic is if it is TRUE. The truth is an automatic polemic against falsehood. Indeed, Theophilus and Basil used the historical fact of the 4th-day creation of the sun as a polemic against the futility of sun worship. It's hardly much use having a polemic that's no more historical than what you're trying to refute.

The proponents of the "polemic" view also have no clue about what paganism was about -- pagans worshipped a god behind the object. If you want polemics against pagan beliefs, see Isaiah 37:18–20 and 45:12–20.

Finally, the NT treats Genesis 1-11 as history, not allegory or polemic.

[Abigail]

Charleen, how sure can you be that man was eating of the tree of life before he was thrown out of the garden. When I read Genesis 3:22, I get a sense that just eating of the tree of life once would cause Adam to live forever.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Charleen, how sure can you be that man was eating of the tree of life before he was thrown out of the garden. When I read Genesis 3:22, I get a sense that just eating of the tree of life once would cause Adam to live forever.

Abigail,

The scriptures are not clear enough to say with certainty one way or the other, granted.

The point remains strong, however, that man could have died before sin without the Tree of Life, and that he could have lived forever after he sinned with the Tree of Life.

The "lest" and "therefore" in Gen. 3:21,22 are pretty strong indicators this is the way it was, IMHO.

~Charleen

[reyvin]

As I've pointed out before, the "no death of nephesh chayyah" view comes from the clear teaching that animals were created vegetarian and will be restored that way (Isaiah 11, 65). These passages say ‘They shall not hurt or destroy …’ ‘They shall do no evil or harm …’, showing that the predation that occurs now is not the ideal.

Charleen brings up Psalm 104, which is merely God's provision for a fallen world. So is the death penalty, but this doesn't mean that there was murder before the Fall.

The "no death of nephesh chayyah" is a YEC teaching. As Charleen pointed out, God assumes full responsibility of predation and is praised for it. If it was something God 'regrettably had to do', I see no reason why it is praised in later scriptures. Remember, the YEC teaching is that everything is cursed and that is why animals have turned on one another. The Bible says these things are the normal run and that God is to be praised for it.
As for Isaiah, these verses are future. The future is not the same as the past. Further, it's not final that these verses are talking about the animals they describe. Let's look at Isaiah 65:20: There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner [being] an hundred years old shall be accursed.

Wait a second! If this is supposed to be heaven, then why is there talk of anyone dying?!

Isaiah 11 and 65 may be figures for men of corresponding animal-like characters ( Eze 22:27 38:13 Jer 5:6 13:23 Mat 7:15 Luk 10:3 ).
They shall not hurt or destroy …’ ‘They shall do no evil or harm …’, Evil isn't something attributed to animals. It's an ethical situation. It involves those in God's Image.

[reyvin]

Yes, and it's linked with the days of the working week in Ex. 20:8-11. This makes no sense unless Creation Week was a real time frame. Calvin and the Westminster Confession affirmed that God created "in the space of six day"..

It makes perfect sense if you're dealing with a culture that isn't as concerned about 'exact time' comparisons as we are, but are more interested in unit-for-unit. 6+1.
I couldn't agree more on the six days. The definition of 'day' is the bone of contention.



Nope, not science but history.


Don't have a problem with this either.



This presupposes that the original of Genesis was later. But there is good evidence that Moses edited far older tablets.


Archaeology/history question, no comment here.



Also, the only way something could be a good polemic is if it is TRUE. The truth is an automatic polemic against falsehood. Indeed, Theophilus and Basil used the historical fact of the 4th-day creation of the sun as a polemic against the futility of sun worship. It's hardly much use having a polemic that's no more historical than what you're trying to refute.


They're entitled to their say. Makes more sense to me that the writer included it (luminaries) later on in the account to show that these things didn't hold as much importance as the cultists (sun-worshippers) had laid on them. If you're saying that there is no style whatsoever in the account I've got to disagree completely.



The proponents of the "polemic" view also have no clue about what paganism was about -- pagans worshipped a god behind the object. If you want polemics against pagan beliefs, see Isaiah 37:18–20 and 45:12–20.

Finally, the NT treats Genesis 1-11 as history, not allegory or polemic.

I'm aware what paganism is (not was).
I've no problem that it's taught as history and I doubt many other Christians do either. But its not the same writing style as your high school textbook either.

[Abigail]

The future is not the same as the past. Further, it's not final that these verses are talking about the animals they describe. Let's look at Isaiah 65:20: There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner [being] an hundred years old shall be accursed.

Wait a second! If this is supposed to be heaven, then why is there talk of anyone dying?!


Is the dying necessarily talking about physical dying. Could it not be talking about spiritual maturity and perserverance. ie it takes a long time to become spiritually mature and those who do not perservere are thought accursed

[reyvin]

Is the dying necessarily talking about physical dying. Could it not be talking about spiritual maturity and perserverance. ie it takes a long time to become spiritually mature and those who do not perservere are thought accursed

I'm not certain if its talking about that, but if it IS talking about something other than the literal direct meaning, then Socrates' point above is blunted.

For the record (and not to get off topic), I consider myself an orthodox preterist. More found here (pretty much my conversion point from dispensationalism to O.P): http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6208

Again, I don't want to jack this thread, so the below is only a suggestion for the better interpretation of verses such as Isaiah 11/65 even though we didn't speak of those two directly.

[A Beautiful Truth]

As for Isaiah, these verses are future. The future is not the same as the past.

Quite true. None of the challenges affect animals in the pre-Fall world.

In addition, "subdue" actually means something. If pre-Fall world was already like the future, then what needed "subdueing" anyway?




Let's look at Isaiah 65:20: There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner [being] an hundred years old shall be accursed.

Wait a second! If this is supposed to be heaven, then why is there talk of anyone dying?!

Good point. I guess the no-animal-death-before-the-fall proponents would be forced to pick and choose what similarities they want to compare between the reference to the future and what they think the pre-fall earth was like. There were similarities in principle, and we have to ask what kind of restoration we are talking about. The future will not be exactly like the past, that is clear. The future is secure, Eden was never secure. The future means Satan will be kept away, Eden had not that pleasure. In the future our corruptable will put on incorruptable, in Eden man was only corruptable. There are many differences indeed. We need to ask what will be restored--the identical physical place of Eden, or unity with the Father and His presence...


They shall not hurt or destroy …’ ‘They shall do no evil or harm …’, Evil isn't something attributed to animals. It's an ethical situation. It involves those in God's Image.

Yes, another good point. Speaking of animals and "evil" I am reminded also that the "sting of death is sin". Since animals do not "sin", do they feel the "sting of death" or just death? If no sin, their death has no sting, this is unlike mankind.

~Charleen

[Abigail]

Charleen, God planted and made Adam the garden possibly as an example of how to do it. In subduing the earth surely it just meant that as Adam's offspring increased they would extend the garden outwards turning it into more garden. Also the subdue is talking about the earth. The earth was to work for Adam and in the way he wanted it to. He was told to rule over the animals and birds and fish but to me the subdue part is in the context of the earth ie not letting the vegetation grow wild and out of control.

[Socrates]

The "no death of nephesh chayyah" is a YEC teaching.
I.e. the traditional view of the church before they compromised with long-age "science". I've already documented how great exegetes like Calvin and Wesley likewise saw carnivory as the result of the Fall. So don't you dare spruik forth any nonsense about YEC being some sort of novelty.


As Charleen pointed out, God assumes full responsibility of predation and is praised for it. If it was something God 'regrettably had to do', I see no reason why it is praised in later scriptures. Remember, the YEC teaching is that everything is cursed and that is why animals have turned on one another. The Bible says these things are the normal run and that God is to be praised for it.
It says that it's the normal run FOR TODAY, and God is indeed praised for it. I covered that with my parallel with the institution of capital punishment for this fallen world. It does NOT say that this was the situation before the Fall, where the Bible clearly teaches that animals were given plants for food.


As for Isaiah, these verses are future. The future is not the same as the past. Further, it's not final that these verses are talking about the animals they describe. Let's look at Isaiah 65:20: There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner [being] an hundred years old shall be accursed.

Wait a second! If this is supposed to be heaven, then why is there talk of anyone dying?!
Who said it was heaven? More likely the intermediate state. In any case, Charleen's hero Ross himself agrees that it really was talking about real animals who never ate each other.


Isaiah 11 and 65 may be figures for men of corresponding animal-like characters ( Eze 22:27 38:13 Jer 5:6 13:23 Mat 7:15 Luk 10:3 ).
They shall not hurt or destroy …’ ‘They shall do no evil or harm …’, Evil isn't something attributed to animals. It's an ethical situation. It involves those in God's Image.
Hardly the point -- regardless of whether you spiritualise the passage (Hugh Ross does NOT), it is still teaching that there is a more ideal world without animals destroying each other. Similarly, while "he is as strong as an ox" is a figure of speech as well, it would be meaningless unless an ox were literally strong.

[Socrates]

It makes perfect sense if you're dealing with a culture that isn't as concerned about 'exact time' comparisons as we are, but are more interested in unit-for-unit. 6+1.
Nope, the whole point is that it was day for day. Hence the Hebrew causative relation ki.


I couldn't agree more on the six days. The definition of 'day' is the bone of contention.
Come off it. Apart from the Alexandrian school who wanted to allegorise the hexaëmeron to an instant, the exegetes before the rise of uniformitarianism believed that the days were 24 hours. This includes Basil the Great, Luther, Calvin, the Westminster Divines and Wesley. Why is that? Because that's what you get if you rely on the Bible itself without trying to fit it in with long-age "science". Long age interpretations are absent before this.


They're entitled to their say. Makes more sense to me that the writer included it (luminaries) later on in the account to show that these things didn't hold as much importance as the cultists (sun-worshippers) had laid on them.
It makes no sense whatever. It makes far more sense as Basil and Theophilus said that God Himself created the sun after the earth to anticipate those who would worship the sun. Only the truth can refute a falsehood. AiG's new book Refuting Compromise (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/rc/intro.asp) points out on p. 87:

One common argument by Framework proponents is that Genesis 1 was written as a polemic against paganism. Supposedly, its purpose was to refute pagan beliefs involving worship of the sun or other luminaries. In other words, Genesis is allegedly teaching us not to worship the sun but our true God who made the sun.

However, even if true, this doesn’t mean that it can’t be history. As shown on pages 85 and 86, Theophilus of Antioch and Basil the Great thought that God had deliberately made the sun on Day 4 to refute pagan ideas. So the truth will automatically be a polemic against falsehood. Conversely, it would be useless to argue against a pagan using Genesis if it were just a story―one must show that the pagan is contradicted by what God actually did.

Also, most Framework proponents have a naïve view of paganism. Real pagans didn’t just worship the physical object, but a god behind it (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:19–20). For example, the Babylonian Shamash, the sun god, was sometimes personified as the sun itself, but at other times was clearly distinct from the sun. So if the Israelites said to the Babylonians, ‘The Sun isn’t a god; our God made the Sun’, a sophisticated pagan would reply, ‘I believe my god created the sun, too―maybe they are the same.’

Therefore, it’s actually no wonder that Genesis 1 has no disclaimer that it’s only a polemic, and nor do later biblical writers use it as a polemic. Real anti-pagan polemics which recognize the god behind the object are found in Isaiah 37:18–20 and 45:12–20.


If you're saying that there is no style whatsoever in the account I've got to disagree completely.
Straw man. It is structured prose, for sure, reflecting the structured history of creation week. Creation week has a pattern of historical narrative, where each day has God commanding, "and it was so" which indicates rapid fulfillment, assessment "God saw that it was good", and closure of the day with WYHY (RB WYHY BQR (and there was evening, and there was morning), which Hebrew scholar Gray Pilgrim sees as strong evidence for ordinary days. In this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=165376&#post165376) where he takes apart Ross' "Hebrew Facts" :bonk: he says:

First, on the issue of YWM. As Claus Westermann and James Barr, neither of whom are known his evangelical leanings, both point out, the use of YWM in Genesis 1 paired together with WYHY (RB WYHY BQR and then add a number is only used to refer to 24 hour days. Barr, whose career can be summed up as a methodological critic and is no friend of evangelical approaches, actually finds absurd anyone view of the text that does not find this to equal 7 24 hour days.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hardly the point -- regardless of whether you spiritualise the passage (Hugh Ross does NOT), it is still teaching that there is a more ideal world without animals destroying each other. Similarly, while "he is as strong as an ox" is a figure of speech as well, it would be meaningless unless an ox were literally strong.


Actually no, it is teaching that it is a supernaturally influenced world, which of course is more ideal, without usual enemies destroyed each other. The only part that has to be literally true is that lion don't usually lie down with lambs. You cannot press it as far as you do. Unless you think this return to Eden comes in stages (you are not a postmill so you don't), you (and me as a YEC) cannot use this passage that strongly in the way you do as a YEC apologetic. It may suggest it strongly, but it is not an absolute proof text, for in this same idyllic setting there is death and sin.

[reyvin]

I.e. the traditional view of the church before they compromised with long-age "science". I've already documented how great exegetes like Calvin and Wesley likewise saw carnivory as the result of the Fall. So don't you dare spruik forth any nonsense about YEC being some sort of novelty.

'Don't I dare'? What sort of facism is this? Don't make it sound as though it's some sort of unanimous idea that has always been put forth. Dispensationalists try to thrust this one forth also even though their paradigm doesn't fit either.


It says that it's the normal run FOR TODAY, and God is indeed praised for it. I covered that with my parallel with the institution of capital punishment for this fallen world. It does NOT say that this was the situation before the Fall, where the Bible clearly teaches that animals were given plants for food.

You're missing the point. If it's such an awful thing that God would never do, then it makes little sense to say God is to be praised for such a marring of his (supposed) original creation. What you're suggesting isn't consistent.
The Bible doesn't 'clearly teach' that animals were herbivorous pre-fall. I know what verses you're referring to. In Genesis 1:30, it's talking to ADAM, not the animals (God wasn't imitating Dr. Doolittle). Everything God gave Adam to do, corresponded to the 'gardener' idea put forth and it only makes sense to point out the importance of plants to the one who kept them. Oh and, I don't think humanity was created vegetarian either (so this puts me in opposition to Ross' teaching in that matter, just to clear things up).
As a final note toward the supposed 'clear teaching', sea life isn't given food in 1:29 or 30, so by your style of reading I guess sea life starved.


Who said it was heaven? More likely the intermediate state. In any case, Charleen's hero Ross himself agrees that it really was talking about real animals who never ate each other.

There's no need for mudslinging (Charleen's "hero") and if you're going to start that sort of thing then please don't respond to me, it's a waste of time. I don't care what Ross reads about the passage, I'm interested in the reading that makes the most sense. What intermediate state are you referring to? Please get a little more specific on this one.


Hardly the point -- regardless of whether you spiritualise the passage (Hugh Ross does NOT), it is still teaching that there is a more ideal world without animals destroying each other. Similarly, while "he is as strong as an ox" is a figure of speech as well, it would be meaningless unless an ox were literally strong.

Again with the Ross stuff.....you didn't read what I wrote.

[Solly]

I.e. the traditional view of the church before they compromised with long-age "science". I've already documented how great exegetes like Calvin and Wesley likewise saw carnivory as the result of the Fall. So don't you dare spruik forth any nonsense about YEC being some sort of novelty.

As a scientific view, it is a novelty, since there was no science to spruik of before the Reformation laid the ground for the scientific endeavour, having toppled Aquinas from his perch, so how could they compromise with it? Calvin and Wesley weren't scientists either, and so reflect a theological reading of the text.


It says that it's the normal run FOR TODAY, and God is indeed praised for it. I covered that with my parallel with the institution of capital punishment for this fallen world. It does NOT say that this was the situation before the Fall, where the Bible clearly teaches that animals were given plants for food.

Post Fall?
In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die.

[reyvin]

Nope, the whole point is that it was day for day. Hence the Hebrew causative relation ki.

Bald assertion and nothing more.


Come off it. Apart from the Alexandrian school who wanted to allegorise the hexaëmeron to an instant, the exegetes before the rise of uniformitarianism believed that the days were 24 hours. This includes Basil the Great, Luther, Calvin, the Westminster Divines and Wesley. Why is that? Because that's what you get if you rely on the Bible itself without trying to fit it in with long-age "science". Long age interpretations are absent before this.

I see, so anyone else in the past (including church fathers) who disagreed with the supposed 'traditional' interpretation is nothing than a heretic or imbecile by your reckoning? The point is that it's not as clear as all that although you'd like it to be to bolster your argument.



It makes no sense whatever. It makes far more sense as Basil and Theophilus said that God Himself created the sun after the earth to anticipate those who would worship the sun. Only the truth can refute a falsehood. AiG's new book Refuting Compromise (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/rc/intro.asp) points out on p. 87:


If the writer had stuck these things in by name at the very start of the account then you'd have a sort of 'victory' for the cultists, would you not? I think the way it's written is perfect. Archer and Kaiser (extremely knowledgable scholars and I'm certain you're aware of them) agree.

One common argument by Framework proponents is that Genesis 1 was written as a polemic against paganism. Supposedly, its purpose was to refute pagan beliefs involving worship of the sun or other luminaries. In other words, Genesis is allegedly teaching us not to worship the sun but our true God who made the sun.

However, even if true, this doesn’t mean that it can’t be history. As shown on pages 85 and 86, Theophilus of Antioch and Basil the Great thought that God had deliberately made the sun on Day 4 to refute pagan ideas. So the truth will automatically be a polemic against falsehood. Conversely, it would be useless to argue against a pagan using Genesis if it were just a story―one must show that the pagan is contradicted by what God actually did.

Also, most Framework proponents have a naïve view of paganism. Real pagans didn’t just worship the physical object, but a god behind it (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:19–20). For example, the Babylonian Shamash, the sun god, was sometimes personified as the sun itself, but at other times was clearly distinct from the sun. So if the Israelites said to the Babylonians, ‘The Sun isn’t a god; our God made the Sun’, a sophisticated pagan would reply, ‘I believe my god created the sun, too―maybe they are the same.’

Therefore, it’s actually no wonder that Genesis 1 has no disclaimer that it’s only a polemic, and nor do later biblical writers use it as a polemic. Real anti-pagan polemics which recognize the god behind the object are found in Isaiah 37:18–20 and 45:12–20.

For another view of the Framework interpretation and a good refutation of the YE reading, see here: http://upper-register.com/other_studies/bucher_framework.doc
Take special note re: the infamous Exodus argument YE's like so much.



Straw man. It is structured prose, for sure, reflecting the structured history of creation week. Creation week has a pattern of historical narrative, where each day has God commanding, "and it was so" which indicates rapid fulfillment, assessment "God saw that it was good", and closure of the day with WYHY (RB WYHY BQR (and there was evening, and there was morning), which Hebrew scholar Gray Pilgrim sees as strong evidence for ordinary days. In this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=165376&#post165376) where he takes apart Ross' "Hebrew Facts" :bonk: he says:

There is nothing that requires instantaneous action. Hebrew scholar Harry Poe has noted that in his work (with Jimmy Davis) Science and Faith. Again, if this fact were as obvious as you'd like, Archer and Kaiser would have no arguments from the language and be locked into what you're saying.

[reyvin]

Whoop! I stink with the 'quote' thing.....so forgive me please. I did respond but apparantly did it all within what he'd said.....my bad.

Disregard this, I fixed it...heh.

[Solly]

The end quote boxes need a slash in them ---->[/quote]

[Socrates]

As a scientific view, it is a novelty, since there was no science to spruik of before the Reformation laid the ground for the scientific endeavour, having toppled Aquinas from his perch, so how could they compromise with it?
The point :zzz: was to show how people would handle the text ALONE. I.e. follow Sola Scriptura as opposed to the OEC and TE motto of Scriptura sub scientia.


Calvin and Wesley weren't scientists either, and so reflect a theological reading of the text.
That's the whole point!! They based their view on the Bible alone. Thanx for making supporting what I've been saying all along!


Post Fall?
In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die.
For goodness sake, I said "capital punishment", i.e. the command for humans to execute for murder. This was even post Flood. And even that passage you quote makes it crystal clear that death was the punishment for sin.

[Socrates]

'Don't I dare'? What sort of facism is this? Don't make it sound as though it's some sort of unanimous idea that has always been put forth. Dispensationalists try to thrust this one forth also even though their paradigm doesn't fit either.'
What a whinger -- typical compromiser.


You're missing the point. If it's such an awful thing that God would never do, then it makes little sense to say God is to be praised for such a marring of his (supposed) original creation. What you're suggesting isn't consistent.
Crap -- it's a judgment on sin. Totally different to saying that God created things this way.


The Bible doesn't 'clearly teach' that animals were herbivorous pre-fall. I know what verses you're referring to. In Genesis 1:30, it's talking to ADAM, not the animals (God wasn't imitating Dr. Doolittle).
Big whoop -- he declared their diets, and it was clearly a worldwide phenomenon because Eden isn't in view yet.


Everything God gave Adam to do, corresponded to the 'gardener' idea put forth and it only makes sense to point out the importance of plants to the one who kept them. Oh and, I don't think humanity was created vegetarian either (so this puts me in opposition to Ross' teaching in that matter, just to clear things up).
Then you have to ignore the teachings that Adam would still eat plants after the Fall (Gen. 3:17), and was given animals only after the Flood, and God said, "as I gave you the green plants". Why say that if man was already permitted to eat meat?


As a final note toward the supposed 'clear teaching', sea life isn't given food in 1:29 or 30, so by your style of reading I guess sea life starved.
How idiotic is that. There was nothing said about the diet of sea life, but there was about land animal life and humans.


There's no need for mudslinging (Charleen's "hero") and if you're going to start that sort of thing then please don't respond to me, it's a waste of time.
I realise that it's a waste of time responding to compromisers.


I don't care what Ross reads about the passage,
Charleen is a devoted Ross supporter and she started the thread, so it's perfectly relevant to quote him. I don't give a monkey's whether you care.


Again with the Ross stuff.....you didn't read what I wrote.
I did so, but the thread starter is a Ross supporter. I am perfectly aware you hold the Framework compromise.

[Socrates]

There is nothing that requires instantaneous action. Hebrew scholar Harry Poe has noted that in his work (with Jimmy Davis) Science and Faith.
How so?


Again, if this fact were as obvious as you'd like, Archer and Kaiser would have no arguments from the language and be locked into what you're saying.
And these guys have made it abundantly clear that the straightforward reading of Genesis is just as I've said, but they don't believe it because they are intimidated by so-called "scientific" proof of long age. So they are NOT arguing from the text but rationalizing it. I bet that's the same for that Davis and Poe book.

[Socrates]

Actually no, it is teaching that it is a supernaturally influenced world, which of course is more ideal, without usual enemies destroyed each other. The only part that has to be literally true is that lion don't usually lie down with lambs. You cannot press it as far as you do. Unless you think this return to Eden comes in stages (you are not a postmill so you don't), you (and me as a YEC) cannot use this passage that strongly in the way you do as a YEC apologetic. It may suggest it strongly, but it is not an absolute proof text, for in this same idyllic setting there is death and sin.
I have no idea what you're getting at. In both Eden and this Isaiah future whatever it is, there is something special about animals not hurting each other or destroying. This would be pointless if God originally created animals butchering each other.

[reyvin]

For goodness sake, I said "capital punishment", i.e. the command for humans to execute for murder. This was even post Flood. And even that passage you quote makes it crystal clear that death was the punishment for sin.

Of course it was post Flood, why announce this sort of thing to A&E who were created innocent? Murder is wrong in that you're slaying one made in the Image of God.

[reyvin]

I have no idea what you're getting at. In both Eden and this Isaiah future whatever it is, there is something special about animals not hurting each other or destroying. This would be pointless if God originally created animals butchering each other.

Already answered this. It's not talking about literal animals. It's talking about men who act like wild animals. A deer eating feces is no big deal, a man eating feces is something quite unnatural (and ..um, gross).

Concerning 65:25, Calvin thought it spoke "allegorically of bloody and violent men, whose cruel and savage nature shall be subdued." - J. Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948) 406.

And that one's straight from one of the guys you like to quote.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I have no idea what you're getting at. In both Eden and this Isaiah future whatever it is, there is something special about animals not hurting each other or destroying. This would be pointless if God originally created animals butchering each other.


You said even it were allegorical or representative of something other than animals it must mean that animals did not original eat each other otherwise the symbolism would mean nothing. I pointed out that you cannot press it that far and think about how silly your position is Soc that Godnwould actually have it so that animals are no longer eating each other but PEOPLE are still dying. That is quite odd. I am just cautioning you that this passage is not as strong as many YEC think it is. It is suggestive perhaps.

[Socrates]

You said even it were allegorical or representative of something other than animals it must mean that animals did not original eat each other otherwise the symbolism would mean nothing. I pointed out that you cannot press it that far and think about how silly your position is Soc that Godnwould actually have it so that animals are no longer eating each other but PEOPLE are still dying. That is quite odd. I am just cautioning you that this passage is not as strong as many YEC think it is. It is suggestive perhaps.
As I said, if a major opponent like Ross can think that this is some millennial state, it is a reasonable argument to use against him. This position holds that there is some death in the millennium, yet it was still a step towards paradise with animals not killing each other. Even without a premillennial viewpoint, there is still a reason that non-carnivorous animals are mentioned here. There seems to be a reference to Eden here.

[reyvin]

What a whinger -- typical compromiser.


Crap -- it's a judgment on sin. Totally different to saying that God created things this way.


Big whoop -- he declared their diets, and it was clearly a worldwide phenomenon because Eden isn't in view yet.


Then you have to ignore the teachings that Adam would still eat plants after the Fall (Gen. 3:17), and was given animals only after the Flood, and God said, "as I gave you the green plants". Why say that if man was already permitted to eat meat?


How idiotic is that. There was nothing said about the diet of sea life, but there was about land animal life and humans.


I realise that it's a waste of time responding to compromisers.


Charleen is a devoted Ross supporter and she started the thread, so it's perfectly relevant to quote him. I don't give a monkey's whether you care.


I did so, but the thread starter is a Ross supporter. I am perfectly aware you hold the Framework compromise.

'Whinger' (whatever that is) 'Crap' 'idiotic' 'compromiser' and 'Big whoop'.
How gracious. Consider yourself on the official ignore list. You always do this when your particular interpretation is threatened?
For the record, I'm on the fence as far as OEC/Framework. Unsure which is best.
It's not talking about diet. Read Kline's Kingdom Prologue for the most logical view of animals diets and the scripture you present. Then again don't.....I'm sure he's a knumbskull in your eyes.

[reyvin]

How so?


And these guys have made it abundantly clear that the straightforward reading of Genesis is just as I've said, but they don't believe it because they are intimidated by so-called "scientific" proof of long age. So they are NOT arguing from the text but rationalizing it. I bet that's the same for that Davis and Poe book.


You've missed the point again. If the readings are as lock-solid as you try to fool people into believing, then Archer and Kaiser would HAVE TO by profession accept the YE reading (note: YE reading) but they do not.
Your 'bet thats the same for Poe/Davis'....way to skewer without even looking at it.

Again, when I'm done responding to this last assault (it certainly wasn't a Christian exchange) you're on ignore. I'll take the same stance as Charleen: if anyone sees anything brought up by this guy that you'd like to see me comment on, please bring it forward. I'm not a teenager looking to take a bigshot stance by insulting everyone on an internet forum anymore.

[Abigail]

Actually no, it is teaching that it is a supernaturally influenced world, which of course is more ideal, without usual enemies destroyed each other. The only part that has to be literally true is that lion don't usually lie down with lambs. You cannot press it as far as you do. Unless you think this return to Eden comes in stages (you are not a postmill so you don't), you (and me as a YEC) cannot use this passage that strongly in the way you do as a YEC apologetic. It may suggest it strongly, but it is not an absolute proof text, for in this same idyllic setting there is death and sin.
We have not been perfected yet? We are still running the race, but one day after the resurrection we will be perfected. Why cant Isaiah 65:17-23 be the running of the race (ie speaking of the church age here and now) and 65:24-25 be the goal we are moving towards, ie 24-25 are the regained eden

[Solly]

This is getting O/T I know, but we don't regain Eden, it's gone. Eden was a plot on the earth, since destroyed in the flood. there will be a [Re]New[ed] Earth, not with a garden with a wall, but a city with a park at the centre - literally or not, as the case may be. We are going on, not back. Isaiah is using figurative language, which John picks up, about New Jerusalem. but notice, that what seems to be in view is the safety of the inhabitants of his holy mountain, not the eating habits of the animals mentioned. ie, it will not be a place of fear, as it was in Isaiah's time, with armies attacking left right and centre.

[Abigail]

Ok, maybe 'regained eden' was bad terminology but what I mean is we will have the 'good' creation restored. We will be physically resurrected and be in a physical place so why must those last two verses be only spiritual

[Solly]

Ok, maybe 'regained eden' was bad terminology but what I mean is we will have the 'good' creation restored. We will be physically resurrected and be in a physical place so why must those last two verses be only spiritual

Hmmm, not necessarily spiritual, as prophetic-metaphorical within the context of OT revelation, and City-Land-Mountain imagery available to Isaiah and meaningful to those who heard.

[Abigail]

Well, for Isaiah's time it was more spiritual in that it it meant peace from enemies, and it is spiritual for us now too but does it necessarily exclude a final literal context (I am only talking of those last two verses of Isaiah 65).

[Solly]

Well, for Isaiah's time it was more spiritual in that it it meant peace from enemies, and it is spiritual for us now too but does it necessarily exclude a final literal context (I am only talking of those last two verses of Isaiah 65).

I can't disagree with you, because I don't think we have enough information to extrapolate on the biological conditions of the new age/Earth. It's difficult enough trying to grasp what the spiritual body will be like. It's rather like metaphors of a 4th dimensional world in 3 dimensional language. It's not a straight continuity, but then its not a complete break either. With DD, i would have to say that you can't read back into Gen 1 from Isa 65 or elsewhere, for conclusive biological information. isaiah is probably drawing on creation, but it is not necessarily two way traffic.

[Abigail]

I agree that we cannot be sure but by the same reasoning I do not think that Charleen and Reyvin can make mileage out of that fact because not knowing does not mean that it leans toward their argument

[Solly]

Gotta run now, see you tomorrow. slly

[reyvin]

I agree that we cannot be sure but by the same reasoning I do not think that Charleen and Reyvin can make mileage out of that fact because not knowing does not mean that it leans toward their argument

I'll cheerfully acknowledge this and add that it brings nothing positive to the YEC interpretation either. I've seen it tossed around by the likes of Socrates for far too long.

[Socrates]

St Basil the Great (On the origin of Man 2:6-7):

Let the Church neglect nothing; everything is a law. Gid did not say: "I have given you the fishes for food, I have given you the cattle, the reptiles, the quadrupeds." It is not for this that He created, says the Scripture. In fact, the first legislation allowed the use of fruits, for were were still judged worthy of Paradise.

What is the mystery which is concealed for you under this?

To you, to the wild animals and the birds, says the Scripture, fruits, vegetation and herbs (are given) .... We see, however, many wild animals which do not eat fruits. what fruit does the panther accept to nourish itself? What fruit can the lion satisfy himself with?

Nevertheless, these beings, submitting to the law of natures, were nourished by fruits. But when man changed his way of life and departed from the limit which had been assigned him, the Lord, after the Flood, knowing that men were wasteful, allowed them the use of al foods; "eat all that in the same was as edible plants (Gen. 9:3). By this allowance, the other animals also received the liberty to eat them .

Since then the lion is a carnivore, since then also vultures watch for carrion. For the vultures werennot yet looking over the earth at the very moment when the animals were born; in fact, nothing of what had received designation or existence had yet died so that teh vultures might eat them. Nature had not yet divided, for it was all in its freshness: hunters did not capture, for such was not yet the practice of men; the beasts, for their part, did not yet tear their prey, for they were not carnivores .... But all followed the way of the swans, and all grazed on the grass of the meadow ...

Such was the first creation, and such will be the restoration after this. Man will return to his ancient constitution in rejecting malice, a life weighed down with cares, the slavery of the soul with rgard to daily worries. When he has renounced all this, he will return to that paradisal life which was not enslaved to the passions of the flesh, which is free, the life of closeness to God, a partaker of the life of the angels.

Calvin agrees that death came through sin (Genesis, 1554; Banner of Truth, Edinburgh, UK, 1984, p. 110):

‘And therefore some understand what was before said. “Thou shalt die”, in a spiritual sense; thinking that, even if Adam had not sinned, his body must still have been separated from his soul. But since the declaration of Paul is clear, that “all die in Adam, as they shall rise again in Christ” (1 Cor. xv. 22), this wound was inflicted by sin. …Truly the first man would have passed to a better life, had he remained upright; but there would have been no separation of the soul from the body, no corruption, no kind of destruction, and, in short, no violent change.’

John Wesley likewise (God’s approbation of his Work, Sermon 56 (Genesis 1:31), 1872; http://gbgm-umc.org/UMhistory/Wesley/sermons/serm-056.stm ):

‘For as the human body, though not liable to death or pain, yet needed continual sustenance by food; so, although it was not liable to weariness, yet it needed continual reparation by sleep. By this the springs of the animal machine were wound up from time to time, and kept always fit for the pleasing labour for which man was designed by his Creator. Accordingly, “the evening and the morning were the first day”, before sin or pain was in the world. The first natural day had one part dark for a season of repose; one part light for a season of labour. And even in paradise “Adam slept”, (Genesis 2:21) before he sinned: Sleep, therefore, belonged to innocent human nature. Yet I do not apprehend it can be inferred from hence, that there is either darkness or sleep in heaven. Surely there is no darkness in that city of God. Is it not expressly said (Revelation 22:5), “There shall be no night there”? Indeed they have no light from the sun; but “the Lord giveth them light.” So it is all day in heaven, as it is all night in hell! On earth we have a mixture of both. Day and night succeed each other, till earth shall be turned to heaven. …’

Wesley also greed that there was no animal violence before the Fall:

‘We may inquire, in the First place, What was the original state of the brute creation? And may we not learn this, even from the place which was assigned them; namely, the garden of God? All the beasts of the field, and all the fowls of the air, were with Adam in paradise. And there is no question but their state was suited to their place: It was paradisiacal; perfectly happy. Undoubtedly it bore a near resemblance to the state of man himself. By taking, therefore, a short view of the one, we may conceive the other. …
‘How true then is that word, “God saw everything that he had made: and behold it was very good!” But how far is this from being the present case! In what a condition is the whole lower world!—to say nothing of inanimate nature, wherein all the elements seem to be out of course, and by turns to fight against man. Since man rebelled against his Maker, in what a state is all animated nature! Well might the Apostle say of this: “The whole creation groaneth and travaileth together in pain until now.” This directly refers to the brute creation in what state this is at present we are now to consider. [[I]The General Deliverance, Sermon 60 (Romans 8:19–22), 1872; http://gbgm-umc.org/UMhistory/Wesley/sermons/serm-060.stm ]

‘However, none of these [animals] then attempted to devour, or in anyway hurt, one another. All were peaceful and quiet, as were the watery fields wherein they ranged at pleasure. …

‘But …there were no birds or beasts of prey; none that destroyed or molested another; but all the creatures breathed, in their several kinds, the benevolence of their great Creator.’ [God’s approbation of his Work]

[A Beautiful Truth]

St Basil the Great (On the origin of Man 2:6-7):

Let the Church neglect nothing; everything is a law. Gid did not say: "I have given you the fishes for food, I have given you the cattle, the reptiles, the quadrupeds." It is not for this that He created, says the Scripture. In fact, the first legislation allowed the use of fruits, for were were still judged worthy of Paradise.

What is the mystery which is concealed for you under this?

To you, to the wild animals and the birds, says the Scripture, fruits, vegetation and herbs (are given) .... We see, however, many wild animals which do not eat fruits. what fruit does the panther accept to nourish itself? What fruit can the lion satisfy himself with?

Nevertheless, these beings, submitting to the law of natures, were nourished by fruits. But when man changed his way of life and departed from the limit which had been assigned him, the Lord, after the Flood, knowing that men were wasteful, allowed them the use of al foods; "eat all that in the same was as edible plants (Gen. 9:3). By this allowance, the other animals also received the liberty to eat them .

Since then the lion is a carnivore, since then also vultures watch for carrion. For the vultures werennot yet looking over the earth at the very moment when the animals were born; in fact, nothing of what had received designation or existence had yet died so that teh vultures might eat them. Nature had not yet divided, for it was all in its freshness: hunters did not capture, for such was not yet the practice of men; the beasts, for their part, did not yet tear their prey, for they were not carnivores .... But all followed the way of the swans, and all grazed on the grass of the meadow ...

Such was the first creation, and such will be the restoration after this. Man will return to his ancient constitution in rejecting malice, a life weighed down with cares, the slavery of the soul with rgard to daily worries. When he has renounced all this, he will return to that paradisal life which was not enslaved to the passions of the flesh, which is free, the life of closeness to God, a partaker of the life of the angels.

Calvin agrees that death came through sin (Genesis, 1554; Banner of Truth, Edinburgh, UK, 1984, p. 110):

‘And therefore some understand what was before said. “Thou shalt die”, in a spiritual sense; thinking that, even if Adam had not sinned, his body must still have been separated from his soul. But since the declaration of Paul is clear, that “all die in Adam, as they shall rise again in Christ” (1 Cor. xv. 22), this wound was inflicted by sin. …Truly the first man would have passed to a better life, had he remained upright; but there would have been no separation of the soul from the body, no corruption, no kind of destruction, and, in short, no violent change.’

John Wesley likewise (God’s approbation of his Work, Sermon 56 (Genesis 1:31), 1872; http://gbgm-umc.org/UMhistory/Wesley/sermons/serm-056.stm ):

‘For as the human body, though not liable to death or pain, yet needed continual sustenance by food; so, although it was not liable to weariness, yet it needed continual reparation by sleep. By this the springs of the animal machine were wound up from time to time, and kept always fit for the pleasing labour for which man was designed by his Creator. Accordingly, “the evening and the morning were the first day”, before sin or pain was in the world. The first natural day had one part dark for a season of repose; one part light for a season of labour. And even in paradise “Adam slept”, (Genesis 2:21) before he sinned: Sleep, therefore, belonged to innocent human nature. Yet I do not apprehend it can be inferred from hence, that there is either darkness or sleep in heaven. Surely there is no darkness in that city of God. Is it not expressly said (Revelation 22:5), “There shall be no night there”? Indeed they have no light from the sun; but “the Lord giveth them light.” So it is all day in heaven, as it is all night in hell! On earth we have a mixture of both. Day and night succeed each other, till earth shall be turned to heaven. …’

Wesley also greed that there was no animal violence before the Fall:

‘We may inquire, in the First place, What was the original state of the brute creation? And may we not learn this, even from the place which was assigned them; namely, the garden of God? All the beasts of the field, and all the fowls of the air, were with Adam in paradise. And there is no question but their state was suited to their place: It was paradisiacal; perfectly happy. Undoubtedly it bore a near resemblance to the state of man himself. By taking, therefore, a short view of the one, we may conceive the other. …
‘How true then is that word, “God saw everything that he had made: and behold it was very good!” But how far is this from being the present case! In what a condition is the whole lower world!—to say nothing of inanimate nature, wherein all the elements seem to be out of course, and by turns to fight against man. Since man rebelled against his Maker, in what a state is all animated nature! Well might the Apostle say of this: “The whole creation groaneth and travaileth together in pain until now.” This directly refers to the brute creation in what state this is at present we are now to consider. [[I]The General Deliverance, Sermon 60 (Romans 8:19–22), 1872; http://gbgm-umc.org/UMhistory/Wesley/sermons/serm-060.stm ]

‘However, none of these [animals] then attempted to devour, or in anyway hurt, one another. All were peaceful and quiet, as were the watery fields wherein they ranged at pleasure. …

‘But …there were no birds or beasts of prey; none that destroyed or molested another; but all the creatures breathed, in their several kinds, the benevolence of their great Creator.’ [God’s approbation of his Work]

I see you already posted this in another thread and I responded there.

[reyvin]

I see you already posted this in another thread and I responded there.

Furthermore, there are those who thought otherwise. Augustine being one of them. So its not at all 'obvious' or 'contorted' to modern thinking. Just because Soc lists a few guys in his line of thinking doesn't make it gospel. If he's using truth by majority thinking hes certainly in the wrong camp as he's well aware.