alpha

[Aardvark]

i think i may have found good scripture to support
an old earth/old universe. im sure people have already discussed
this, but i had never heard about it until i read it...

genesis 2:5 niv

"and no shrub of the field had yet sprung up, for the lord god had not
sent rain on the earth"

if the plants popped up in one day, then they wouldnt need
water it would seem. god could have created them fully mature
as jesus turned the water into wine fully fermented.

but the fact that the scripture says the shrubs did not grow
because they needed rain indicates a much slower growing process.

sub post:
this is somewhat related.

genesis 1:30

"and to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life
in it-i give every green plant for food."

do any animals eat poison ivy?
wouldnt marijuana be food then?

if all animals on land were eating plants, what were the lions like?
lions are built for hunting and eating meat, and meat-eating
didnt start till post-fall.
so did god forsee that we would sin and went ahead and
created meat eaters anyway? that doesnt sound right.
you would think he would have waited till we did.

if he did wait, did he create more creatures? scripture doesnt say that.
did they evolve from pre-existing animals? if so, why?

[One Bad Pig]

i think i may have found good scripture to support
an old earth/old universe. im sure people have already discussed
this, but i had never heard about it until i read it...

genesis 2:5 niv

"and no shrub of the field had yet sprung up, for the lord god had not
sent rain on the earth"

if the plants popped up in one day, then they wouldnt need
water it would seem. god could have created them fully mature
as jesus turned the water into wine fully fermented.

but the fact that the scripture says the shrubs did not grow
because they needed rain indicates a much slower growing process.
:hrm: My Ryrie study bible says that cultivated plants were in view here (shrub of the field). If there were no humans to cultivate the ground, there could obviously be no cultivated plants. :shrug: Seems to invalidate your reasoning.

sub post:
this is somewhat related.

genesis 1:30

"and to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life
in it-i give every green plant for food."

do any animals eat poison ivy?
wouldnt marijuana be food then?
God did not literally create every species of plant known today, but various kinds of plants which then diversified through natural selection. It could be that poison ivy and marijuana have the characteristics they do through mutation.

if all animals on land were eating plants, what were the lions like?
lions are built for hunting and eating meat, and meat-eating
didnt start till post-fall.
so did god forsee that we would sin and went ahead and
created meat eaters anyway? that doesnt sound right.
you would think he would have waited till we did.

a) Just because a creature looks designed to eat meat, doesn't mean it actually does. The palm nut vulture, for example, much prefers palm nuts to anything else.

b) The curse associated with the fall could have changed lions (for example) in subtle ways to make them prefer meat.

[A Beautiful Truth]

:hrm: My Ryrie study bible says that cultivated plants were in view here (shrub of the field). If there were no humans to cultivate the ground, there could obviously be no cultivated plants. :shrug: Seems to invalidate your reasoning.

Yes, I've also heard it setting the stage for Adam, the gardener. Also about watering the Garden, since no one was there to water it, there were no cultivated plants. See, there was no one there to irrigate it (no gardener) then God made the gardener--Adam.

God did not literally create every species of plant known today, but various kinds of plants which then diversified through natural selection. It could be that poison ivy and marijuana have the characteristics they do through mutation.

God is ultimately responsible for their creation, but you are right. The text surely does give leeway for natural selection and mutation. "Let the land produce" seems to give some freedom to natural processes.

a) Just because a creature looks designed to eat meat, doesn't mean it actually does. The palm nut vulture, for example, much prefers palm nuts to anything else.

This only answers the palm nut vulture and not saber toothed tigers who actually needed meat to produce a certain enzyme. (Nor sharks, nor spiders, nor phiranas, nor.....)

b) The curse associated with the fall could have changed lions (for example) in subtle ways to make them prefer meat.

Or it could have just changed man's relationship with lions. According to scripture, the Garden had boundaries and the whole earth was not a paradise. If we are going to demand no carnivory before the fall, then we restrict it to the Garden. I wrote an article here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26518

if you are at all interested.

[Aardvark]

hey guys, thanks for the posts.

charleen, i read your article and you made some good points. but i think i have to agree with socrates, as he has posted this:


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.

it says very specifically that all animals "on the ground" will eat plants
for food. this seems to indicate it was so for both the garden and elsewhere.

however, i just thought of this. scripture doesnt say anywhere that
creatures in the sea cant eat eachother. this would support the existence
of carnivorous sharks pre-fall.

you are correct in saying that scripture doesnt say that the animals would live forever. and you make a good point about the tree of life for adam.

in summary, i think that there was death before the fall with the exception
of adam and eve. many opponents of evolution claim it could not happen
because there was no death before the fall. however your theories have successfully debunked some of their ideology, opening doors for TEs (im not saying im a TE).
i woul also like to mention that the plants died before the fall because
the humans and animals were eating them! so to say there was no death whatsoever, is a completely fallacious statement.


:hrm: My Ryrie study bible says that cultivated plants were in view here (shrub of the field). If there were no humans to cultivate the ground, there could obviously be no cultivated plants. :shrug: Seems to invalidate your reasoning.

at the end of 2:5 niv says "AND there was no man to work the ground."
this says to me that whether or not the plants were growing is independent
of there being man on the earth.
your proposition also fails to address my central point. that the
plants (cultivated or not) needed water to grow!
that is why i was saying we must live on a much older earth.

also, lets say you are correct, and the plants werent growing because
they needed a gardner to tend to them.
does that make any sense at all?
i was under the impression that all plants are self-sustaining. that is,
they can live without a gardener. of course many plants are only indigenous
to certain areas of the globe due to environment. so if you were to move
a plant out of its natural habitat then there would be a need for gardening.
but it seems very logical to me that god put plants in their appropriate places
to begin with, so that the plants could grow on their own.


b) The curse associated with the fall could have changed lions (for example) in subtle ways to make them prefer meat.

but why would this happen? why couldnt they just have kept on eating plants?
also, lions dont just "look" like their designed to eat meat. they are.
i would imagine everything from their digestive system to their muscles
is finely tuned for hunting and meat.

another interesting related question to the whole debate is this:

if adam and eve never fell. wouldnt the earth be over-run with people?
and even if it wasnt over-run. how could all those people eat from
the tree of life? that would be one pretty dang long line!

[One Bad Pig]

at the end of 2:5 niv says "AND there was no man to work the ground."
this says to me that whether or not the plants were growing is independent
of there being man on the earth.
your proposition also fails to address my central point. that the
plants (cultivated or not) needed water to grow!
that is why i was saying we must live on a much older earth.

Aardvark, the point I was making was, since there were as yet no gardeners, how could there have been any gardens (cultivated plants)? I understand well that corn, peas, et al. can grow outside of gardens, but they are not then cultivated plants, but wild.

but why would this happen? why couldnt they just have kept on eating plants?
How frightening are vegetarians?

also, lions dont just "look" like their designed to eat meat. they are.
i would imagine everything from their digestive system to their muscles
is finely tuned for hunting and meat.
Then why do my cats eat grass to aid their digestion?

another interesting related question to the whole debate is this:

if adam and eve never fell. wouldnt the earth be over-run with people?
and even if it wasnt over-run. how could all those people eat from
the tree of life? that would be one pretty dang long line!
I think God knew from the outset that Adam/Eve would fall. How can one have free will, and not fall at some point? However, that's a topic for another forum.

[Ungoliant]

If all creatures were vegetarian why are their venomous snakes, spiders etc. that specifically use neurotoxins as hunting weapons for prey subdual?

[DanN1]

See my post in "post-creation modifications" in this same forum for more questions that may cause those who believe animals were vegetarian back then to doubt their position.