Animal Death before the Fall: What does the Bible say?

[Socrates]

And to be honest, it is benificial to the animal population to have a predator to control population numbers.

Without the predators to remove the sick and the aged from the population, and trim the numbers up a bit, the herbivores would quickly eat everything around them and then starve.

Oh, of course, God was incapable of controlling that in any other way. Never mind that He prevented the Israelites' clothes and shoes from wearing out in the wilderness for 40 years (Dt. 29:5).

And starving to death has got to be way worse than being eaten by a lion.

Why does it have to be either/or in a pre-Fall world?

So actually I see it as a really amazing bit of biological design with wonderful feed back loops built right in.

Maybe so, for a fallen world. YECs believe that Adam's fall actually made a difference.

Unlike human hunters, animal predators eat the sick and the old. Not the "best and brightest".

So you believe there was sickness and aging in the "very good" creation before the Fall?

I've said it once and i'll say it again, I think people that make this argument are just a but soft.

As I've already explained to Jason at More straw man attacks against YECs, why Ross is wrong about gnosticism and carnivory , your sort of compromise didn't work with Templeton, yet OEC Geisler refuted him by using an argument that only works consistently under a YEC view. Strobel, another OEC, clearly endorsed Geisler's argument about vegetarianism being both the original state of animals as well as the state in the restoration.

[Socrates]

Please dont tell God what very good is in your opinion. That is a bit cheeky.

Sheesh, more pseudo-pious bunk to justify Kuboes' blatant unbelief in what God has revealed and his faulty trust in man's fallible opinion:

God: "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God ... For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day."[Ex. 20:8-11]

Kuboes: Shh, Lord, I'll explain to the masses what you really meant by the days in Genesis 1.

Similarly, if God tells me that death is "the last enemy", then I will believe Him. Thus I will not claim it's His method of creation or that it was present in a creation He pronounced "very good".

[jason]

Oh, of course, God was incapable of controlling that in any other way.

It work beautifully.

Maybe so, for a fallen world. YECs believe that Adam's fall actually made a difference.

Yes I know. It did make a difference.

So you believe there was sickness and aging in the "very good" creation before the Fall?

Part of the natural order. Yes. I just think your being soft having such a problem with it.

More straw man attacks against YECs

Soc go and learn what a strawman argument is before you accuse someone of commiting it.

It cannot be a strawman argument unless it is actually an argument.

It is simply my opinion that you are being drippy and overly sentimental.

It is no more of an argument then, "How can you say that something that is all icky and nasty is 'very good' ".

Thus it cannot be a strawman.

Jason

[Socrates]

How much do animals actually suffer ? There always seems to be a lot of drippy sentimentality in these sorts of claims from YEC's.

Another Ross lie. How crazy, since he thinks plants suffer :dufus: And whinge to Geisler and Strobel if you really think so. Ross and his minions definitely know about Strobel's book because they refer to it in their dreadful Scripture-twisting tape series about Death in Eden.

Charleen, the entire OEC movement is driven by modern scientific theory. They didn’t just look as scriptures such as:

This is just as much an ad hom.

How is that ad hom? It was a clear statement of fact. If old-earth ideas were in the Bible, how come no one thought of them before deists pushed long-age ideas in geology?

Is there any reason to disregard God's revelation in nature just to appease somebodies wrong headed insistence on one reading of scripture ?

Who disregards anything? Rather, YECs reject uniformitarian interpretations of the data of nature. We also realize that since the creation is cursed, it should be interpreted in the light of the uncursed Scriptures. And if you think that our reading of Scripture is wrong headed, then prove it from the text alone (and make sure your arguments are convincing to real Hebrew scholars such as Gray Pilgrim!).

[reyvin]

I'm saying this as politely as possible and praying I do it right.....

Who disregards anything? Rather, YECs reject uniformitarian interpretations of the data of nature.

So why don't you defend the YEC interpretation in the natural science forum?

We also realize that since the creation is cursed, it should be interpreted in the light of the uncursed Scriptures.

Yes, and we also realize that humanity is cursed and so what is to say that your interpretation of uncursed Scripture is on the money?

And if you think that our reading of Scripture is wrong headed, then prove it from the text alone (and make sure your arguments are convincing to real Hebrew scholars such as Gray Pilgrim!).

Holy cow. Ok so, when you find someone knowledgeable in hebrew they're fantastic in your eyes but when someone else equally or even more knowledgeable (think Archer, Sailhamer or Kaiser here), they aren't to get any credit whatsoever? You base this on nothing more than the results shown by said individuals. I'm willing to bet that you judge only when reading the bottom line and only THEN go back and check credentials. Hebrew knowledge aside, how about the church fathers that DIDNT agree (even if it is a minority) with the 24 hour view?

You really need to take a step back from the dogma-cookies.

[reyvin]

Holy cow. Ok so, when you find someone knowledgeable in hebrew they're fantastic in your eyes but when someone else equally or even more knowledgeable (think Archer, Sailhamer or Kaiser here), they aren't to get any credit whatsoever?

I should have been a little more explicit here.

Revision: Ok so, when you find someone knowledgeable in hebrew and go with the 24 hour view, they're fantastic in your eyes but when someone else equally or even more knowledgeable (think Archer, Sailhamer or Kaiser here who are not into the AiG viewpoint), they aren't to get any credit whatsoever?

[wienerdog]

is there not something fundamentally disturbing when you witness one of the seemingly infinite clips on the national geographic channel of a lion ripping apart its prey?

i know, i know, its just an opinion...just a "feeling" someone might get, but sometimes the things in nature are a little disturbing...

I do feel disturbed when I see these images. I also feel disgust when I look at slugs or cockroaches. I can't use this sense of disgust to argue that since God created everything "very good," slugs and cockroaches must have come about as a result of the fall.

I've said it once and i'll say it again, I think people that make this argument are just a but soft.

What do you mean by soft? If you're saying that YECs are mentally soft, that is unintelligent, you need to retract this and apologize. You're going to be spending eternity with these people, you might want to try getting along with them now.

[reyvin]

I do feel disturbed when I see these images. I also feel disgust when I look at slugs or cockroaches. I can't use this sense of disgust to argue that since God created everything "very good," slugs and cockroaches must have come about as a result of the fall.

Same goes for pootie and snot. Icky.

What do you mean by soft? If you're saying that YECs are mentally soft, that is unintelligent, you need to retract this and apologize. You're going to be spending eternity with these people, you might want to try getting along with them now.

I'm quite certain he meant in the tender hearted sense, not tender headed.

[wienerdog]

What do you mean by soft? If you're saying that YECs are mentally soft, that is unintelligent, you need to retract this and apologize. You're going to be spending eternity with these people, you might want to try getting along with them now.

I'm quite certain he meant in the tender hearted sense, not tender headed.

OK. I'm not very disturbed by the crime of tender heartedness though.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Here is anoter interesting paper on the issue:

http://www.geocities.com/darrickdean/rev2.html

I like Dean's opening:

In part I, some of the questionable teachings, methods and logic of the AIG and ICR were discussed. While the "scientific proofs" for a young-earth have been falling apart (see the main page), leaders of the groups have rallied behind what could be their last "battlefield." The is the popular young-earth “proof” that I call the “death tautology” (“tautology” because it is often repeated over and over as an emotional plea). They state that the bible does not permit physical death before the fall of Adam. Thus, since science "claims" years of dying creatures before Adam, it must be wrong and the universe must be young. Is there any validity to the "no death before Adam" claim?

I think it is difficult for those Christians who have had no death before the fall in their worldview for some time to now have this challenged. It is used to explain to our children why Muffy suffers and why there is disease in the world. But we have the Natural Law Theodicy that handles those objections well. In any case, I can understand the hard time YEC's may have with in abandoning the YE because their view of death in the YE system is intertwined throughout their worldview.

But I think it is wise to increase in learning, even if we are being shown something that contradicts an existing belief.

[jhappel]

Hey Brett, sorry it has taken me so long to reply. Yes, you are right, the OEC has to look upon animal death as "very good." And it is in the eye of the beholder, Brett. One sees animal death as terrible, another sees animals death as an intricate way to keep earth's ecology in balance.


This earth was never created to be just like Heaven, but it is the best possible way to get there. Animal death is part of the natural system that keeps earth in balance. That is indeed, "very good"!

You can also argue that human death is part of the natural system that keeps the earth in balance and is 'very good'. Sure this creation is still designed to sustain itself but that doesn't mean that is they way God originally intended it. The issue is what does the Bible say? Does the Bible say animals died over millions of years before man appeared? I think not. I noticed in that article you linked the author failed to cite a single verse that specifically endorsed pre-fall animal death. It did not cite one because it doesn't exist.

Do you see what has happened here. NO longer are we talking scripture, but philosophy. You reject OEC for philosophical reasons because you cannot see the good in carnivorous activity (millions of years of it, too, if the days are long periods of time). "

If interpreting very good as meaning no death of nephesh creatures before the fall as mere philosophy and not proper scriptural hermeneutics than we are talking past each other. If God loves the creatures he creates and yet calls the lion savagely tearing apart a lamb as very good than I'm afraid we worship two different Gods. If such action is something God finds good I don't see why the lion doing the same thing to a human is also something we would approve of either.

Well, if I could find somebody to explain General Relativity to me on my level (not high by any means) should I believe him? No, because General Relativity simply cannot be properly understood on a lower level. It does not mean that it is wrong, it just means that I do not (and probably cannot) understand it.

So you are conceding you can't understand GR and yet later berate YEC's for disregarding science, who like Humphreys, do understand GR?

Well, you are welcome to embrace his work, but people who understand general relativity and very complex math do NOT embrace Humphreys. To me, I don't know why the YECers feel they need to put forth scientific arguments for their position, they disregard science so much, it amazes me. I feel we need to stick to the scriptures when we discuss OE vs. YE.

There are many YEC's who do understand GR and do embrace his work. But if you are appealing to the approval of atheistic physicists than you also must throw out RTB's 'testable' creation model since they reject that to.

I appreciate your kind words, Brett. Thank you for maintaining this attitude. I have considered the YE position. As far as considering YE creation scientists, well, I think we need to just stick with the scriptures and not bring science into it.

Well if OEC is strictly a biblically derived position that you must be able to find someone from the 18th century or before who saw the Bible as teaching that position. I mean God does not deceive when he speaks. If its clear to you and you don't need science to justify your position surely history must be filled with many, pre-uniformitarian geology, Godly scholars that interpreted the Bible like you and Ross. I mean our ancestors were experts on ancient languages and had access to documents that we don't. They were not bothered by such speculations on the the age of the earth as modern scholars today are so they had the freedom to just interpret the Bible as it appeared before them and take the words at face value.

[judge]

Luthers commentary on psalm 90:

"This Psalm reveals in striking fashion that the death of man is in countless ways a far greater calamity than the death of other living beings. Although horses, cows, and all animals die, they do not die because God is angry at them. On the contrary, for them death is, as it were, a sort of temporal casualty, ordained indeed by God but not regarded by Him as punishment. Animals die because for some other reason it seemed good to God that they should die.
But the death of human beings is a genuine disaster. Man's death is in itself truly an infinite and eternal wrath. The reason is that man is a being created for this purpose: to live forever in obedience to the Word of God and to be like God. He was not created for death. In his case death was ordained as a punishment of sin; for God said to Adam: "In the day that you eat of this tree, you shall die" (Genesis 2:17).
The death of human beings is, therefore, not like the death of animals. These die because of a law of nature. Nor is man's death an event which occurs accidentally or has merely an aspect of temporality. On the contrary, man's death, if I may so speak, was threatened by God and is caused by an incensed and estranged God. If Adam had not eaten of the forbidden tree, he would have remained immortal. But because he sinned through disobedience, he succumbs to death like the animals which are subject to him. Originally death was not part of his nature. He dies because he provokes God's wrath. Death is, in his case, the inevitable anddeserved consequence of his sin and disobedience.
Man's death is truly an event sadder and more serious than the slaughter of a cow. This becomes most evident when one takes into account the propagation of evil. Moses says: "Thou causest men to die." "Men" refers to the entire human race. Moses includes in this one word "men" all the offspring of our first parents. Therefore that which was created for life is now destined for death. This is the result of God's wrath. So the entire human race plunged from immortality into eternal death."
Luther's Works: Selected Psalms II, edited by J. Pelican, St. Louis, Concordia, 1965, vol.13, p.94, 95, 96.

Augustine in City of God book 12 chapt 21:

Man, on the other hand, whose nature was to be a mean between the angelic and bestial, He created in such sort, that if he remained in subjection to His Creator as his rightful Lord, and piously kept His commandments, he should pass into the company of the angels, and obtain, without the intervention of death,(1) a blessed and endless immortality; but if he offended the Lord his God by a proud and disobedient use of his free will, he should become subject to death, and live as the beasts do,--the slave of appetite,

http://ccel.org/fathers/NPNF1-02/Aug....htm#t66.htm.4

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Isn't there plant death before the fall, though? And doesn't the Bible refer to plants as dying?

Job 14:8 Its roots may grow old in the ground and its stump die in the soil...

Psalm 37:2 For like the grass they will soon wither, like green plants they will soon die away.

And doesn't "In the day you eat of it, you will surely die" imply that Adam and Eve knew about death? Now God might not have told them what this meant, or he might have explained it to them, but there also might be an indication here that death was already happening.

Just as "I will greatly increase your pain in childbirth" implies (virtually proves, even) there was pain before the fall, and yet this was "very good." Now pain can have a good result, so I think that fits...

Blessings,
Lee

[JimmieBlue]

Something that doesn’t fit though -- was the serpent “very good”?

Genesis 3 (NIV)

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

I've heard people say it was Satan “impersonating”, “disguised as”, “possessing” or “appearing as” a snake.

If I read the above verse literally, then it was a snake. And why was it so “crafty”?

However one looks at it, clearly something NOT “very good” was taking place before the Fall.

[lee_merrill]

Something that doesn’t fit though -- was the serpent “very good”? ... However one looks at it, clearly something NOT “very good” was taking place before the Fall.

Well, it could be very good even with the devil doing his worst, though, couldn't it? The devil wasn't very good, but creation could be, "This ship will hold up under the worst of storms."

Blessings,
Lee