# Adam ruling over a "very good" creation - death pre-fall



## panta dokimazete (Nov 28, 2008)

Interesting article over on Today's New Reason To Believe



> One point of contention among those who believe in creation is the issue of death and decay in the original created order. The question, simply stated, is whether or not death, decay, disease, harsh conditions, etc., exists as a part of the world before the fall of Adam.
> 
> When God proclaimed creation “very good,” (tob meod) was the world blissful, like the popular concept of Nirvana—or did it function under harsh conditions?1 Was it “perfect,” with self-sustaining agriculture and lions that literally ate straw? Or was it a world full of potential, in need of taming and management? Did fruit trees need pruning and did lions “lie in wait in a thicket” to “hunt the prey”?
> 
> ...


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 28, 2008)

Seems pretty simple to me:



> Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.
> 
> James 1:15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 28, 2008)

I believe the article differentiates between human death (to which theses verses refer) and animal-plant death.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 28, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> I believe the article differentiates between human death and animal-plant death.



I think so too.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 28, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> I believe the article differentiates between human death and animal-plant death.



The article makes the distinction but the question is whether or not Scripture also makes that differentiation.

CT


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 29, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> I believe the article differentiates between human death (to which theses verses refer) and animal-plant death.



Which of course is an unBiblical and foolish distinction.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 29, 2008)

Is it? I don't see a Scriptural correlation in terms of value or consequence for the death of an animal or plant and that of a human, but that could be an oversight.

That is - I don't see anywhere in Scripture that the death of plants/animals is a *bad* thing or correlated in terms of value.

Genesis 3:21
And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 29, 2008)

The exegesis is absolutely horrible. To interpret a Hebrew word's use in pre-Fall times by its application in a sinful (and death-filled) world is ridiculous. What about words like "authority"? Do we assume that pre-Fall, Adam's authority over Eve was like post-Fall authority? Do we interpret Eve's relationship to Adam in Genesis 2 with reference to her relationship in Genesis 3? In other words, do we assume that she had sinful desires to dominate pre-Fall, because that is how Genesis 3 describes it?

If we take this kind of faulty exegesis, why can we not say that pre-Fall life included war and murder? Those are aspects of "dominate" post-Fall, aren't they? Just ask James:



> James 4:2 You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask.



What a ridiculous methodology. My 10 and 11 year old sons can do better exegesis.
-----Added 11/29/2008 at 12:13:54 EST-----


panta dokimazete said:


> Is it? I don't see a Scriptural correlation in terms of value or consequence for the death of an animal or plant and that of a human, but that could be an oversight.
> 
> That is - I don't see anywhere in Scripture that the death of plants/animals is a *bad* thing or correlated in terms of value.
> 
> ...



Come on, JD! You are way beyond grasping at straws. The text you cite is about *sacrifice* and death being used in an atoning fashion. And it is *post-Fall*.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 29, 2008)

Hold on, Fred - not trying to incite a riot, here, just examining the rationale.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 29, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> Hold on, Fred - not trying to incite a riot, here, just examining the rationale.



JD,

You need to examine the point. I'm not trying to be mean (really!). But look at what these fools (and that is what they are, degrees and all) have got you to do:

You say, well, does Scripture say death is bad? And you use as a proof text a post Fall text. And it is a post-Fall text that is clearly redemptive in nature. It is *God* who kills the animals. That is what the text says.



> Genesis 3:21 And *the LORD God made *for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them



Why would we try and do that? To "prove" an Old Earth? Why? This is foolishness. This is godlessness at its root.

And let me be clear: my sharp words are for the "authors" of this "article" (so called). Not you. Run away from this foolishness.


----------



## Webservant (Nov 29, 2008)

My first thought was, is the forceful domination he spoke of an indication of the untamed wildness of the world or an indication of our own superior intellect and strength? If we were created in harmony with the world, and designed to be it's masters, perhaps this kind of absolute domination of creation is the only kind of domination we were capabale of. Does that make sense? In our present imperfect state we are nearly a force of nature. Imagine perfect intellect, ability, and strength.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 29, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> Hold on, Fred - not trying to incite a riot, here, just examining the rationale.





fredtgreco said:


> JD,
> 
> You need to examine the point. I'm not trying to be mean (really!). But look at what these fools (and that is what they are, degrees and all) have got you to do:
> 
> ...



Not disagreeing on the redemptive aspect, just not sure about why/how this disproves animal/plant death was present pre-Fall. Does the text suggest that this was the first animal death Adam and Eve had ever seen?



> Why would we try and do that? To "prove" an Old Earth? Why? This is foolishness. This is godlessness at its root.



Not sure why it is godless to consider an Old Earth if the text allows it and general revelation supports it...is there a Scriptural mandate for a Young Earth - is it GNC? I must confess that I vacillate...



> And let me be clear: my sharp words are for the "authors" of this "article" (so called). Not you. Run away from this foolishness.



Thanks, Fred - as I said, I vacillate and am interested to examine both sides of the aisle, inasmuch as the examination is to the glory of God.

This is not a salvific/orthodoxy issue to me and I normally take an "open hand" approach with the understanding that YEC and OEC rationale must acknowledge the uniqueness of Man as the Imago Dei and Creation as intimately guided by the Creator. That being said - I am certainly no "from goo to you" supporter.

I'll also confess that I thought the language usage proposition a stretch, not the dominion aspect, but the degree at which Man would have dominated. That is, given the premise (pre-Fall death), that Man would not have actually killed anything - again, granting the premise, I think that God set up the predator/prey relationship and Man would have been outside, but aware of, it.


----------



## Hippo (Nov 29, 2008)

The argument is fully set out in:

Amazon.com: Biblical Case for an Old Earth, A: David Snoke: Books

We interpret the bible in light of scientific observations all the time, usually we do not even realise that we are doing so. A problem arises where we move from understanding the Bible in the light of our observations concerning creation (i.e. science) to replacing the Bible wth such observations.

This is why there are "lines in the sand" such as no human death pre fall (and indeed the fall itself) and the historical existance of Adam and Eve that no Christian can cross and still at the very least remain confessional.

How far you go beyond this line cannot be without debate, the present young earth position is laden with hindsight where previously held beliefs have been dropped in view of scientific observation, or at the very least reinterpreted. No one now argues that the Earth is the centre of the Universe, or indeed that there is not a universe or that rockets will crash into the firmament.


----------



## Ronnie (Nov 29, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the article differentiates between human death (to which theses verses refer) and animal-plant death.
> ...



Can't be that foolish of a distinction, because we know for sure that plants died as they were a food a source for at least some of the animals.


----------

