# No Physical Death prior to the Fall?



## heartoflesh

I know this is a neccessary teaching to support Young Earth Creationism, but is it a neccessary doctrine to orthodox Christianity? What about Psalm 104:21 (a psalm of creation) where it speaks of lions and their prey, or the Leviathan in Genesis 1? What was he supposed to eat with those big teeth?


----------



## heartoflesh

joshua said:


> Rick Larson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know this is a neccessary teaching to support Young Earth Creationism, but is it a neccessary doctrine to orthodox Christianity? What about Psalm 104:21 (a psalm of creation) where it speaks of lions and their prey, or the Leviathan in Genesis 1? What was he supposed to eat with those big teeth?
> 
> 
> 
> Death came through sin (Rom. 5:12)
Click to expand...


Agreed- Adam died the moment he disobeyed.


----------



## KMK

Rick Larson said:


> I know this is a neccessary teaching to support Young Earth Creationism, but is it a neccessary doctrine to orthodox Christianity? What about Psalm 104:21 (a psalm of creation) where it speaks of lions and their prey, or the Leviathan in Genesis 1? What was he supposed to eat with those big teeth?



What are some examples of 'orthodox' Christians who believe there was death before the fall? I know the hyper-preterist believes that, but they are 'unorthodox'.


----------



## Poimen

Genesis 1:30 seems to imply that the animals were not given to each other to eat but rather the plant life that was available. So unless the consuming of plant life is included in our definition of death, it is not correct to say that there death before the fall. 

As far as the lions and other meat eating animals look at it this way: man was created to eat plant life but later (after the flood) the animal kingdom was given to him to consume as well. If God could create man in such a way to be adapted to either environment, could He not do so with the animal kingdom as well?


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

Actually death is part of creation but man lost dominion over it in the perverse state of the fall that messed up the creation order.

Plants obviously died to be consumed by Adam and the beasts in the garden, whether or not he was vegetarian or not the scriptures are silent but man once had dominion over even death but we lost control when we forsook our stewardship and disobeyed the Lord.

In an ultimate testament to our rebellion we were sentenced to go the way of lesser life forms, ones not created in the glorious image of God and had been intended to be under us.

It seems to me that Adam must have understood what death was since God warned him he would surely die if he ate of the forbidden fruit.


----------



## heartoflesh

KMK said:


> Rick Larson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know this is a neccessary teaching to support Young Earth Creationism, but is it a neccessary doctrine to orthodox Christianity? What about Psalm 104:21 (a psalm of creation) where it speaks of lions and their prey, or the Leviathan in Genesis 1? What was he supposed to eat with those big teeth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are some examples of 'orthodox' Christians who believe there was death before the fall? I know the hyper-preterist believes that, but they are 'unorthodox'.
Click to expand...



I don't know. I didn't even know if it was a part of orthodoxy to believe in no physical death before the fall. That's why I asked the question.


----------



## KMK

No Longer A Libertine said:


> Actually death is part of creation but man lost dominion over it in the perverse state of the fall that messed up the creation order.
> 
> Plants obviously died to be consumed by Adam and the beasts in the garden, whether or not he was vegetarian or not the scriptures are silent but man once had dominion over even death but we lost control when we forsook our stewardship and disobeyed the Lord.
> 
> In an ultimate testament to our rebellion we were sentenced to go the way of lesser life forms, ones not created in the glorious image of God and had been intended to be under us.
> 
> It seems to me that Adam must have understood what death was since God warned him he would surely die if he ate of the forbidden fruit.



Interesting stuff. It sounds like you have taught on this subject before.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

joshua said:


> Did the plants have to actually die in order for Adam to consume the fruit? Even so, the death of which I speak would be those of animal and human. Arbitrary me.


Was it not Adam's duty to cast out and strike down the serpent? That would've involved killing him.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

joshua said:


> Which serpent? Do you mean the Devil? Nahh...he couldn't have killed him.


Why? Christ is the second Adam fulfilling what Adam failed to do., obey God and crush the serpent.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

joshua said:


> The Devil is a spiritual being. You know as well as I do that such language is symbolic. Did Jesus' foot get bruised by the head of a physical serpent?


My point is that hypothetically Adam could've fulfilled the requirements of him prior to the fall, Christ will destroy Satan, Adam could've hypothetically nipped him in the bud at the start but was disobedient (God's sovereign plan all the same) but you can't just dismiss that the first Adam had dominion over protecting creation prior to the fall and striking down the serpent seems to be implied in his means at the time.

God was furious with his sin of omission, not keeping his wife away from the great deceiver and not keeping the deceiver out of the garden, this before the blasphemy of believing the lie that they could be like God and partaking of the fruit.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

joshua said:


> No Longer A Libertine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Devil is a spiritual being. You know as well as I do that such language is symbolic. Did Jesus' foot get bruised by the head of a physical serpent?
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that hypothetically Adam could've fulfilled the requirements of him prior to the fall, Christ will destroy Satan, Adam could've hypothetically nipped him in the bud at the start but was disobedient (God's sovereign plan all the same) but you can't just dismiss that the first Adam had dominion over protecting creation prior to the fall and striking down the serpent seems to be implied in his means at the time.
> 
> God was furious with his sin of omission, not keeping his wife away from the great deceiver and not keeping the deceiver out of the garden, this before the blasphemy of believing the lie that they could be like God and partaking of the fruit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's fine. I don't necessarily disagree. I'm just saying, as we understand _death_, its presence in God's creation is a result of sin.
Click to expand...

I'd say its presence as man's wretched demise is a cause of sin and it has certainly ailed the planet out of its original context as well.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

joshua said:


> So death brought sin?


No sin perverted creation order.

Look at the fall itself, beast went to woman and woman went to man and man agreed to disobey God.

Death could've been in the garden for the good of man and like all else that sin does it perverts and distorts its context.

Now we labor in the soil, now we are subject to an undignified demise, is it not a coincidence that sin tends to make us more animal and beast like instead of image bearers.

It is typically how the modern world tries to classify us as well, just another animal, makes it easier to justify our immorality and the depravity we reap from it that includes death.

Man is subject to death now and not the other way around as it had been in the original order.

But thankfully we take heart in knowing it will be restored in Christ in the future as death fill feel its own sting and perish from existence at least to humanity.


----------



## panta dokimazete

No Longer A Libertine said:


> Actually death is part of creation but man lost dominion over it in the perverse state of the fall that messed up the creation order.
> 
> Plants obviously died to be consumed by Adam and the beasts in the garden, whether or not he was vegetarian or not the scriptures are silent but man once had dominion over even death but we lost control when we forsook our stewardship and disobeyed the Lord.
> 
> In an ultimate testament to our rebellion we were sentenced to go the way of lesser life forms, ones not created in the glorious image of God and had been intended to be under us.
> 
> It seems to me that Adam must have understood what death was since God warned him he would surely die if he ate of the forbidden fruit.



 I agree with this logic - unless one is willing to assert that death-knowledge was implanted, rather than observed.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

joshua said:


> No Longer A Libertine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Death could've been in the garden for the good of man and like all else that sin does it perverts and distorts its context.
> 
> ...
> 
> Man is subject to death now and not the other way around as it had been in the original order.
> 
> 
> 
> But this is precisely what needs to be substantiated. i.e. that death was around before the Fall. Of which there's no Biblical evidence. In fact, Scripture says that death is the result of sin (Adam's particularly). So wouldn't this hypothetical of the *possibility* of death being around before the fall be pure conjecture?
Click to expand...

I don't think so brother, man's death is a result of sin for certain but plants and animals were born to die for our nourishment and that is undeniably part of creation order.

The mess of the current planet, war and famine are our legacy of disobedience but death itself was not something perverted until after the fall.

Where did Adam's knowledge of death arrive from had he no knowledge of what it would be? God warned him of death should he disobey, it appears it was something quite tangible to him.


----------



## DMcFadden

KMK said:


> Rick Larson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know this is a neccessary teaching to support Young Earth Creationism, but is it a neccessary doctrine to orthodox Christianity? What about Psalm 104:21 (a psalm of creation) where it speaks of lions and their prey, or the Leviathan in Genesis 1? What was he supposed to eat with those big teeth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are some examples of 'orthodox' Christians who believe there was death before the fall? I know the hyper-preterist believes that, but they are 'unorthodox'.
Click to expand...


I am young earth creationist and would argue that death before the fall would cause grave difficulties for the doctrine of sin, the First Adam-Second Adam, etc.

On the issue of plants, DAS, and big teeth, cf. Answers in Genesis' site (answersingenesis.org) for LOTS of explanations. Briefly, "death" is not predicated of plants, merely those with the _nephesh haya_, i.e., animals and mankind.

As to "orthodox" Christians who believe death came before sin, try just about "everybody" these days. If you posit that God used billions of years to create the universe and millions of years to create life, you are left with the odd consequence that 99.9% of everything He created was a false start to some degree or another and died.

R.C. Sproul typifies the evangelical mindset. He held to a progressive creation viewpoint (even endorsing a Hugh Ross' book) until Dr Douglas Kelly, the Jordan Professor of Systematic Theology at Reformed Theology Seminary, in Charlotte, North Carolina, convinced Sproul by his exegesis. You might want to catch Kelly's _Creation and Change_ book dealing with the exegesis of Genesis.

Even Charles Hodge argued that if you have two choices of interpretation and one conflicts with "known" findings of science, you are obligated to adopt the alternative interpretation. 

_‘It is of course admitted that, taking this account [Genesis] by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word [day] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, [millions of years] and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other.’_

Hodge, C., _Systematic Theology_, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, pp. 570–571, 1997.

Yikes! Frankly, I have lately come to the opinion that my compromising exegesis of Genesis (progressive creation and framework theory) was VERY similar to the types of arguments some "evangelicals" use to avoid the Pauline teaching on women and even on homosexuality. After doing battle with my denomination over homosexuality, I reconsidered the exegetical and scientific "facts," and now embrace a young earth perspective as the best reading of Scripture.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

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


The last enemy to be destroyed will be death. So in the New heavens and New Earth the enemy death will not be present. 


> Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
> 
> Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.



BTW, I am not convinced by many of Libertine's assumptions. He is making demands upon Adam that the Scriptures no where indicate any command. Adam didn't need to crush the Serpent. He had dominion. It is God's job to deal with the wayward. It was Adam and Eve's job to obey God. God didn't command Adam to crush the serpents head

The death and life question would probably be more rightly addressed toward man. Especially since he is created in the image of God and the death and life proclamations are related to him. Plus you also need to define death and the context it is used. Is eating fruit of a tree death? It is if God says it will kill you. Do you need to experience it in some form to understand it? I think God's explanation that HE would be displeased and remove you permanently from the Garden and banish you would be somewhat definitive. Separation from something you love and depend upon is traumatic. Just look at any child who gets lost. That is what death is all about. It is inbred.

But one more question. If death was in effect before the fall why would the whole creation yearn to be delivered of corruption? 



> (Rom 8:21) Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
> 
> (Rom 8:22) For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.



P.S. Did Adam have a belly button. I know the Chicken came before the egg.


----------



## panta dokimazete

corruption of Creation is a result of the Fall - you see it in genetic deformity, etc - there is no substantial reason to think that death was not a part of the created order - see your earlier verse:

"so death passed upon all men" - doesn't say all creation


----------



## panta dokimazete

I still think the best substantiation is observed death for understanding of the command consequence. I also think the "multiply configuration" deal did not need to be taught *or* observed...


----------



## VictorBravo

I think Josh and Randy are on the right track, but I think the topic is hardly worth the effort. Death came through sin. Adam understood what death was because he was created in God's image with innate understanding of God's commands (Adam understood the words God used, didn't he?--he didn't need language lessons). 

Beyond that it seems speculatively pointless.


----------



## KMK

And what about...



> WSC Q#10. How did God create man? A. ...after his own image, in knowledge...



and 



> Col 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.



Matthew Henry:



> It was the honour of man in innocence that he was made after the image of God; but that image was defaced and lost by sin, and is renewed by sanctifying grace: so that a renewed soul is something like what Adam was in the day he was created.



We know, *through God's Word,* much more about death than we could ever know just by watching someone die a physical death. Wouldn't that have been true for Adam as well?


----------



## panta dokimazete

I am not sure I follow - when I saw my first death, I *knew* it was a bad thing, even though I did not so much know what the word death meant, so when the word _die_ was used in *context* after I *understood through experience and observation* - it had a tremendous impact on me.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Are we talking death to man or plants and animals? Animals must have been created to die, or else why would God create them male and female in order for reproduction? It is not logical to believe that animals were created immortal prior to the fall. Neither could adam and eve posess imortality prior to the fall, or else why have the tree of life?

1) No need for sex

2) No need to eat, becasue no starvation

3) Could withstand any punishment and live. A grasshopper getting crushed by an elephant.. Could just walk away..


----------



## panta dokimazete

joshua said:


> jdlongmire said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure I follow - when I saw my first death, I *knew* it was a bad thing, even though I did not so much know what the word death meant, so when the word _die_ was used in *context* after I *understood through experience and observation* - it had a tremendous impact on me.
> 
> 
> 
> But you weren't born upright and sinless (nor I). Adam was.
Click to expand...


Nor sure what sinlessness has to do with *understanding* death, but I do acknowledge that Adam was endowed with at least _some_ innate knowledge. I just don't think death, as an undesirable effect applicable to him, was one of them.

I also acknowledge that this is all speculation and that the Scriptures are not, in terms of good and necessary consequence, conclusive for either side.


----------



## sotzo

I'm a bit lost here....for those who say human death was part of the original created order, what came after death had sin never entered?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

jdlongmire said:


> corruption of Creation is a result of the Fall - you see it in genetic deformity, etc - there is no substantial reason to think that death was not a part of the created order - see your earlier verse:
> 
> "so death passed upon all men" - doesn't say all creation


You are forgetting the first part of the verse basing your conclusion on the verses point of conclusion about all mankind entering into death. Death entered the Kosmos by sin. It was God's judgment.
"...as by one man sin _entered into the *world (kosmos)*_, _and death by sin_."

(Rom 8:22) For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.



> (Gen 3:17) And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: *cursed is the ground for thy sake*; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;


----------



## Iconoclast

*no more death*

Rev.21:4

4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. 

If death was okay or part of the created order before Gen1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day

Why then would it be removed in the eternal state?
If death was okay, why is it called the last enemy?
Jonathan Edwards in his history of redemption points out that there could not have been creation unless The Lord Jesus had already entered into His mediatoral work before the creation,
8And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Rom 5:12-21 along with the Priestly work of Our Lord described in Hebrews 2:9-17 have to go along way towards answering this question.


----------



## k.seymore

sotzo said:


> I'm a bit lost here....for those who say human death was part of the original created order, what came after death had sin never entered?



Although he doesn't call it "death", even Calvin says the _earthly_ life of humans would have been temporal before the fall. He believed that after their earthly life, humans would leave this earth and enter heavenly life:

"But it is asked, what kind of death God means in this place? It appears to me, that the definition of this death is to be sought from its opposite; we must, I say, remember from what kind of life man fell. He was, in every respect, happy; his life, therefore, had alike respect to his body and his soul, since in his soul a right judgment and a proper government of the affections prevailed, there also life reigned; in his body there was no defect, wherefore he was wholly free from death. His earthly life truly would have been temporal; yet he would have passed into heaven without death, and without injury. Death, therefore, is now a terror to us; first, because there is a kind of annihilation, as it respects the body; then, because the soul feels the curse of God. We must also see what is the cause of death, namely alienation from God. Thence it follows, that under the name of death is comprehended all those miseries in which Adam involved himself by his defection; for as soon as he revolted from God, the fountain of life, he was cast down from his former state, in order that he might perceive the life of man without God to be wretched and lost, and therefore differing nothing from death. Hence the condition of man after his sin is not improperly called both the privation of life, and death. The miseries and evils both of soul and body, with which man is beset so long as he is on earth, are a kind of entrance into death, till death itself entirely absorbs him; for the Scripture everywhere calls those dead who, being oppressed by the tyranny of sin and Satan, breath nothing but their own destruction. Wherefore the question is superfluous, how it was that God threatened death to Adam on the day in which he should touch the fruit, when he long deferred the punishment? For then was Adam consigned to death, and death began its reign in him, until supervening grace should bring a remedy."


----------



## refbaptdude

Why were certain animals created before the Fall to kill and eat meat = the teeth and claws on a lion, shark, bear, etc? God declared it was good that they were created this way. How do you explain this?

Just a thought : )


----------



## heartoflesh

refbaptdude said:


> Why were certain animals created before the Fall to kill and eat meat = the teeth and claws on a lion, shark, bear, etc? God declared it was good that they were created this way. How do you explain this?
> 
> Just a thought : )



This is really the essence of my original post, and specifically how the "lion and their prey" are mentioned in Psalm 104 - a Psalm on the creation.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Rick Larson said:


> refbaptdude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why were certain animals created before the Fall to kill and eat meat = the teeth and claws on a lion, shark, bear, etc? God declared it was good that they were created this way. How do you explain this?
> 
> Just a thought : )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is really the essence of my original post, and specifically how the "lion and their prey" are mentioned in Psalm 104 - a Psalm on the creation.
Click to expand...


Exactly Rick. Are those who propose no death, saying animals were created immortal? Again, then why create them with reproduction organs? And what happened when an ant was stepped on by an elephant?

Martn, the scriptures say that death passed to all men though. Romans 5:12 says, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned." 

It entered the created world through sin, but passed upon all men. I still "think" this only refers to Spiritual death though. Animals don’t sin and aren’t called sinners in the Bible. Further, animals are not offered the gift of eternal life if they repent.

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

There had to have been some sort of decay and pain prior to the fall.

In Genesis 3:16 God says to Eve, "I will greatly increase [or multiply] your pains in childbearing." He does not say "introduce." He says, "Increase" or "multiply," implying there would have been some pain in any case.


----------



## VictorBravo

Rick Larson said:


> This is really the essence of my original post, and specifically how the "lion and their prey" are mentioned in Psalm 104 - a Psalm on the creation.



I'm not so sure it is about creation before the fall. It talks about ships on the sea too.  

God's creation and his providence are still awesome and worthy of praise, despite the fall.


----------



## heartoflesh

victorbravo said:


> Rick Larson said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is really the essence of my original post, and specifically how the "lion and their prey" are mentioned in Psalm 104 - a Psalm on the creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so sure it is about creation before the fall. It talks about ships on the sea too.
> 
> God's creation and his providence are still awesome and worthy of praise, despite the fall.
Click to expand...




This is true, although I think God's creation is the main theme. It's hard for me to consider the things mentioned as being results of the fall however. It seems like it's saying God made lions to go after their prey. He created them naturally to do that.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Rick Larson said:


> refbaptdude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why were certain animals created before the Fall to kill and eat meat = the teeth and claws on a lion, shark, bear, etc? God declared it was good that they were created this way. How do you explain this?
> 
> Just a thought : )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is really the essence of my original post, and specifically how the "lion and their prey" are mentioned in Psalm 104 - a Psalm on the creation.
Click to expand...


It looks like this is a Psalm on the creation but it is post the breaking of the Covenant of Life. The last verses expose this.

And just to be honest with Reformed Baptist Dude.... I don't have an answer for the teeth thing. I do know God can create food without it being a living being first. But I am not so sure he did. I will point this out... In the New Heavens and New Earth the Lion is to lay down with the Lamb. I will make this assumption, God knowing before hand by His will that the fall of man would effect all things fit all things for the fall.


----------



## Archlute

victorbravo said:


> Rick Larson said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is really the essence of my original post, and specifically how the "lion and their prey" are mentioned in Psalm 104 - a Psalm on the creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so sure it is about creation before the fall. It talks about ships on the sea too.
> 
> God's creation and his providence are still awesome and worthy of praise, despite the fall.
Click to expand...


Exactly. It is a Psalm praising God's handywork in creation, but some (like Kline) take its categorization as a "creation Psalm", and then press the unproven assumption that it is exclusively a _pre-fall_ creation. Of course the flawed exegesis is then pressed into service to try and prove other ungrounded ideas by those authors, but we will save that for a later discussion...


----------



## Archlute

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Just a thought :
> And just to be honest with Reformed Baptist Dude.... I don't have an answer for the teeth thing. I do know God can create food without it being a living being first. But I am not so sure he did. I will point this out... In the New Heavens and New Earth the Lion is to lay down with the Lamb. I will make this assumption, God knowing before hand by His will that the fall of man would effect all things fit all things for the fall.



I don't think that it would be too far fetched to say that if the attributes of the soil/atmosphere changed after the fall to such an extent that Adam's labor became rigorous toil, that God could have changed the attributes of some of his animals as well.


----------



## heartoflesh

What's especially interesting (and I have no problem accepting the "no pre-fall death" doctrine) is how God appears to have made his creatures with attributes that would only be useful to them post-fall, such as Lion's teeth, etc.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Archlute said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a thought :
> And just to be honest with Reformed Baptist Dude.... I don't have an answer for the teeth thing. I do know God can create food without it being a living being first. But I am not so sure he did. I will point this out... In the New Heavens and New Earth the Lion is to lay down with the Lamb. I will make this assumption, God knowing before hand by His will that the fall of man would effect all things fit all things for the fall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that it would be too far fetched to say that if the attributes of the soil/atmosphere changed after the fall to such an extent that Adam's labor became rigorous toil, that God could have changed the attributes of some of his animals as well.
Click to expand...



I believe man changed as well. And that is part of the death pronounced upon man. I believe Adam shone as Moses Face and as Jesus did in the mount during his transfiguration. Adam was clothed with a radiant physical glory most likely and when he sinned it left and he saw he was naked. Something genetically probably changed also. There is evidently other genetic modifications that have taken place since we no longer live as long and the colors of our skin and appearances are contrasted so.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Rick Larson said:


> What's especially interesting (and I have no problem accepting the "no pre-fall death" doctrine) is how God appears to have made his creatures with attributes that would only be useful to them post-fall, such as Lion's teeth, etc.



Like I said...

I will make this assumption, God knowing before hand by His will that the fall of man would effect all things... [He] fit all things for the fall.


----------



## tmckinney

> And what happened when an ant was stepped on by an elephant?



Nicholas, you are assuming too much when you conclude that just because an ant can be sqaushed by an elephant and die in a post-Fall world, that that means an ant can be squashed by an elephant and die in a pre-Fall world. Can you demonstrate that an elephant would even make the mistake of stepping on an ant in a pre-Fall world? Just because things are the way they are in the animal kingdom _NOW,_doesn't mean that that is the way they were _THEN._



> Why were certain animals created before the Fall to kill and eat meat = the teeth and claws on a lion, shark, bear, etc?



Steve, I believe that a lion has teeth and claws to kill and eat meat in a post-Fall world, but that doesn't necessarily mean that teeth and claws on a big cat kind in a pre-Fall world were used to kill and eat meat. Have you ever seen the teeth of a fruit bat? They look like swords to fend off any would-be contender for its prize of meat that it just acquired by slashing and dashing its victim, but a fruit bat can only eat fruits. Those dagger like teeth are not for killing and eating meat, but for vegetation. We must not make the mistake of assuming that things in the post-Fall world mirror the things in the pre-Fall world.


----------



## Amazing Grace

tmckinney said:


> And what happened when an ant was stepped on by an elephant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nicholas, you are assuming too much when you conclude that just because an ant can be sqaushed by an elephant and die in a post-Fall world, that that means an ant can be squashed by an elephant and die in a pre-Fall world. Can you demonstrate that an elephant would even make the mistake of stepping on an ant in a pre-Fall world? Just because things are the way they are in the animal kingdom _NOW,_doesn't mean that that is the way they were.
Click to expand...


Tracey, since this whole thread is not a hill I will even argue on, my statements must be taken with speculation in mind. This cannot even be used as a "necessary consequence" theological statement.

Perhpas you are right, perhaps there was no reproduction involved prior to the fall. God created male and female of each, and the area was big enough for all of them. I seriously doubt it, but I was not there!!!! But what I will 'dialogue/debate" on is that in no way was the creation created immortal. 

As an aside, I am not assuming anything when I stated that there would be no need for reproduction organs if there was no death or decay. God did say He would INCREASE labor pains, not start them. And again, the thorns and thisles were present already outside of Eden. Why would their be venomous snakes? The sticky tongues of frogs and chameleons, did God give them this attribute just so they could eat plants or berries? Or prepare them for a post fall world? 

Energy produces decay right? When the sun and the stars were created, their burning according to the law of thermodynamics would say that there is decay immediately. The instant light was created, entropy was present.

The YEP(young earth position), is the one that specualates. If we look at what the bible says, they are the ones who assume too much by seeing "good and "very good". And making them mean immortal. And no death or decay prior to the fall.

Now you can say that the 2nd law of TD was not created until after the fall, which has been used by YEp's, but actually must be rejected. Since no movement or light can happen if there is no 2nd LOTD. 

Even the names of the Animals are defining what they are.

Lion H738 from H717 "in the sense of violence"

Cormorant H799411 "bird of prey" from H7993 "to throw, cast hurl fling" - referring to its diving in pursuit of prey

Hawk H5322 "unclean bird of prey


----------



## tmckinney

Amazing Grace said:


> Perhpas you are right, perhaps there was no reproduction involved prior to the fall.


If what you are talking about is animal reproduction then I'm not sure where I said that? What I said was just because things (not everything!) are the way they are in the animal kingdom NOW, doesn't mean that that is the way they were _THEN_.


Amazing Grace said:


> Why would their be venomous snakes? The sticky tongues of frogs and chameleons, did God give them this attribute just so they could eat plants or berries? Or prepare them for a post fall world?


Nicholas, my only point regarding these questions is this: In a post-Fall world the venom of snakes is used as a weapon and for prey as is the "sticky tongues of frogs and chameleons." Is it possible that these "attributes" (as you call them) could be used for other purposes in a pre-Fall world? We can't know and we don't have to know exactly what they could be used for because the pre-Fall world was a very different world that you and I live in. Adam could tell us. I do believe what we CANNOT say, and that is: Just because a lion has teeth and claws for killing, and snakes have venom for killing today, that does not necessarily mean they used those attributes for killing in a pre-Fall world.


Amazing Grace said:


> Even the names of the Animals are defining what they are.


Unfortunately we cannot ask Adam if these definitions, which all come from post-Fall nature observation, match the attributes of pre-Fall animals. When Adam named the pre-Fall lions, did he mean "in the sense of violence"? All literature post-Fall nature observation has documented the behavior of lions, cormorants, and hawks and has defined them according to their post-Fall behaviors. Were these observers there to see these animals in a pre-Fall world? The key word in your above quote is "are" as in NOW; not "were" as in pre-Fall.


----------



## k.seymore

At a few people have pointed out that their interpretation of what the created state originally was is based on looking at the final state in the new creation and seeing that as a reflection of the original created state. The problem I see with this (and I'm open to being wrong in my interpretation) is that scripture does not describe the original created state of humans in this way. The final state describes rest from labor, and in fact work is assumed to be not necessary because God has labored to provide that blessed rest for us. This is not a reflection of the original created state. In the original state work, not rest, is assumed to be necessary:



> When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up–for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and _there was no man to work the ground..._ then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground...



The final created state is a more of a reflection of what God does after creating Adam (although even then work is assumed necessary, but is certainly restful by comparison). By a special act of providence God plants a garden in this barren wilderness of dust, takes the man out of his original state in the dusty barren land and places him in an orchard that he did not labor to grow, and enters into a covenant of life with him. This is not the original state of the man, but a special act of providence afterward: 



> And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food... The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”



When the curse on the man comes, it is relative to this blessed life in the garden. He is cursed to eat what he labors and sweats to produce from the ground on his own–he is cursed to return to his created state outside the garden where we were previously told there was no plants because "there was no man to work the ground." Just being cast out of the garden is death in regards to the blessed restful life he had in the garden. And in addition to that he is cursed to finally return to his pre-created state: dust. He would first return to the dust in the sense that he would leave the garden and return to the dusty wilderness land where his labor would greatly be increased, and then he would eventually return to the dust in the sense of his pre-created state:



> "Cursed is the ground because of you;
> in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
> thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
> and you shall eat the plants of the field.
> By the sweat of your face
> you shall eat bread,
> till you return to the ground,
> for out of it you were taken;
> for you are dust,
> and to dust you shall return."
> 
> ...the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.



That is, Adam would return to the dust outside the garden and have to work for himself to produce food, and also Adam's body would eventually return to the the dust outside the garden. I'm not sure how this information might influence how one interprets the temporality of earthly life before the fall, but perhaps in light of my earlier quote from Calvin that he believed earthly life was temporal pre-fall, it might influence this conversation in some way. Although I'll admit I'm not sure what I think myself about the temporality of earthly life before the fall


----------



## Amazing Grace

tmckinney said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhpas you are right, perhaps there was no reproduction involved prior to the fall.
> 
> 
> 
> If what you are talking about is animal reproduction then I'm not sure where I said that? What I said was just because things (not everything!) are the way they are in the animal kingdom NOW, doesn't mean that that is the way they were _THEN_.
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would their be venomous snakes? The sticky tongues of frogs and chameleons, did God give them this attribute just so they could eat plants or berries? Or prepare them for a post fall world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nicholas, my only point regarding these questions is this: In a post-Fall world the venom of snakes is used as a weapon and for prey as is the "sticky tongues of frogs and chameleons." Is it possible that these "attributes" (as you call them) could be used for other purposes in a pre-Fall world? We can't know and we don't have to know exactly what they could be used for because the pre-Fall world was a very different world that you and I live in. Adam could tell us. I do believe what we CANNOT say, and that is: Just because a lion has teeth and claws for killing, and snakes have venom for killing today, that does not necessarily mean they used those attributes for killing in a pre-Fall world.
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even the names of the Animals are defining what they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately we cannot ask Adam if these definitions, which all come from post-Fall nature observation, match the attributes of pre-Fall animals. When Adam named the pre-Fall lions, did he mean "in the sense of violence"? All literature post-Fall nature observation has documented the behavior of lions, cormorants, and hawks and has defined them according to their post-Fall behaviors. Were these observers there to see these animals in a pre-Fall world? The key word in your above quote is "are" as in NOW; not "were" as in pre-Fall.
Click to expand...



Tracey, I believe we are at an impasse. I can provide solid scriptural basis for the understanding I promote, and you give the same speculative answer for each. ie: "God created them with post fall behavior in mind". And somehow the 2nd law of thermodynamics was created prefall, but only became true post fall. Language is language, prefall and post fall. When create is used prefall, it means exactly the same post fall. If you took every word prior to the fall, checked the hebrew, then looked and compared it to when it was used post fall, they mean exactly the same. 

Lastly, I see no difference in God's Sov plan effected by saying their was death,deacay, entropy before the fall. And actually we must remember that the angels that fell from their first estate, sinned. Therefore sin came into the earthly world of man in genesis 3, but existed prior to that. Unless Satan and his minions were cast down for something other than sin.

With the chance of me repeating the same thing ad nauseum, you may have the last word. But please make it more sunstantial than, "Nicholas, the pre fall world was different than the post fall world." That is mere sophistry and some philosophical speculation.


----------

