# The Nature of the Pre-Fall World and The Curse



## ChariotsofFire (Nov 13, 2009)

Evolution makes sense if your not a Christian and you don't want to believe in God. Or if your a Christian trying to match up your beliefs with a nonsensical theory of the modern day humanists.

-----Added 11/13/2009 at 12:30:55 EST-----

Evolution/ Theistic evolution is not orthodox.

-----Added 11/13/2009 at 12:32:29 EST-----



ColdSilverMoon said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > What are the limits for orthodox (not necessarily confessional) discussion/arguments in the arena of creation?
> ...




God created a perfect world. A perfect world does not have death.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Nov 13, 2009)

ChariotsofFire said:


> Evolution makes sense if your not a Christian and you don't want to believe in God. Or if your a Christian trying to match up your beliefs with a nonsensical theory of the modern day humanists.
> 
> -----Added 11/13/2009 at 12:30:55 EST-----
> 
> ...



Why does mere physical death imply imperfection? What's your basis for this statement?


----------



## au5t1n (Nov 13, 2009)

KMK said:


> I fixed the numbers so they now read:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Plants yes, animals no. Plants are not _nephesh_. They do not have the breath of life or lifeblood, and so they do not technically "die" the same way animals and humans do.

Edit: Let me clarify that I do not mean that one who believes in animal death prior to the fall is not orthodox soteriologically, theologically, etc. I was only talking about the orthodoxy of the creation view itself.

-----Added 11/13/2009 at 01:06:37 EST-----



ColdSilverMoon said:


> ChariotsofFire said:
> 
> 
> > God created a perfect world. *A perfect world does not have death*.
> ...



That should be obvious. Have you never seen an animal die? God did not create suffering and death in his perfect world.

I mean no offense, brother, but you haven't thought this through.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Nov 13, 2009)

austinww said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> > ChariotsofFire said:
> ...



Plenty of animals other organisms that depend on death and decay would disagree with you - to them death is a beautiful thing. Look, I'm as big a softy as anyone when it comes to animals, and don't think I will ever go hunting for sport. But death is integral to creation - are you telling me spiders didn't weave webs or lions didn't have claws before the Fall? I seriously doubt that. All death but human death is perfectly natural....


----------



## au5t1n (Nov 13, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > ColdSilverMoon said:
> ...



You think an animal suffering in immense pain and bleeding to death could have been part of God's original creation? I see that as a bit gruesome.

Regarding spiders and lions, it is perfectly reasonable that they might have changed. The curse affected the whole creation, including even human DNA, that we would become so frail and mortal. To give you an example, we are told in Genesis that the earth didn't bring forth thorns before the Fall; yet there are many thorny plants now. Lions' claws need be no different, if indeed they serve no other purpose besides hunting.


----------



## ChariotsofFire (Nov 13, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> ChariotsofFire said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution makes sense if your not a Christian and you don't want to believe in God. Or if your a Christian trying to match up your beliefs with a nonsensical theory of the modern day humanists.
> ...



Pefect means "conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type". Life is ideal, and the Bible teaches this. When Adam fell, he spiritually died, and when he died physically, he was suffering from the effects of spiritual death. Physical death was a result of the fall. Now we know that sin affected the whole creation, not just people. 



> 18For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.



Death did not occur in the animal world either. Look at Isaiah 11:6-9 



> 6 “ The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
> The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
> The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
> And a little child shall lead them.
> ...



You see that animals in a perfect world will no longer hurt or destroy. Therefore we can say that if the world was perfect before the fall, then animals would not have hurt or destroyed then either. We can also argue with a fair amount of certainty that all animals were vegetarians.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Nov 13, 2009)

austinww said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> > austinww said:
> ...



I would encourage you to read Job 38-39 and let me know if you still think God didn't create carnivores. Pay particular attention to the passages where God actively provides prey for the raven and lion in 38:39-41, and to 39:28-30 where He discusses creating the amazing hunting ability of the eagle.


----------



## au5t1n (Nov 13, 2009)

Another thing to bear in mind is that we were not even given permission to _eat_ animals until God commanded Noah (and his descendants) to do so after the Flood. Even when the Fall happened, Adam was only told to eat the plants, wasn't he?


----------



## MMasztal (Nov 13, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> I would encourage you to read Job 38-39 and let me know if you still think God didn't create carnivores. Pay particular attention to the passages where God actively provides prey for the raven and lion in 38:39-41, and to 39:28-30 where He discusses creating the amazing hunting ability of the eagle.



Are you making the case that Job preceded the fall? If not, then I don't understand your point. The relationship between man and the animals changed after the flood (Gen 9:2).


----------



## Jon Peters (Nov 13, 2009)

MMasztal said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> > I would encourage you to read Job 38-39 and let me know if you still think God didn't create carnivores. Pay particular attention to the passages where God actively provides prey for the raven and lion in 38:39-41, and to 39:28-30 where He discusses creating the amazing hunting ability of the eagle.
> ...



Unless I am missing something, the context of Job 38 and 39 is God's work at creation. I think that's Mason's point.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 13, 2009)

Jon Peters said:


> MMasztal said:
> 
> 
> > ColdSilverMoon said:
> ...



*Off specific topic material by RTallach*
_But it was God who cursed the Earth as well as created it, and there are interesting and attractive, in their own way, aspects to the curse. So what's to prevent the miracle of the curse, apart from current science.

This again is off topic, 

Why did the innocent animals have to suffer, because their Prophet, Priest and King over creation sinned?_

*Since this is KMK's thread maybe we should have another thread on the nature of the pre-Fall World and the Curse*

-----Added 11/13/2009 at 02:33:23 EST-----

Anything's viewed as orthodox apart from full-blown theistic evolution, which is viewed as Liberal Theology or neo-Evangelicalism.


----------



## KMK (Nov 13, 2009)

I am starting a new thread...


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 13, 2009)

If we're positing a world without human death, animal death, volcanoes and earthquakes, nasty weather, etc, as many creationists do, this world would have left no or little evidence of itself in the natural world if the Heavens and Earth were formed and filled in Six Days as I believe, because it only existed from Day One to the time Adam sinned, which may not have been long (?) 

So some problems like what to do with all these long-lived and youthful pigs who weren't dying wouldn't have arisen  

The Curse according to the above scenario, need not have been another work of creation, but an outworking of principles already in the creation, that were put there by God, for the eventuality of Man's sin.

The New Heavens and New Earth are said to be incorruptible and undefiled. Presumably the Old Creation was made capable of corruption and defilement in the event of the sin of its Vice-regent/Vice-gerent.

The Old Creation was created good. The New Heavens and New Earth will be the best of all Possible Worlds.

The outworking of the Person and Work of the New Vice-gerent, Christ, first renews the souls of His people, then renews their bodies, then renews the Earth.

Man is permitted to reverse the curse where He can by God's revelation, hence the progress of medical science.


----------



## MW (Nov 13, 2009)

On Job 38-41, it is undoubted that creation and providence are discussed together with no real distinction made between them, which is in keeping with the design of the passage to show God's absolute Lordship over all things past, present, and future. Given this lack of distinction it cannot be taken for granted that a statement refers to the normal condition of creation prior to the fall.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Nov 13, 2009)

ChariotsofFire said:


> Death did not occur in the animal world either. Look at Isaiah 11:6-9
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, but the New Heavens and New Earth will not be carbon copies of the original creation. Things will be different in many ways. So even if there will no longer be predation in the animal world, that does not necessarily mean there was no animal death in the original creation. You are drawing a conclusion from Isaiah that isn't necessarily valid.



armourbearer said:


> On Job 38-41, it is undoubted that creation and providence are discussed together with no real distinction made between them, which is in keeping with the design of the passage to show God's absolute Lordship over all things past, present, and future. Given this lack of distinction it cannot be taken for granted that a statement refers to the normal condition of creation prior to the fall.



I agree, Rev Winzer, the gist of the passage is God's sovereignty. But it says God made the eagles to hunt their prey - doesn't this at least hint at their original state at the time of creation?

My point in all of this - relating back to Pastor Klein's original thread - is that believing animals died before the fall is not unorthodox. There is no strong biblical proof that animals did not die other than mere conjecture. So I would argue that one can believe animals died before the fall and still be within the bounds of orthodoxy.


----------



## MW (Nov 13, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> I agree, Rev Winzer, the gist of the passage is God's sovereignty. But it says God made the eagles to hunt their prey - doesn't this at least hint at their original state at the time of creation?



There is nothing in the Job passage which leads to the conclusion that hunting the prey is a part of God's creation design. You are reading that into the text.



ColdSilverMoon said:


> There is no strong biblical proof that animals did not die other than mere conjecture. So I would argue that one can believe animals died before the fall and still be within the bounds of orthodoxy.



While there might not be biblical statement proving animals did not die, there is much that points in that direction. First, their life is described in the same terms as man's life, Gen. 1:24, 2:7. Secondly, their life is lived in close association with man's life, being made on the same day as man and being brought to Adam to see if there is a suitable helper for him. Thirdly, there is an explicit contrast between appointing the green herb and the flesh for food in the pre-fall and post-flood mandates. Fourthly, there is the creation groaning under the "vanity" introduced by the fall. Fifthly, there is the eschatological picture of life in the restored garden which includes peaceful co-habitation of animals.

OTOH, there is nothing in the biblical picture which suggests animals died before the fall. Hence, while there might be a vague possibility of holding to animal death before the fall while still doing justice to the five points I have mentioned, an earnest and honest Bible reader has no reason for believing animals died before the fall and can only derive that information from other sources. What are the sources? Well, the fossil record might be such a source; but the reality is that no man has an ability to interpret the fossil record with anything more than hypothesis. Given the hypothetical nature of the so-called fossil record, it would be a strange kind of orthodoxy which insisted on interpreting the Bible in the light of it.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Nov 13, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> > I agree, Rev Winzer, the gist of the passage is God's sovereignty. But it says God made the eagles to hunt their prey - doesn't this at least hint at their original state at the time of creation?
> ...



Yes, but there is common sense. Nowhere does the Bible suggest that lions and eagles and buzzards and spiders were herbivores prior to the fall. The only thing that might hint at this is the fact that there might not be animal death in the New Earth, but that does not necessarily mean that was the natural pre-fall creation. Your first 4 points are very indirect evidence, at best, and much of it is projecting our own human feelings about animal death onto the text. The bottom line is that there is no clear biblical proof that animals did not die before the fall. Thus holding to such a view is not unorthodox.


----------



## MW (Nov 13, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Yes, but there is common sense. Nowhere does the Bible suggest that lions and eagles and buzzards and spiders were herbivores prior to the fall. The only thing that might hint at this is the fact that there might not be animal death in the New Earth, but that does not necessarily mean that was the natural pre-fall creation. Your first 4 points are very indirect evidence, at best, and much of it is projecting our own human feelings about animal death onto the text. The bottom line is that there is no clear biblical proof that animals did not die before the fall. Thus holding to such a view is not unorthodox.



I think it is more important to learn what the Bible teaches in its own right than to widen the scope of the Bible in order to allow for views which men have no way of proving. Common sense would tell me that I should go and investigate the five points a little further before dogmatically concluding what you have so hastily stated.


----------



## au5t1n (Nov 13, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Yes, but there is common sense. *Nowhere does the Bible suggest that lions and eagles and buzzards and spiders were herbivores prior to the fall.* The only thing that might hint at this is the fact that there might not be animal death in the New Earth, but that does not necessarily mean that was the natural pre-fall creation. Your first 4 points are very indirect evidence, at best, and much of it is projecting our own human feelings about animal death onto the text. The bottom line is that there is no clear biblical proof that animals did not die before the fall. Thus holding to such a view is not unorthodox.



This is relevant to what we were talking about before, so let me assert two hints we do have:

1) The principle that death comes from sin
2) Other examples of creation changing after the Fall (e.g. thorns and thistles, pain in childbearing for women, etc.)

Edit: And 3) Man wasn't even given permission to eat animals until after the Flood ([KJV]Gen. 9:2-4[/KJV]).


----------

