A Question for Mental Gymnasts

[Simply_Nikki]

On the drive back from the RUF conference in Florida, I had a discussion with my campus minister about what things have changed post-fall. It was fun to speculate, but we concluded that we just can't ultimately know... but I think the bible gives clues to deduce certain things, and hence the ability for dicussion/debate.

The bible says in Romans 5 that "sin came into the world by one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sin.."

The bible also says that corruption affected not just mankind but all of creation in Romans 8:19-23 "For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And 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."

So the question is can we say that these passages suggest that death and corruption itself would not have existed pre-fall at all?

Before answering, think about some of the things that were brought up.

1. What about animals who have a "natural" appetite for meat, has this natural appetite changed post-fall from vegetarianism to carnivore? Did their physiology (micro) evolve post-fall to adjust to their "new" diet?

2. Was Adam's body different than ours in its function? For example if he did not eat would he have died of starvation? Or was this not possible pre-fall?

I can't remember the rest of what was said, but i thought it was interesting. I look forward to your answers.

Thanks.

 

[Scottish Lass]

1a. Yes
1b. Not sure, but it matters less to your larger question, I think. Our meat-ready teeth can still masticate veggies, for example.
2. I doubt this would happen--I can't imagine why he wouldn't eat. Our reasons for doing so now are fall/sin-based (that I can think of, anyway).

 

[Simply_Nikki]

1a. Yes
1b. Not sure, but it matters less to your larger question, I think. Our meat-ready teeth can still masticate veggies, for example.
2. I doubt this would happen--I can't imagine why he wouldn't eat. Our reasons for doing so now are fall/sin-based (that I can think of, anyway).

I guess people present the argument for 1b that teeth are specifically designed to masticate certain things. So animals and humans would not need teeth to tear pre-fall. Carnivores I believe don't have teeth or jaws that allow them to chew, so I suppose they'd either swallow veggies whole (which seems awfully difficult), or pre-fall, they actually had a different structure.

You're right about 2, why on earth would Adam just not eat? But I suppose the question is did he "need" to? Would "survival" even be a valid concept pre-fall?

I often wonder will we need to eat in our glorified bodies on the new earth. If there is no more death, it would seem like the physical properties of our bodies would be changed so that we wouldn't need to eat in order to stay "alive", since the possibility of death could not even be an option. But yeah, interesting thoughts. Thanks Anna.

 

[cih1355]

I have heard that according to the Bible's definition of life, animals and human beings have life, but not plants.

Since there was no death before the Fall, animals would have eaten only plants. After the Fall, the carnivorous animals of today must have had their physiology changed.

 

[Peairtach]

This is a debate that goes on between Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists, many of the YECs believing that there was no animal death before the Fall.

I tend to hold to the YEC view as being more theologically cogent. Whether or not it appears less scientifically cogent, or will be more so in the future, is not something I always study so closely.

There are variations in views, some OECs believing that the Curse operated backwards through time at the moment Adam sinned, although whether that is just a loophole to avoid theological problems with their view of an old creation, which is largely based on current science rather than Scripture, I don't know.

 

[Simply_Nikki]

This is a debate that goes on between Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists, many of the YECs believing that there was no animal death before the Fall.

I tend to hold to the YEC view as being more theologically cogent. Whether or not it appears less scientifically cogent, or will be more so in the future, is not something I always study so closely.

There are variations in views, some OECs believing that the Curse operated backwards through time at the moment Adam sinned, although whether that is just a loophole to avoid theological problems with their view of an old creation, which is largely based on current science rather than Scripture, I don't know.

Richard, that is interesting, I never thought of the question in the context of the YEC and OEC debate.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

Interesting stuff in this article at Answers in Genesis:
Creation’s original diet and the changes at the Fall

 

[Peairtach]

I tend to think there must have been quite drastic changes in man's body and environment to correspond to the Fall of his soul.

Since the pristine good creation may have been for only a short time, there may be little or no evidence of this scientifically and scientists (apart from YECs) will not be looking for it anyway.

It works much better from a theological point of view than OEC with millions of years of death and destruction before Man sinned.

I don't know what to make of the idea of the Curse working backwards. I haven't studied these things closely, apart from what the Bible says.

I don't know what OECs make of the statements in Genesis that animals were given plants to eat, with no mention of animals being given other animals to eat?

 

[Whitefield]

Why should we assume there was no animal death prior to the fall?

 

[Peairtach]

Because it involves pain and suffering for the poor animals and for the humans watching them.

 

[Whitefield]

Because it involves pain and suffering for the poor animals and for the humans watching them.

Then we should assume there was no pain prior to the fall?

 

[Steve Curtis]

Because it involves pain and suffering for the poor animals and for the humans watching them.

Then we should assume there was no pain prior to the fall?

Pain in the sense of bumping into a tree in the Garden, perhaps, but I have always thought that emotional "pain" (which I believe is what Richard is suggesting with regard to Adam and Eve) would not have been present. This is an area where YEC and OEC draw distinctions. OEC suggests that animals did feel pain (by being eaten by other animals) and that humans were in no way affected by this. YEC don't have to interact with this so much; particularly those who see quite a brief time between the creation of man and the Fall.

 

[Whitefield]

Because it involves pain and suffering for the poor animals and for the humans watching them.

Then we should assume there was no pain prior to the fall?

Pain in the sense of bumping into a tree in the Garden, perhaps, but I have always thought that emotional "pain" (which I believe is what Richard is suggesting with regard to Adam and Eve) would not have been present. This is an area where YEC and OEC draw distinctions. OEC suggests that animals did feel pain (by being eaten by other animals) and that humans were in no way affected by this. YEC don't have to interact with this so much; particularly those who see quite a brief time between the creation of man and the Fall.

The line of argument appears to be:
{premise} the death of an animal would cause "emotional pain",
{premise} there was no "emotional pain" prior to the fall,
{conclusion} therefore there was no death of an animal prior to the fall.
I'm not sure why I should assume the second premise and hence the conclusion is suspended.

 

[Steve Curtis]

Because it involves pain and suffering for the poor animals and for the humans watching them.

Then we should assume there was no pain prior to the fall?

Pain in the sense of bumping into a tree in the Garden, perhaps, but I have always thought that emotional "pain" (which I believe is what Richard is suggesting with regard to Adam and Eve) would not have been present. This is an area where YEC and OEC draw distinctions. OEC suggests that animals did feel pain (by being eaten by other animals) and that humans were in no way affected by this. YEC don't have to interact with this so much; particularly those who see quite a brief time between the creation of man and the Fall.

The line of argument appears to be:
{premise} the death of an animal would cause "emotional pain",
{premise} there was no "emotional pain" prior to the fall,
{conclusion} therefore there was no death of an animal prior to the fall.
I'm not sure why I should assume the second premise and hence the conclusion is suspended.

I suppose that I have always assumed the second premise because I am not sure how to square such pain with the "goodness" of creation. I equate sadness, etc. with suffering, which I take to have been introduced into creation as a consequence of sin. Genesis 3:17 seems to include the very presence of pain in the judgment against Adam.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

From the OP: The bible says in Romans 5 that "sin came into the world by one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sin.."

It is the interpretation this verse that is the basis for the view that there was no death before the Fall.

 

[Steve Curtis]

From the OP: The bible says in Romans 5 that "sin came into the world by one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sin.."

It is the interpretation this verse that is the basis for the view that there was no death before the Fall.

I agree with your conclusion; however, the other view sees this verse as specifically referring to human death (death spread to all men). Thus, it is suggested, this does not preclude death to animals.

 

[Whitefield]

Because it involves pain and suffering for the poor animals and for the humans watching them.

Then we should assume there was no pain prior to the fall?

Pain in the sense of bumping into a tree in the Garden, perhaps, but I have always thought that emotional "pain" (which I believe is what Richard is suggesting with regard to Adam and Eve) would not have been present. This is an area where YEC and OEC draw distinctions. OEC suggests that animals did feel pain (by being eaten by other animals) and that humans were in no way affected by this. YEC don't have to interact with this so much; particularly those who see quite a brief time between the creation of man and the Fall.

The line of argument appears to be:
{premise} the death of an animal would cause "emotional pain",
{premise} there was no "emotional pain" prior to the fall,
{conclusion} therefore there was no death of an animal prior to the fall.
I'm not sure why I should assume the second premise and hence the conclusion is suspended.

I suppose that I have always assumed the second premise because I am not sure how to square such pain with the "goodness" of creation. I equate sadness, etc. with suffering, which I take to have been introduced into creation as a consequence of sin. Genesis 3:17 seems to include the very presence of pain in the judgment against Adam.

I am pursuing this because the OP invites mental gymnastics, not because I have some agenda. Your assumptions might be correct, but I have to question my own assumptions sometimes. Do these assumptions about "emotional pain" at the death of a animal come from biblical data or are they formed from a romantic view about animals found in western culture. Don't get me wrong, I love my pets and feel intense emotional pain when they die, but I'm reluctant to extrapolate from what I feel to what could or couldn't have happened prior to the fall. And speaking of emotions, I'm not ready to assume that "sadness" is a post fall emotion.

---------- Post added at 10:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 AM ----------

From the OP: The bible says in Romans 5 that "sin came into the world by one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sin.."

It is the interpretation this verse that is the basis for the view that there was no death before the Fall.

Please note that the death spoken of here is specified as death to humans ... "death spread to all men...etc." Given the specificity of that, I don't know that it can be generalized to "death spread to all living creatures".

 

[Steve Curtis]

I am pursuing this because the OP invites mental gymnastics, not because I have some agenda. Your assumptions might be correct, but I have to question my own assumptions sometimes. Do these assumptions about "emotional pain" at the death of a animal come from biblical data or are they formed from a romantic view about animals found in western culture. Don't get me wrong, I love my pets and feel intense emotional pain when they die, but I'm reluctant to extrapolate from what I feel to what could or couldn't have happened prior to the fall. And speaking of emotions, I'm not ready to assume that "sadness" is a post fall emotion.

Please don't think I am accussing you of having an agenda; nor do I. And I admit that Western culture has influenced my own assumptions to some degree. My wife is Asian and sees certain foods as far less offensive than do I! I further acknowledge that there is a "good" sadness - in godly sorrow, for instance. However, godly sorrow is a response to sin. I appreciate the "mental gymnastics" and am certainly not above having my assumptions challenged.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

From the OP: The bible says in Romans 5 that "sin came into the world by one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sin.."

It is the interpretation this verse that is the basis for the view that there was no death before the Fall.

I agree with your conclusion; however, the other view sees this verse as specifically referring to human death (death spread to all men). Thus, it is suggested, this does not preclude death to animals.

So you say some argue that death to human beings is the result of sin while death to animals is the result of creation. I guess I have never heard a cogent argument along that line. But then again I haven't really studied the issue. However, I do see the specificity of "spread to all men".

 

[Whitefield]

I am pursuing this because the OP invites mental gymnastics, not because I have some agenda. Your assumptions might be correct, but I have to question my own assumptions sometimes. Do these assumptions about "emotional pain" at the death of a animal come from biblical data or are they formed from a romantic view about animals found in western culture. Don't get me wrong, I love my pets and feel intense emotional pain when they die, but I'm reluctant to extrapolate from what I feel to what could or couldn't have happened prior to the fall. And speaking of emotions, I'm not ready to assume that "sadness" is a post fall emotion.

Please don't think I am accussing you of having an agenda; nor do I. And I admit that Western culture has influenced my own assumptions to some degree. My wife is Asian and sees certain foods as far less offensive than do I! I further acknowledge that there is a "good" sadness - in godly sorrow, for instance. However, godly sorrow is a response to sin. I appreciate the "mental gymnastics" and am certainly not above having my assumptions challenged.

I tend to think of "godly sorrow" as regret for something I did or didn't do, but I don't put all sadness I feel in that category. It might be sadness that my favorite flower which was in bloom outside my window was just eaten by a passing animal and it isn't there any more.

---------- Post added at 11:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:08 AM ----------

From the OP: The bible says in Romans 5 that "sin came into the world by one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sin.."

It is the interpretation this verse that is the basis for the view that there was no death before the Fall.

I agree with your conclusion; however, the other view sees this verse as specifically referring to human death (death spread to all men). Thus, it is suggested, this does not preclude death to animals.

So you say some argue that death to human beings is the result of sin while death to animals is the result of creation. I guess I have never heard a cogent argument along that line. But then again I haven't really studied the issue.

Well, we are just playing on the mental monkeybars here. Grab a rung and swing along. LOL. I think this goes back to a long standing question: do animals have eternal life? If you want to get some people angry, just question that while standing in a pet cemetary!

 

[Steve Curtis]

From the OP: The bible says in Romans 5 that "sin came into the world by one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sin.."

It is the interpretation this verse that is the basis for the view that there was no death before the Fall.

I agree with your conclusion; however, the other view sees this verse as specifically referring to human death (death spread to all men). Thus, it is suggested, this does not preclude death to animals.

So you say some argue that death to human beings is the result of sin while death to animals is the result of creation. I guess I have never heard a cogent argument along that line. But then again I haven't really studied the issue. However, I do see the specificity of "spread to all men".

Yes, I have heard that position put forth from a number of quarters; however, like you, I have not heard a "congent" argument for this position. I would like to hear that view developed further if anyone could do so or could point me toward someone's work who they believe has done so.

---------- Post added at 11:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 AM ----------

Well, we are just playing on the mental monkeybars here. Grab a rung and swing along. LOL. I think this goes back to a long standing question: do animals have eternal life? If you want to get some people angry, just question that while standing in a pet cemetary!

In a YEC model, pets need not have had "eternal" life even prior to the Fall; Luther, for instance, took the position that the Fall occurred on Day Seven. Thus, it would not be unreasonable in that model for there simply to have been no animal death yet. The potentiality of animal death prior to the Fall is another story (and another rung on the monkeybars!)

 

[Whitefield]

From the OP: The bible says in Romans 5 that "sin came into the world by one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sin.."

It is the interpretation this verse that is the basis for the view that there was no death before the Fall.

I agree with your conclusion; however, the other view sees this verse as specifically referring to human death (death spread to all men). Thus, it is suggested, this does not preclude death to animals.

So you say some argue that death to human beings is the result of sin while death to animals is the result of creation. I guess I have never heard a cogent argument along that line. But then again I haven't really studied the issue. However, I do see the specificity of "spread to all men".

Yes, I have heard that position put forth from a number of quarters; however, like you, I have not heard a "congent" argument for this position. I would like to hear that view developed further if anyone could do so or could point me toward someone's work who they believe has done so.

---------- Post added at 11:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 AM ----------

Well, we are just playing on the mental monkeybars here. Grab a rung and swing along. LOL. I think this goes back to a long standing question: do animals have eternal life? If you want to get some people angry, just question that while standing in a pet cemetary!

In a YEC model, pets need not have had "eternal" life even prior to the Fall; Luther, for instance, took the position that the Fall occurred on Day Seven. Thus, it would not be unreasonable in that model for there simply to have been no animal death yet. The potentiality of animal death prior to the Fall is another story (and another rung on the monkeybars!)

But I think the question is still out there on the table, and to make it more explicit: "Did God create animals with the intention that they would have eternal life." If He did, then there would have been no animal death before the fall. If He didn't, then animal death prior to the fall would be a part of the order of creation.

 

[Peairtach]

There are other indications for death of animals not happening before the Fall

(a) Would it be "good" for an animal to die, for that animal or for a human to see it be torn apart.

(b) Would it be "good" for animals to be able to kill or maim human beings.

(c) Since Adam was prophet, priest and king over the whole Creation, when he Fell into sin, the process of physical decay and decline entered his body and the whole creation was Cursed/Spoiled by God because of him.

Were there destructive things like animals being torn apart, disease, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. or were they there already in the Creation in anticipation of Man's Fall?

Why does Genesis indicate that thorns and thistles were introduced at the Fall and that animals only ate greens?

I'm not dogmatic about this, but there seem to be a number of indications in Scripture of great changes in Man's environment aswell as his body, because he sinned, partly as punishment, and partly to make him look for a better World rather than continue to rest in this one as an unbelieving sinner.

There seems to be congruence between the state of Man's soul, and the state of his body and environment, not only at this early stage of redemptive history but later on aswell.

E.g. It is only after the redeemed get their souls freed from sin, that they then get their glorified bodies and the New Heavens and New Earth.

While we are in this earthly and decaying tabernacle we are not free from sin between the point of our regeneration and the time of our death.

Here's a thread related to that:-

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/why...sanctification-regeneration-60633/#post787955

 

[Simply_Nikki]

Very interesting discussion so far. I wondered though for those who believe death would have been a natural occurrence pre-fall for animals, what of Romans 8 when Paul talks about the whole of creation groaning and waiting eagerly to be freed from their bondage to corruption. Does this corruption include death? Is Paul just referring to all of creation only in the human sense? This would be a probable interpretation, or did he really mean "all" of creation (trees, animals, destructive weather, etc..). I can see how the death of animals would pre-fall would be less cogent theologically, knowing all the symbolism associated throughout the scriptures of feeding on "flesh" and relying on the death of something for sustenance and life. Before sin, I suppose that would not have been necessary... I don't know

Oh another thing to consider about the whole "pain" thing. What of God's curse on Eve (and all women) that she (we) would have to bear children in pain? It seems pre-fall Eve could give birth without any pain. How would that be possible without some sort of physiological difference pre-fall either in the nerves that sense pain or the structure of the uterus and how it contracts?

Just some food for thought.

 

[Peairtach]

These pre-Fall things are somewhat mysterious, just as it is somewhat mysterious what our bodies and the creation are going to be like in the New Heavens and the New Earth.

If there is any evidence external to the Bible in the creaion for these changes only YECs will have noted it or looked for it, if anyone has, and there may be more info on the Curse at their sites.

I'd still be interested to know how OECs deal with the text about animals being given greens to eat and some other points.

 

[Whitefield]

Oh another thing to consider about the whole "pain" thing. What of God's curse on Eve (and all women) that she (we) would have to bear children in pain? It seems pre-fall Eve could give birth without any pain. How would that be possible without some sort of physiological difference pre-fall either in the nerves that sense pain or the structure of the uterus and how it contracts?

Just some food for thought.

Please note the word "multiply" your pain in Genesis 3:16, one could argue there was already pain with childbirth, but now it would be multiplied.

 

[Peairtach]

The thing about childbirth is that Adam and Eve apparently didn't make sweet love or conceive until after the Fall. If they'd had/conceived children before they fell presumably the sin of Adam would not have been imputed to them, and they'd be without sin. But God always intended the Fall anyway so Eve's constitutution may have been just the same as women since the Fall.

It is purely hypothetical to speculate what provision there would have been made by God for women in childbirth to prevent any pain and discomfort that would be incompatible with a good and just God's treatment in providence of an innocent creature, in this case a woman.

 

[Mushroom]

The question might center around what the state of nature, specifically living creatures other than man, was before the fall. Obviously there will be a change of physiology of animals in the new earth since the following is declared:

Isa 11:6-9 The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them. (7) The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. (8) The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den. (9) They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.

What would have prevented God from performing such a change at the fall? Creation was subjected to futility at that juncture, and awaits delivery from that bondage to corruption that it evidently did not know before the fall. If lions eating straw is what God declares is good such that He intends it to so be in paradise future, why would it not have been so in paradise past? He declared creation to be "very good". Does what God calls good change? Would it have been good for lions to eat gazelles in the first paradise, but not the last? God is immutable, much to my joy and relief.

Romans 8:19-23 "For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And 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."

 

[Peairtach]

Would it have been good for lions to eat gazelles in the first paradise,

I don't get the impression that the gazelles are very happy when the lions start chasing them, although the lions look happy when they get the gazelle, in the present order of things.

There is a correspondence between the state of Man's (Adam's) soul and the state of his body and environment.

(a) Man's soul was good but capable of "corruption"/"corruptible" (the moral Fall by sin). Then Man's soul became "corrupt" by the moral Fall into sin.

(b) Man's body was good but capable of corruption/corruptible. When Man's soul became morally Fallen/"corrupt" the principle of physical death/corruption entered his body by the Curse of God.

(c) Man's world was good but capable of corruption/corruptible. When Man's soul became morally Fallen/"corrupt" the principle of physical death/corruption entered his world by the Curse of God.

There is a similar pattern in the eschatalogical period we are now living in and at the end of history.

E.g. The Redeemed Church in the Heavenly Eschatalogical New Heavens and New Earth are good/perfected and incapable of a Fall . In correspondence to that their world is not said to be corruptible (i.e. capable of corruption) but incorruptible (i.e inacapable of corruption).

Very different to Adam's world, which had the possibility of corruption if he sinned, because Adam's Fall was a possibility, and as far as God was concerned, a certainty.