Did Animals Die Before the Fall?

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

There are several assumptions (and wrong ones, I'd submit) underlying things here.

That before the fall:

1. Things are like they are now, after the fall.
2. That plant "death" is really "death" proper.

Instead of believing Romans 5 at face value, and that it was sin that *actually* brought death into the world, we import modern things to a pre-Fallen world and draw conclusions from that. There have been multiple threads discussed about this very subject.

Joshua,

I'm not sure I follow you. Suggesting that God may have created carnivores before the fall is not equivalent to the assumption that everything in our present experience is as it was before the Fall. Granted, we can probably make a distinction between animal death and plant death. What about the death of single-cell organisms? Whales eat plankton, which includes animal microorganisms. Does a digested [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphipoda"]amphipod[/ame] count as a dead animal? What about ant-eaters? Did they originally suck up plant debris through their narrow snout? Or did God specially design that snout for ants?

Moreover, no one questions that Romans 5 is referring to human death. The context makes that abundantly clear. What is not clear--at face value--is whether Paul was including every kind of animal death in that statement. It's possible that he did. But I'm not convinced that the context necessitates that interpretation.

 

[TimV]

What about the death of single-cell organisms?

What about anything? It's a matter of faith. Josh from the start said it's no use arguing science with people who aren't going to take you seriously to begin with.

I have 50 species of plants that eat animals, and would become extinct if animals became extinct, since they can't take up nourishment the way other plants can. Do we quibble about fitting that into a structural framework that mixes modern rules of nature with faith?

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Mason,

I think you've raised an important problem with the position that denies the existence of carnivores before sin. Also, like you, I'm not sure "death" in Romans 5 is inclusive of all animal life. I'd like to develop these thoughts further. First, however, I wonder how you'd answer the following arguments that place animal death (at least higher forms of animal life) after the Fall:

1) The Bible seems to draw a connection between animal death and human sin (Gen. 6:17; 7:21-23; Deut. 28:18; Hos. 4:3; Zeph. 1:2-3).
2) Romans 8:20-22 suggests that creation as a whole, not just humanity, suffered as a result of Adam's Fall.
3) Certain prophetic passages that speak of carnivores eating vegetable food and peacefully cohabiting with herbivores are alleged by some to point not only forward to the New Earth but backward to the original state of affairs before sin (Isa. 11:6-9; cf. 65:25).

I think those are all fair points. My response is that just because animals are condemned with humans in certain specific circumstances (eg, the Flood), there is no reason to believe animals didn't die before the Fall. In other words, both the carnivore and herbivore alike are condemned in the passages of #1 - can't the same be true of the Fall?

I think your answer is valid. The fact that animal death may be connected with human sin after the Fall does not of necessity require its origin to be tied to the Fall itself.

I would agree that all of creation suffered the consequences of the Fall along with humanity. I don't think animals got infections or had genetic defects prior to the Fall. But that does not mean that death in the natural food chain could not have occurred. I don't see that carnivores arose as a result of the Fall - I just don't see the biblical evidence for it. However, I do believe the Fall corrupted nature in many ways, including genetic abnormalities, development of viruses, etc. It is unnatural (and a result of the Fall, in my opinion) for a gazelle to have a viral infection and die. But it is perfectly within the natural order of creation for a lion to hunt and kill a gazelle. One form of death is natural within created order, the other is unnatural.

Sounds reasonable.

My point is that death within the animal kingdom is not unnatural so long as it occurs within the natural order of creation. Death outside this natural order is a result of the Fall. Again, I won't fall on my sword for this belief. I just don't see any Scripture to strongly support the idea that spiders didn't spin their webs or cobras didn't have fangs before the Fall.

Once again, I see your point. There are even texts of Scripture that seem to depict the predator/prey relationship as well as animal food as part of the natural order (Job 39:30; 41:14; Psa. 104:20-28; 1 Tim. 4:1-4).

Thanks for your input.

-----Added 2/21/2009 at 10:28:17 EST-----

What about the death of single-cell organisms?

What about anything? It's a matter of faith. Josh from the start said it's no use arguing science with people who aren't going to take you seriously to begin with.

I have 50 species of plants that eat animals, and would become extinct if animals became extinct, since they can't take up nourishment the way other plants can. Do we quibble about fitting that into a structural framework that mixes modern rules of nature with faith?

Tim,

I think all of us agree with you that we should believe God's word even if we don't understand who it meshes with our current scientific knowledge of created things. No one is suggesting that we should follow science in contradiction to the teaching of Scripture. We are simply asking the question whether Scripture itself necessitates the view that God created all animals (including single-cell organisms) herbivores.

Is is every right for us to allow science to influence and even correct our exegesis? In the 16th century Nicholas Copernicus rejected the common assumption that the earth was at the center of the solar system. He argued instead that the earth revolves around the sun. If you were a Christian in Copernicus’ day, how would you have responded to his claim? Here is how Martin Luther reportedly responded:

So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth.
​

Luther was right to take his stand ultimately upon the teaching of Scripture. But Luther was wrong in his interpretation of the Bible, in particular his interpretation of Joshua 10. When the inspired writer describes the sun as “standing still,” he is not using scientific language. Rather, he's probably using phenomenological language, that is, the language of simple observation, much like you and I do when we speak of the sun “rising” in the east and “setting” in the west. In this case it would have been appropriate for Luther to reexamine his exegesis of Joshua 10 and to readjust his view of the solar system.

Similarly, the church today should be willing to reexamine traditional views of Scripture in the light of scientific claims. As the theologian John Frame has properly remarked,

We should not assume at the outset that the scientists are wrong. It is also possible that our interpretation of Scripture is wrong, though it is not possible for Scripture itself to be wrong. We must be humble enough and self-critical enough to reexamine these questions, even under the stimulus of scientific claims with which we may be initially unsympathetic. This is part of our apologetic mandate to bring every thought captive to Christ. In that sense, it is right for our exegesis to be ‘influenced’ by science.
​

On the other hand, there are some claims of modern science that are clearly contrary to the teaching of Scripture. In reality, these so-called scientific claims are sinful distortions of the truth (Rom 1:18). For example, I think the naturalistic philosophy behind the modern theory of evolution is totally incompatible with the teaching of Scripture. Moreover, I am not convinced that the scientific arguments for an old age for humanity and for the earth have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. And although the day age and literary framework views might be plausible ways to interpret Genesis 1, I think the exegetical evidence is still in favor of a literal reading. Furthermore, even if we were to concede that the universe and earth were much older than, say, 10,000 years, we would not be forced to accept the idea that mankind evolved over several hundred thousand years from a lower species of hominoids into the modern Homo sapiens.

So you are correct to urge us to walk by faith and not be sight (science). The Bible is always right. Nonetheless, our interpretations of the Bible can be wrong. So it's not always wrong for us to reexamine traditional interpretations of Scripture in the light of empirical evidence that might suggest a different interpretation.

 

[fredtgreco]

There are several assumptions (and wrong ones, I'd submit) underlying things here.

That before the fall:

1. Things are like they are now, after the fall.
2. That plant "death" is really "death" proper.

Instead of believing Romans 5 at face value, and that it was sin that *actually* brought death into the world, we import modern things to a pre-Fallen world and draw conclusions from that. There have been multiple threads discussed about this very subject.

For the record, I think both of those assumptions are wrong as well. Certainly the pre-Fall world was different from the current world, and yes, plants don't die in the same sense animals die.

However, I see nothing in Romans 5 that extends to the animal kingdom. Romans 5 is clearly talking about human death, both physical and spiritual. If one believes physical animal death came as a result of the Fall, then to be consistent one must also believe spiritual animal death came as a result of the Fall. And that can't really be the case can it?

Unless one believes that animals do not have a spirit/soul like man - being made in the image of God. Romans 5 says that death as a concept entered in by sin. We further know that the world was cataclismatically changed as a result of the Fall:

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 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. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. (Romans 8:19-22 ESV)

Is not part of that corruption death? What makes us think that death is "normal?" I would submit that it is not enough to say "the Bible does not specifically talk about animal death, so therefore it must have occurred (unless of course, you can prove the negative)." I would rather say:

1. God created all things good.
2. God is a God of order, not chaos and breakdowns
3. Illness and tears and not a normal part of creation, and will not be after glorification.
4. Human death (both physical and spiritual) is clearly post-Fall
5. Death is clearly Biblical stated to be the result of sin (Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. Jam. 1:15)
6. The concept of death was unknown to Adam, and "learned" (to his dismay) through the Fall.
7. All Biblical evidence of existence on earth after glory precludes predators and harm.

And so what do we have to make God the author of death? (Because if death is a part of the normal, unfallen creation order, then God has created it, not merely decreed it, and God stated that death is "good" Gen. 1:25)

We have "maybe animals ate plants."
"Maybe insects got squished."
"Maybe Romans 5 (even though it never says so) is limited to people."
"Maybe plant death is like animal death."

Frankly, I've heard the OP question before, and I have found (and find it now) to be tedious, unhelpful and used only to hurt others' faith. I for one, would wish that Dr. Gonzales would take up better pursuits than posting every atheistic canard to see how people respond to it.

 

[Dearly Bought]

Once again, I see your point. There are even texts of Scripture that seem to depict the predator/prey relationship as well as animal food as part of the natural order (Job 39:30; 41:14; Psa. 104:20-28; 1 Tim. 4:1-4).

Job 39:30 speaks of predatory lions right after language describing the warhorse's excitement about participating in battle. The context is evidently not limited to pre-Fall creation.

I'm not sure what relevance Job 41:14 has. It mentions the presence of sharp teeth on Leviathan as part of the fearsome presence it presents to humanity. Surely perceiving Leviathan as a threat to humans is clearly a post-Fall perspective?

Psalm 104 speaks of the flood in verses 7-9. Again, a post-Fall event in the immediate context demonstrates that this psalm takes the Fall into account in its description of Creation.

I really don't understand how 1 Timothy 4:1-4 could be interpreted to support animal death as part of pre-Fall creation. If you start down that road, "everything created by God is good" could also be used to argue for the normalcy of homosexual relations and all manner of bizarre propositions.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

There are several assumptions (and wrong ones, I'd submit) underlying things here.

That before the fall:

1. Things are like they are now, after the fall.
2. That plant "death" is really "death" proper.

Instead of believing Romans 5 at face value, and that it was sin that *actually* brought death into the world, we import modern things to a pre-Fallen world and draw conclusions from that. There have been multiple threads discussed about this very subject.

For the record, I think both of those assumptions are wrong as well. Certainly the pre-Fall world was different from the current world, and yes, plants don't die in the same sense animals die.

However, I see nothing in Romans 5 that extends to the animal kingdom. Romans 5 is clearly talking about human death, both physical and spiritual. If one believes physical animal death came as a result of the Fall, then to be consistent one must also believe spiritual animal death came as a result of the Fall. And that can't really be the case can it?

Unless one believes that animals do not have a spirit/soul like man - being made in the image of God. Romans 5 says that death as a concept entered in by sin. We further know that the world was cataclismatically changed as a result of the Fall:

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 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. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. (Romans 8:19-22 ESV)

Is not part of that corruption death? What makes us think that death is "normal?" I would submit that it is not enough to say "the Bible does not specifically talk about animal death, so therefore it must have occurred (unless of course, you can prove the negative)." I would rather say:

1. God created all things good.
2. God is a God of order, not chaos and breakdowns
3. Illness and tears and not a normal part of creation, and will not be after glorification.
4. Human death (both physical and spiritual) is clearly post-Fall
5. Death is clearly Biblical stated to be the result of sin (Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. Jam. 1:15)
6. The concept of death was unknown to Adam, and "learned" (to his dismay) through the Fall.
7. All Biblical evidence of existence on earth after glory precludes predators and harm.

And so what do we have to make God the author of death? (Because if death is a part of the normal, unfallen creation order, then God has created it, not merely decreed it, and God stated that death is "good" Gen. 1:25)

We have "maybe animals ate plants."
"Maybe insects got squished."
"Maybe Romans 5 (even though it never says so) is limited to people."
"Maybe plant death is like animal death."

Frankly, I've heard the OP question before, and I have found (and find it now) to be tedious, unhelpful and used only to hurt others' faith. I for one, would wish that Dr. Gonzales would take up better pursuits than posting every atheistic canard to see how people respond to it.

I agree with you, Pastor Greco, except #6 - I just don't see this indicated in the Bible. I'm not being argumentative, but I would like to know where we get the notion that Adam was "dismayed" because of death, and that it was foreign to him.

I think #7 is the strongest argument against animal death before the Fall. Tim has made that point as well, and it's a good one - if lions will lie down with lambs in God's renewed earth, then by implication this was part of God's perfect original creation.

I'm not opposed to your reading of Romans 5 (or Josh's), but given the context, taking the passage at face value does not include animal death - Paul even says "man" specifically at the start of the chapter.

 

[fredtgreco]

Mason,

I think the key to understanding Romans 5 is actually Romans 1 and 8, which show that the whole creation is marred by the Fall, and in nearly every way, so that it "cries out for redemption." What would the animal kingdom need "fixed," if not death?

I think #6 is Adam's ability to know good from evil (only knowing good before) and watching the sacrificial death of the animals for the skins. It is the first instance of death in the Bible, and it clearly is symbolic and significant. Adam's whole world changed when he ate the fruit.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Mason,

I think the key to understanding Romans 5 is actually Romans 1 and 8, which show that the whole creation is marred by the Fall, and in nearly every way, so that it "cries out for redemption." What would the animal kingdom need "fixed," if not death?

I think #6 is Adam's ability to know good from evil (only knowing good before) and watching the sacrificial death of the animals for the skins. It is the first instance of death in the Bible, and it clearly is symbolic and significant. Adam's whole world changed when he ate the fruit.

Thanks for your interaction, as always. I'm not sure I'm 100% in agreement, but it is always good to learn from you.

 

[fredtgreco]

Mason,

I think the key to understanding Romans 5 is actually Romans 1 and 8, which show that the whole creation is marred by the Fall, and in nearly every way, so that it "cries out for redemption." What would the animal kingdom need "fixed," if not death?

I think #6 is Adam's ability to know good from evil (only knowing good before) and watching the sacrificial death of the animals for the skins. It is the first instance of death in the Bible, and it clearly is symbolic and significant. Adam's whole world changed when he ate the fruit.

Thanks for your interaction, as always. I'm not sure I'm 100% in agreement, but it is always good to learn from you.

You are always a pleasure to interact with as well, Mason. I hope we have the opportunity some day to meet.

Blessings,

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Frankly, I've heard the OP question before, and I have found (and find it now) to be tedious, unhelpful and used only to hurt others' faith. I for one, would wish that Dr. Gonzales would take up better pursuits than posting every atheistic canard to see how people respond to it.

Fred,

I'm sorry you find this discussion tedious and unhelpful. Moreover, I am certainly not raising the question in order to "hurt others' faith." I am certainly not an atheist, nor do I have sympathies with their objections to the Christian faith. Admittedly, I don't see the connection between atheism and a possible predatory/prey relationship between animal life before the fall.

Below I'll give my present thoughts about the question. I teach a course on the doctrine of man and sin, and the question I raised in this thread was first raised by others whom I was teaching--in some cases, laypeople. I don't think it's intrinsically wrong to speak about such matters provided that we maintain our highest allegiance to the infallible and inerrant word of God. You may not agree with my interpretation, but be careful not to impugn evil motives to someone you don't know personally.

Before I offer my own reflections on the question of this thread (which will include arguments from both sides), let me make it clear (again) that I unreservedly hold to the verbal and plenary inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. Where Scripture and the claims of science disagree, Scripture wins hands down. Second. I am presently (as I indicated above) a "young-earther." In that regard, I'm more "conservative" than many Reformed scholars who are esteemed on this PB. Hopefully, this preface will disarm any unnecessarily hostile reactions to my post below.

Traditionally, Bible scholars have argued that God’s curse did not merely spell death for the human race, but it also introduced death into the animal kingdom—at least with respect to the higher forms of animal life. Those who argue in favor of this position point to the fact that God’s curse upon the earth because of Adam’s sin (Gen. 3:17) affected animal life as well as plant life. In support of this interpretation, they point to many other passages of Scripture that link human sin to alterations in the ecosystem that affected both man and beast. For example, in Deuteronomy 28:18, God warns the Israelites that if they break His covenant, He would curse “the increase of [their] livestock.” Because of Israel’s sin and impenitence, the prophet Hosea declares, “Therefore the land will mourn; and everyone who dwells there will waste away with the beasts of the field And the birds of the air; Even the fish of the sea will be taken away” (Hos. 4:3). And God issues Judah the following threat through the prophet Zephaniah:

I will utterly consume everything from the face of the land, says the LORD; I will consume man and beast; I will consume the birds of the heavens, the fish of the sea, and the stumbling blocks along with the wicked. I will cut off man from the face of the land, says the LORD (Zeph. 1:2-3).
​

Of course, the worldwide Flood-judgment of primeval history is the most prominent example. Because mankind filled the earth with violence and corruption (Gen. 6:5, 11-13), God sent a flood that destroyed both man and beast (Gen. 6:17; 7:21-23).

Romans 8:20-22 is a key NT passage in this debate. In these verses, Paul seems to allude to a curse on all of creation and from which all creation will be freed at the end of the age:

20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.
​

The apostle begins verse 20 with an assertion that can be translated literally, “For unto transitoriness the creation was subjected.” Then he identifies God as the agent who affected this state of transitoriness or futility. In verse 21, he depicts the present creation as in “the bondage of corruption.” Though the Greek term translated “corruption” is mainly used in context referring to moral impurity, it does occur in at least two places referring to the physical decay of the body (Ps. 103:4 [102:4, LXX]; 1 Cor. 42, 50). Finally, in verse 22, Paul compares the creation to a woman in labor pains, which may be an allusion to God’s curse upon the woman (Gen. 3:16). John Calvin seems to link this passage to the Fall when he writes,

We may, it is true, infer from this [passage] how dreadful is the curse which we have deserved, since all innocent creatures from earth to heaven are punished for our sins. It is our fault that they struggle in corruption. The condemnation of the human race is thus imprinted on the heavens, the earth, and all creatures.
​

So it would seem that man’s fall into sin brought a curse not only on himself but also on the entire creation, including animal life. And yet, Paul does not merely focus on the present state of creation. He speaks of a day when “the creation itself also will be delivered.” And according to certain OT prophecies, this final eschatological redemption of the earth will result in radical changes in animal behavior, eradicating the present relationship between predator and prey. Thus, the prophet Isaiah foretells a day when

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. The cow and the bear shall graze; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play by the cobra’s hole, and the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper’s den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD As the waters cover the sea. (Isa. 11:6-9; cf. 65:25).

The animal behavior described in this apocalyptic passage, according to some, points to conditions before man’s fall into sin. Before the fall, there were no carnivorous animals. Lions did not feed on lambs but ate grass with lambs. And so will it be in the age to come.

But if these passages are describing conditions before the Fall, then how do we account for the radical changes in anatomy that must have resulted after the fall? How did animals that were originally herbivores develop the kind of teeth and claws and digestive systems that presently characterize carnivores? Henry Morris, a Christian scientist, offers the following explanation in his commentary on God’s curse in Genesis 3:17-19:

If deteriorative mutational changes occurred in plants, it seems reasonable and even probably that they also would occur in animals. As smoothly rounded structures deteriorated to thorns in plants, so perhaps teeth and nails designed for a herbivorous diet mutated to fangs and claws which, in combination with a progressively increasing dietary deficiency of proteins and other essentials, gradually generated carnivorous appetites in certain animals.
​

But other Christian scientists and Bible scholars disagree with this kind of reasoning and argue that animal death did exist before man’s fall into sin. In the first place, they point out that the mutational changes called for to account for strictly carnivorous animals would require a kind of macroevolution on an accelerated scale. In other words, how could an originally algae eating fish develop so quickly into a sharp-toothed eating machine like a shark? How could a plant eating reptile turn into a ferocious dinosaur like the Tyrannosaurus Rex? It’s difficult to conceive of an anteater consuming grass with his funnel like snout and protrud¬ing tongue. How could such a specialized anatomical structure develop so quickly? And this difficulty does not merely apply to predatory animals. Many insects, fish, and animals have highly sophisticated protection devices that enable them to escape predation. How could the protective armor and horns and camouflage and chemical releasing organs develop so quickly within a limited space of time? David Snoke, a Christian physicist and astronomer, remarks,

The change in nature of these animals to eat grass or other plants would require a total re-creation of them, as any biologist will testify. Yet such an utter change of all species is not mentioned in Genesis 3:14-24. All we read is that thistles will proliferate.
​

Hugh Ross, another Christian scientist highlights the difficultly created by those who argue for radical mutations and changes in the physical structures and behaviors of animals:

One irony for the creation scientists … cannot be overlooked: the approach they chose to crush the serpent of evolution forces them to embrace the principles of evolutionism more tightly than any atheist biologist would…. Accordingly, they propose that meat-eating crea¬tures alive now and evident in the fossil record must have evolved in just several hundred years or less, by natural processes alone, from the plant-eating creatures!
​

Neither of these Christian scientists I’ve cited supports the idea of theistic evolution. Furthermore, they both affirm the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of Scripture. Therefore, we need to ask whether the Scriptures constrain us to embrace the position that all animal death is a result of the Fall.

Presently, I’m not certain that the biblical data requires us to reject the idea of animal death before the Fall. Let me offer three reasons for my present position: first of all, the Bible doesn’t seem to portray carnivorous animals negatively but as creatures whose very design reflects the wisdom of God. Consider God’s words to Job:

Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions, when they crouch in their dens, or lurk in their lairs to lie in wait? Who provides food for the raven, when its young ones cry to God, and wander about for lack of food? (38:39-41).
​

In the same context, God also refers to mountain goats and deer that experience “labor pains” (39:3, NAS), the eagle who captures its prey and feeds it to its young who “suck up blood” (39:30), and the creature leviathan who has “terrible teeth” (41:14). It’s impor¬tant to remember that God’s answer to Job in these chapters seems to focus upon God’s inscrutable wisdom as evident in His works of creation and providence. Similar is the language of Psalm 104:20-28:

20 You make darkness, and it is night, in which all the beasts of the forest creep about. 21 The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their food from God. 22 When the sun rises, they gather together and lie down in their dens. 23 Man goes out to his work and to his labor until the evening. 24 O LORD, how manifold are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all. The earth is full of Your possessions -25 this great and wide sea, in which are innumerable teeming things, living things both small and great. 26 There the ships sail about; there is that Leviathan which You have made to play there. 27 These all wait for You, That You may give them their food in due season. 28 What You give them they gather in; You open Your hand, they are filled with good.
​

Once again, we have a passage that portrays predatory animals as a facet of creation that display God’s wisdom and their consumption of other animals as an indication of God’s providential care rather than an evidence of God’s curse.

One final passage that appears to portray animal death in a positive light as part of the created order is found in 1 Timothy 4:1-4:

1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving;
​

Paul is probably addressing certain Jewish legalists who were attempting to impose their celibate practice and dietary restrictions upon the Gentiles. And note that in warning Timothy against these false doctrines, Paul appeals to the creation ordinance. Not only did God institute marriage as a gift for humanity, but He also created “foods,” which in this context is referring to animal flesh since he identifies “every creature of God” as “good” in verse 4. Lee Irons draws out the implications of this passage and argues,

If marriage was a pre-Fall ordinance given to man in his innocence and, on that ground, is not to be rejected, there must also have been a divine permission before the Fall to partake of “every creature of God.”
​

How then should we interpret the prophetic passages that describe lions eating grass with lambs? Do these passages teach that animal predation is contrary to God’s original design? There are at least two options open to us. We could follow many commentators who interpret the passages metaphorically. The references to wolves and leopards and lions peacefully cohabiting with animals that are normally their prey is a figurative picture of the peace and safety God’s people will experience when Messiah reigns upon the earth. According to J. A. Alexander,

Most Christian writers, ancient and modern, with Aben Ezra and Maimonides among the Jews, explain the prophecy as wholly metaphorical, and descriptive of the peace to be enjoyed by God’s people. Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah (1846-47; repr., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1953), 1:253.
​

Albert Barnes argues,

The fair interpretation of this passage is, therefore, that revolutions will be produced in the wild and evil passions of men—the only thing with which the gospel has to do—as great as if a change were produced in the animal creation, and the most ferocious and the most helpless should dwell together. Isaiah, Barnes’ Notes on the Old Testament (1851; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 1:228.
​

More recently, John Oswalt has conceded that the literally interpretation “is possible.” But “the fact that the lion’s carnivorousness is fundamental to what a lion is and that literal fulfillment of the prophecy would require a basic alteration of the lion’s nature suggest that another interpretation is intended.” So he prefers to interpret the passage as “an extended figure of speech,” which is “being used to make a single, overarching point, namely, that in the Messiah’s reign the fears associated with insecurity, danger, and evil will be removed, not only for the individual but for the world as well (Rom. 8:19-21). The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-39, NICOT, ed. Robert L. Hubbard Jr. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1986), 283.

On the other hand, if we felt constrained to interpret the passages literally, we need not take them as referring to the original state of affairs. Instead, we could interpret them as pointing forward to radical changes in nature that will obtain in the new heavens and new earth (Isa. 65:17; 66:22; 2 Pet. 3:13). The two literal approaches to these prophetic passages can be contrasted as follows:

View 1: Predation is Part of the Curse
The Original Eden ................................................. The New Earth
...Genesis 1-2 .......................................................Revelation 21-22
...................................Our Present World..........(return to Edenic conditions)
......................................(Digression)

View 2: Predation is Part of the First Creation but not the Second Creation
..............................................................................The New Earth
..............................................................................Revelation 21-22
The Original Eden .......................................................(glorification)
....Genesis 1-2
....................................Our Present World
.......................................(Digression)

But what about Paul’s description of creation’s deliverance from “the bondage of corruption” and the “futility” to which God subjected it (Rom. 8:20-22)? Does this passage refer to the negative environmental and ecological effects that God imposed upon creation in general and the animal kingdom in particular as a consequence of man’s sin? In response to these questions, we can point to at least three alternative ways to interpret this text.

First, Paul may be referring to a transitory and perishable state that God imposed upon the original creation. The only creature that was promised immortality in Genesis 2 was mankind (2:9, 16-17; 3:22). Therefore, we need not assume that all the animals would have been exempt from death and lived forever. Presumably, had Adam remained loyal to God, and had he successfully filled and subdued the earth, he would have received the gift of a glorified body and the creation itself would undergo a radical change. This radical change in nature is what Paul is referring to in Romans 8.

Second, even if we grant that the creation’s “futility” and “bondage” in Romans 8 refers to divinely imposed alterations within the environment and ecosystem as a consequence of man’s sin, we would not be forced to include animal death and predation per se in that depiction of creation. Perhaps nature and the animal world became harsher and crueler towards mankind as a result of man’s sin. But predators and prey may still have existed before the Fall.

Finally, Meredith Kline has suggested a completely different reading of Romans 8:18-23. Basing his interpretation on elements in Isaiah 24-26, Kline argues that God has enlisted the creation to serve as a mass graveyard for humanity. In that case, the “corruption” from which the creation yearns to be set free is a reference to the rotting corpses that are presently buried in the earth. Creation’s emancipation from the role of humanities graveyard will obtain at the resurrection, argues Paul (Rom. 8:23).

Some of these interpreters also argue that God’s death-threat given to Adam in the Garden (Gen. 2:17) would have been unintelligible to Adam unless he had possessed some empirical knowledge of death. Many of these scholars argue that the world outside the Garden of Eden would have included wild beasts, particularly, predators. Since Adam was created outside the Garden, then placed into the Garden, it’s conceivable that he would have witnessed animal death and therefore had a point of reference with which to interpret God’s warning. The Garden served as a picture of what the entire world would some day become—a sanctuary from death. However, until mankind filled and subdued the entire earth, there would be a degree of disorder and chaos outside the confines of the Garden sanctuary.

In light of these considerations, it is possible that the NT passages that speak of death entering the world on account of and as punishment for Adam’s sin refer specifically to human death (Rom. 5:12-14; 1 Cor. 15:20-23). Human sin has provoked a divine curse on the earth that has probably increased animal death and has even turned animals against humans (cf. Gen. 9:3). But it does not seem that the Bible absolutely constrains us to view all animal death as a produce to God’s curse on human sin. On the other hand, I’m not certain the biblical data requires animal death before the Fall. Perhaps God could have intervened supernaturally after the Fall to cause the rapid mutations and behavioral changes in animals that transformed plant-eating animals to become carnivores. The question of whether animals died before the Fall may have to await Christ’s return for a clear and unambiguous answer.

That's my present reflections on the question. But I'm open to input and correction. Indeed, that's why I posted this question on the PB. I've usually found this a place where iron sharpens iron.

In Christ,

-----Added 2/21/2009 at 11:22:05 EST-----

Once again, I see your point. There are even texts of Scripture that seem to depict the predator/prey relationship as well as animal food as part of the natural order (Job 39:30; 41:14; Psa. 104:20-28; 1 Tim. 4:1-4).

Job 39:30 speaks of predatory lions right after language describing the warhorse's excitement about participating in battle. The context is evidently not limited to pre-Fall creation. I'm not sure what relevance Job 41:14 has. It mentions the presence of sharp teeth on Leviathan as part of the fearsome presence it presents to humanity. Surely perceiving Leviathan as a threat to humans is clearly a post-Fall perspective? Psalm 104 speaks of the flood in verses 7-9. Again, a post-Fall event in the immediate context demonstrates that this psalm takes the Fall into account in its description of Creation.[/quote}

Bryan, the point of these passage is that they speak of or allude to predatory habits or anatomy that is represented as part of the world God made. True, the passage in Job 39 that speaks of eagle's feeding their young flesh is in the same context that speaks of horses in battle. A distinction should be made, however, between what is part of nature, i.e., feeding one's young and eating, and what is clearly a post-Fall situation, i.e,. horses in battle. The sharp teeth of Leviathan may indicate that he was a carnivore. Of course, those teeth may have developed post-Fall. But that's what's being debated. The reference to God giving lions their prey may also suggest that being predators is part of their God-given nature. But maybe not.

I really don't understand how 1 Timothy 4:1-4 could be interpreted to support animal death as part of pre-Fall creation. If you start down that road, "everything created by God is good" could also be used to argue for the normalcy of homosexual relations and all manner of bizarre propositions.

See my comments above (#). If animal food is a gift of God like marriage, then it may, like marriage, predate the Fall. I'm uncertain how such a conclusion opens the door to homosexuality, which the passage does not address and which is clearly condemned elsewhere in Scripture.

Your servant,

 

[Wannabee]

Dear Bob,

I can't speak for Fred, and perhaps he has a different line of thinking. But I may have some understanding of where he's coming from. These discussions can be helpful, and I'm not one to discount their value. Personally, I enjoy them. However, as they introduce much liberal thinking to some who have never been exposed to them, they can be dangerous. It's heartbreaking for a pastor to have someone in their church distraught because a well-meaning brother has fed them a pack of lies from some liberal, or exposed them to some liberal teaching that confuses them.

This is in no way an accusation. It's simply an observation from one who has been part of attempting to pick up the pieces after such exposure has occurred. It can be terribly detrimental to one's faith when "experts" bring forth more information and argumentation than they are equipped to process or assimilate properly. May we be cautious and diligent to be instruments for God's glory and never stumbling blocks to His dear children.

 

[Whitefield]

Dear Bob,

I can't speak for Fred, and perhaps he has a different line of thinking. But I may have some understanding of where he's coming from. These discussions can be helpful, and I'm not one to discount their value. Personally, I enjoy them. However, as they introduce much liberal thinking to some who have never been exposed to them, they can be dangerous. It's heartbreaking for a pastor to have someone in their church distraught because a well-meaning brother has fed them a pack of lies from some liberal, or exposed them to some liberal teaching that confuses them.

A very important point, Joe. Thank you for reminding us that we should always be aware of the "weaker brother". However, I don't think there are many (if any) weaker brothers on this board. My impression has been that the people who populate PB are intelligent, devout, and very much aware of the intricacies of theological thinking. I might be concerned about such a discussion in a Sunday School class, but not here with the quality of minds I've seen on PB.

 

[TimV]

Spending lots of time with Frame and Kline probably isn't the best way for a young man looking into these deep subjects to get a good background in the relationship with science and theology, but that's been discussed here on this board often enough.

It’s difficult to conceive of an anteater consuming grass with his funnel like snout and protruding tongue

It's difficult for me to believe that

Gen 5:5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.
Gen 5:6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he fathered Enosh.
Gen 5:7 Seth lived after he fathered Enosh 807 years and had other sons and daughters.
Gen 5:8 Thus all the days of Seth were 912 years, and he died.
Gen 5:9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he fathered Kenan.
Gen 5:10 Enosh lived after he fathered Kenan 815 years and had other sons and daughters.
Gen 5:11 Thus all the days of Enosh were 905 years, and he died.

after the fall, but I do. And the Anteater example that you repeatedly use is much easier, since many animals use the same mouth structures to feed on nectar and pollen. I have a plant in my yard that is only pollinated by bats with long tongues. In fact, it only has a scent at night because the bats only fly at night. You make a strange assumption of grass rather than something higher in protein and fat and carbohydrate like pollen and nectar. Why, since you're playing with hypotheticals like Pastor Greco pointed out?

 

[PresbyDane]

NO

 

[panta dokimazete]

Just my 2 cents, but I think that human death has always been considered as separate and catastrophic events as opposed to animal or plant "death", which seems to have always been a part of the natural order. I think it worth considering that Adam was aware of the natural order, which included the ceasing of animal life, and understood he was exempt from it as long as he obeyed God.

BTW and with all due respect - I have seen many references to - "why bring up so and so, since we have obviously resolved this issue or it is of no seeming value?"

I was under the impression that we are to test everything and was unaware that there was a time or frequency limit? Just because your sword is sharp doesn't mean that other's iron doesn't need to strike a time or two for honing.

It is foolish to think there is no value to repetition, since it is the key to learning. Don't be proud in your knowledge - reiterate it to the edification of the Bride.

 

[Dearly Bought]

Bryan, the point of these passage is that they speak of or allude to predatory habits or anatomy that is represented as part of the world God made. True, the passage in Job 39 that speaks of eagle's feeding their young flesh is in the same context that speaks of horses in battle. A distinction should be made, however, between what is part of nature, i.e., feeding one's young and eating, and what is clearly a post-Fall situation, i.e,. horses in battle. The sharp teeth of Leviathan may indicate that he was a carnivore. Of course, those teeth may have developed post-Fall. But that's what's being debated. The reference to God giving lions their prey may also suggest that being predators is part of their God-given nature. But maybe not.

You assume that the world is considered in pre-Fallen form. I have already indicated that the context of each passages contains clearly post-Fall situations (e.g., horses in battle, the Flood, etc.). There is no contextual reason for a distinction to be made in these cases, only the presupposition of "natural" animal death that you import into the text.

See my comments above (#). If animal food is a gift of God like marriage, then it may, like marriage, predate the Fall. I'm uncertain how such a conclusion opens the door to homosexuality, which the passage does not address and which is clearly condemned elsewhere in Scripture.

The homosexuality comment is not as relevant now that you have explained your inference regarding creation institutions in this passage. It's an interesting argument which I need to read up on, but it isn't flooring me off the bat.

I also want to mention again the misconception that "the mutational changes called for to account for strictly carnivorous animals would require a kind of macroevolution on an accelerated scale." These changes are easily accounted for by an instantaneous miracle. We might as well import naturalism into the preceding chapters if we're going to feel constrained by it here.

 

[historyb]

Did Animals Die Before the Fall?

I would think not myself

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Spending lots of time with Frame and Kline probably isn't the best way for a young man looking into these deep subjects to get a good background in the relationship with science and theology, but that's been discussed here on this board often enough.

It’s difficult to conceive of an anteater consuming grass with his funnel like snout and protruding tongue

It's difficult for me to believe that

Gen 5:5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.
Gen 5:6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he fathered Enosh.
Gen 5:7 Seth lived after he fathered Enosh 807 years and had other sons and daughters.
Gen 5:8 Thus all the days of Seth were 912 years, and he died.
Gen 5:9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he fathered Kenan.
Gen 5:10 Enosh lived after he fathered Kenan 815 years and had other sons and daughters.
Gen 5:11 Thus all the days of Enosh were 905 years, and he died.

after the fall, but I do. And the Anteater example that you repeatedly use is much easier, since many animals use the same mouth structures to feed on nectar and pollen. I have a plant in my yard that is only pollinated by bats with long tongues. In fact, it only has a scent at night because the bats only fly at night. You make a strange assumption of grass rather than something higher in protein and fat and carbohydrate like pollen and nectar. Why, since you're playing with hypotheticals like Pastor Greco pointed out?

Tim,

For the record, there are plenty of things the Bible teaches that I'm willing to believe despite the claims of modern science (e.g., the longevity of the antidiluvians, young earth, etc.). Perhaps you're correct about the anteater. Maybe he went from eating plant nectar to ants. With other predator animals, like the shark, I find it more challenging to believe that sharks ate algae before the Fall. But perhaps they did. Or perhaps God miraculously and instantaneously changed their anatomical structure. If that's what happened, I have no problem believing it. Thanks for your input.

-----Added 2/22/2009 at 08:35:22 EST-----

Bryan, the point of these passage is that they speak of or allude to predatory habits or anatomy that is represented as part of the world God made. True, the passage in Job 39 that speaks of eagle's feeding their young flesh is in the same context that speaks of horses in battle. A distinction should be made, however, between what is part of nature, i.e., feeding one's young and eating, and what is clearly a post-Fall situation, i.e,. horses in battle. The sharp teeth of Leviathan may indicate that he was a carnivore. Of course, those teeth may have developed post-Fall. But that's what's being debated. The reference to God giving lions their prey may also suggest that being predators is part of their God-given nature. But maybe not.

You assume that the world is considered in pre-Fallen form. I have already indicated that the context of each passages contains clearly post-Fall situations (e.g., horses in battle, the Flood, etc.). There is no contextual reason for a distinction to be made in these cases, only the presupposition of "natural" animal death that you import into the text.

See my comments above (#). If animal food is a gift of God like marriage, then it may, like marriage, predate the Fall. I'm uncertain how such a conclusion opens the door to homosexuality, which the passage does not address and which is clearly condemned elsewhere in Scripture.

The homosexuality comment is not as relevant now that you have explained your inference regarding creation institutions in this passage. It's an interesting argument which I need to read up on, but it isn't flooring me off the bat.

I also want to mention again the misconception that "the mutational changes called for to account for strictly carnivorous animals would require a kind of macroevolution on an accelerated scale." These changes are easily accounted for by an instantaneous miracle. We might as well import naturalism into the preceding chapters if we're going to feel constrained by it here.

Bryan,

Thanks for your input. I'm certainly open to the possibility of an instantaneous miracle. I'm not certain the exegetical data in Genesis 3:17-19 supports that interpretation. But it's possible to infer it. As I tried to indicate in my longer post above, I'm not dogmatic about this issue either way. I do find laypeople raising these question, so I've had to give it some serious thought. I'm happy for the input on the PB.

Gratefully yours,

 

[TimV]

Perhaps you're correct about the anteater. Maybe he went from eating plant nectar to ants. With other predator animals, like the shark, I find it more challenging to believe that sharks ate algae before the Fall.

But that's the whole point. You're engaging in speculation about a subject you're not familiar with. You're trying to mix science with faith to try to satisfy someone without faith.

The last Klinian sermon I heard revolved around the idea that since in the two creation summaries in Genesis contradicted each other, the first account having plants made before man and in the second visa versa then we obviously have to say Genesis is metaphor. But the problem with the sermon is that the guy who wrote is didn't understand the subject matter, since they don't contradict each other.

You're doing the same thing. You looked at an Anteater and set up (unintentionally I know) such a classic case of a straw man that it surprises me someone with a PhD didn't catch himself.

In reply to me pointing out that in prophesies describing our being lead by our Redeemer back to paradise describe currently carnivorous animals returning to their herbivorous state you state

The animal behavior described in this apocalyptic passage, according to some, points to conditions before man’s fall into sin. Before the fall, there were no carnivorous animals. Lions did not feed on lambs but ate grass with lambs. And so will it be in the age to come.

But if these passages are describing conditions before the Fall, then how do we account for the radical changes in anatomy that must have resulted after the fall?

and an example you use is the Anteater

What about ant-eaters? Did they originally suck up plant debris through their narrow snout?

and that's just sloppy natural science. Butterflies, bees, wasps, humming birds as well as mammals like the honey possum use long tongues to feed on pollen and nectar. Yet you say you have a hard time believing Anteaters ate grass. Well, no one ever said they did.

Another mix and match that you've engaged in on this thread is using modern categories of what is a plant and what is an animal. Those categories are all man made. So if a shark ate plankton and plankton is composed of both phyto and zooplankton the shark must have been eating animals. Why is our current classification system the end all? What if in the creation account animals are considered those that have red blood? I'm not saying that's the case, but I trust you see the point.

 

[py3ak]

A very important point, Joe. Thank you for reminding us that we should always be aware of the "weaker brother". However, I don't think there are many (if any) weaker brothers on this board. My impression has been that the people who populate PB are intelligent, devout, and very much aware of the intricacies of theological thinking. I might be concerned about such a discussion in a Sunday School class, but not here with the quality of minds I've seen on PB.

Onetime members of this board have become Roman Catholics before. The fact that someone enjoys arguments does not mean that they have the stability to engage error: and without God's upholding grace, we will all be led astray. I know personally I have many times found inadequate explanations of problem passages, even though they were put forward by good conservatives as sufficient solutions: and an inadequate solution is just an aggravation of the original problem, because it seems to indicate that one has to engage in intellectual dishonesty to make the problem go away. I am glad that I was given the ability to file them in the "I don't know enough yet category" and hold to the fact that God can be true, while every man is a liar, instead of having them destroy my faith (and I have found adequate, satisfying answers in some cases years later). The people in our churches will come across all kinds of error, and it behoves their shepherds to be able to rigorously refute the errors; but the Directory of Public Worship was wise in laying down that the preacher should not resurrect dead controversies.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

But that's the whole point. You're engaging in speculation about a subject you're not familiar with. You're trying to mix science with faith to try to satisfy someone without faith.

I don't want to answer for Dr. Gonzalez, but I don't think that's what he's trying to do with this thread, Tim.

For me science has no relevance in this discussion one way or another. If animals did not die before the Fall, then God miraculously changed the entire food cycle to allow for carnivores, which entailed physically changing many animals themselves. The answer to this phenomenon is purely supernatural, and cannot be explained with science, in my opinion. On the other hand, if animals did die, God still supernaturally altered creation by allowing for disease, infections, genetic defects, etc. So regardless of one's stance on this issue, I don't see how a Reformed Christian can believe that God did not somehow supernaturally intervene in creation post-Fall. So bringing science into this discussion is pointless, as far as I'm concerned, because one way or another creation was changed supernaturally after the Fall.

The key issue for me, and the one I'm still wrestling with, is whether animal death (NOT human death) is a good, natural aspect of God's creation, or if animal death is a result of the Fall, and not a part of God's good, perfect creation. We all agree plant and animal death is not the same, but it is also clear that animal and human death is not the same. Human death is fundamentally a result of the Fall, but I'm not sold on the fact that animal death is not within God's perfect design. I'm certainly listening to Pastor Greco's (and others') view of Romans 5, but I'm not convinced - at least not yet. I think we all agree that creation was corrupted because of the Fall - but is animal death part of that corruption? That's the sticking point for me...

 

[Mushroom]

The serpent's anatomy was obviously changed after the fall. What limits God's arm in changing any or every other living thing to accommodate the curse?

 

[No Longer A Libertine]

So do we or do we not get our pets back? Shall they be resurrected as well for our pleasure or have they gone the way of the dodo, assuming dodos are not brought back.

 

[Jon 316]

So do we or do we not get our pets back? Shall they be resurrected as well for our pleasure or have they gone the way of the dodo, assuming dodos are not brought back.

 

[TimV]

Actually it's a good question for a number of reasons, as anyone with kids who's ever lost a pet can tell you. You'd better have an answer ready for them.

 

[PastorTim]

Something to ponder !
Let us suppose that we agree that Adam’s sin is the direct cause of animal death. This premise does not establish a reasoning that death chronologically followed his act of sinning. Could not death could have been imputed to animals prior to Adam’s fall?
To affirm that death in the animal kingdom flowed chronologically from
Adam’s sin we can reason that his sin is the cause that resulted in death in
the animal kingdom and that an effect must follow a cause in order.
From this one may conclude that death came after Adam sinned, not before.
Therefore animals that existed before Adam sinned did not die.
So, if one accepts this premises as true, then one must also accept the conclusion as true.
Let us now consider a parallel statement:
Jesus’ sacrifice is the cause that resulted in salvation for humanity. If, as we agreed, the effect follows from its cause then we may say that Salvation came after Jesus’s death, not before.
Therefore humans that existed before Jesus’s death were not saved?
This argument must be rejected, based upon ample biblical data that saved individuals lived before Jesus’s death. The error is in the second premise, that the effect must follow the cause. Evidently God’s imputation of sin (or of righteousness)can indeed precede the cause!
These arguments hold or collapse together. If we accept that God can impute Jesus’s righteousness retroactively, then we must accept that God can impute Adam’s sin retroactively. To the opposite, if one denies that
Adam’s sin can be imputed retroactively, then one must
deny that Jesus’s righteousness can be imputed retroactively.

Animal death before Adam’s sin, therefore does not present a
theological difficulty, for there is no prerequisite
forbidding animal death before Adam’s time.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

I don't want to answer for Dr. Gonzalez, but I don't think that's what he's trying to do with this thread, Tim.

Mason,

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt (1 Cor. 13:4-7).

Your servant,

-----Added 2/22/2009 at 08:43:04 EST-----

The serpent's anatomy was obviously changed after the fall. What limits God's arm in changing any or every other living thing to accommodate the curse?

Whether "the Serpent" was a four-legged member of the reptilian family that was anatomically changed into what we presently know as a snake is, believe it or not, a question of debate. But I doubt the majority on this discussion list would find it edifying to learn that some evangelical scholars offer a different interpretation.

 

[Knoxienne]

So do we or do we not get our pets back? Shall they be resurrected as well for our pleasure or have they gone the way of the dodo, assuming dodos are not brought back.

I hope so. Our little dachshund from years back better be on the new earth for all the trouble we went through to train and discipline her!:

 

[discipulo]

So do we or do we not get our pets back? Shall they be resurrected as well for our pleasure or have they gone the way of the dodo, assuming dodos are not brought back.

I hope so. Our little dachshund from years back better be on the new earth for all the trouble we went through to train and discipline her!:

We also had one of those many years ago, was brown and his name was Bobi, when he would lay in the warm summer sun for hours we would say he had become a hot dog

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

You're trying to mix science with faith to try to satisfy someone without faith.

The last Klinian sermon I heard revolved around the idea that since in the two creation summaries in Genesis contradicted each other, the first account having plants made before man and in the second visa versa then we obviously have to say Genesis is metaphor. But the problem with the sermon is that the guy who wrote is didn't understand the subject matter, since they don't contradict each other.

You're doing the same thing. You looked at an Anteater and set up (unintentionally I know) such a classic case of a straw man that it surprises me someone with a PhD didn't catch himself.

Tim,

I've obviously irritated you. I'm genuinely sorry. I'm also sorry that having a Ph.D. didn't prevent me from making stupid mistakes. Please forgive me. And try to believe that my purpose on this thread was merely to discuss a topic that children and laypeople have raised in SS classes. I'm not trying to undermine anyone's faith. I just think we should be clear and dogmatic where Scripture is clear and dogmatic. Where Scripture is not clear and dogmatic, we should exercise reserve. I'll close again on the note with which I ended my longer post above:

In light of these considerations, it is possible that the NT passages that speak of death entering the world on account of and as punishment for Adam’s sin refer specifically to human death (Rom. 5:12-14; 1 Cor. 15:20-23). Human sin has provoked a divine curse on the earth that has probably increased animal death and has even turned animals against humans (cf. Gen. 9:3). But it does not seem that the Bible absolutely constrains us to view all animal death as a produce to God’s curse on human sin. On the other hand, I’m not certain the biblical data requires animal death before the Fall. Perhaps God could have intervened supernaturally after the Fall to cause the rapid mutations and behavioral changes in animals that transformed plant-eating animals to become carnivores. The question of whether animals died before the Fall may have to await Christ’s return for a clear and unambiguous answer.
​

So, as you can see, I'm not trying to be dogmatic one way or the other. You may feel the whole matter is as plain as day. I'm sorry I don't share your certainty. And I'm sorry if that makes you angry.

May the Lord give bless the close of your Sabbath.