Carnivorous animals before the fall...

[RickD]

DannyM,
you said

Adam's tansgression and thus sin entering the world guranteed man's mortality and spiritual death. Romans for me likewise alludes to both mankind's physical and spiritual deaths- both of these things entered the world at the point of Adam's sin. Romans 5:12 is in my view talking about the world of mankind.

I would like to point out that I already broke down Romans 5 and showed why it has to be spiritual death only which Paul refers to here. We see this played out in Genesis 3:6-13. Paul makes the clear link between sin and this death.

In 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 Paul does not make this link, but he does link this death with Adam. Here the chapter is about physical death and physical resurrection. If we go back to Genesis 3:22-23 we see that physical death was the result of God, not wanting man to remain lost, removing him from the Tree of Life so that he would not live forever. This allowed Jesus to be able to die for our sins. Physical death is an indirect consequence of Adam sinning, but a direct consequence of God removing Adam from the Tree of Life.

Could it be possible that God removed man's access to the tree of life(allowing physical death as a consequence) to protect man? What would have happened if man was allowed to live forever in his fallen state? So, physical death could actually be a blessing, not something evil as others have suggested. Angels that sinned had no way for redemption. Praise God for the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ!

[dayage]

RickD,

That is exactly what I think. It seems to me that we would have been like the fallen angels, with no way of redemption, had our physical death not been made possible.

I have also toyed with the idea that Adam could have reversed the "covenant" of death agreed to by Eve, when she ate the fruit. I base this on Numbers 30:6-16. I believe this is why Adam gets the blame (Romans 5:12, 14; 1 Cor. 15:21-22), not Eve.

[DannyM]

Jac,

Sorry that I have been away. It appears I was too loose with kosmos , allowing for the literal world. I also think I was wrong about the creation mentioned in Romans 8:19-22. If creation can mean the unredeemed, then I have difficulty seeing how the "unredeemed" shall be liberated from its bondage to decay. I believe you were right from the off and creation here must mean the creation as a whole.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

Mankind is being referred to here, evidenced by the clear references to sin and man and death coming to men because of sin.

I feel I have wasted your time a little, Jac, by being footloose when I should have been more specific.

[dayage]

Jac,
You said to Danny,

That's a valid use of the word, and that is how I have been taking you to mean it the entire time, which is why I said that your interpretation of Rom 5:12 seems to be, essentially, "Just like all of humanity is dying because of Adam's sin, you are dying because of yours." I just don't think that makes any sense. It certainly doesn't contribute to Paul's argument as it would be, at best, a mere tautology.

Actually I believe Romans 5:12 has a meaning more like this:

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into humanity, and spiritual death through sin, and so spiritual death spread to all men, because all sinned in Adam--"

This is not saying that we are dying because of Adam's sin and then because because we sin. Paul makes it clear that he is saying we died in Adam even before the law was given (vs. 13-14).

15. For if by the transgression of the one the many died
16. For on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation
17. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one
18. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men
19. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners

So, it really does contribute to Paul's argument.

[Jac3510]

I don't see how that works grammatically, DA, for two reasons:

1. It doesn't seem to answer the comparison I've repeatedly pointed out. In the same way that the thing happened in clause A, it has to happen in clause B. Clause A is the well known fact that explains the lesser known fact in clause B. You seem to want it to say, "Everyone died spiritually in Adam because of his sin. Now, you are dying spiritually because of yours." Assuming, for a moment, that I agree with your rendition of clause A as referring to spiritual death or to everyone's death in Adam (and I don't on either count), this rendering still makes to sense of the comparison and is thus invalid.

2. The idea that "we died in Adam," which is the standard Augustinian view, assumes eph ho should be rendered "in him," which is pretty much rejected by most grammarians that I know of. It is much better taken causally: "because." If you render it causally, you can't get the "death in Adam" view--spiritual or physical.

Second, I don't agree that spiritual death is in view.

Third, even if spiritual death is in view and the grammar does work, you still have a tautology. Being as generous as possible, you have:

"Therefore, just like humanity died spiritually through Adam's sin, so you also are dying spiritually because of you sin."

That falls to the same problem Danny has(d? I don't know anymore about his view ). All you've done is make the death spiritual. All the other problems still remain.

[dayage]

Come on Jac,

Did you really read my post? If you had you would not make so many mistakes.

I clearly said

Actually I believe Romans 5:12 has a meaning more like this:

I never said I was giving a tranaslation.

You said

It doesn't seem to answer the comparison I've repeatedly pointed out. In the same way that the thing happened in clause A, it has to happen in clause B. Clause A is the well known fact that explains the lesser known fact in clause B.

Let me see. What did I say?

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into humanity, and spiritual death through sin, and so spiritual death spread to all men, because all sinned in Adam--

Yep, A and B happened the same way. Death came through Adam.

You said

You seem to want it to say, "Everyone died spiritually in Adam because of his sin. Now, you are dying spiritually because of yours."

Funny, when I read what I said, I can not come to that conclusion. A and B still blame Adam's sin.

You said

2. The idea that "we died in Adam," which is the standard Augustinian view, assumes eph ho should be rendered "in him," which is pretty much rejected by most grammarians that I know of. It is much better taken causally: "because." If you render it causally, you can't get the "death in Adam" view--spiritual or physical.

First, I made it clear that I was not translating the verse. Second, do you think I would have translated the same thing two different ways. I clearly have the word BECAUSE in the verse. Maybe, I should have bracketed the "in Adam" so as not to confuse you. "In Adam" is what Paul wanted the read to understand. That is why he made sure it was clear in the next few verses.

Second, I don't agree that spiritual death is in view.

Yep, Paul is definitely speaking of spiritual death. That is the context of chapter 5. I also showed that this fits chapters 1-8 as well.

Third, even if spiritual death is in view and the grammar does work, you still have a tautology. Being as generous as possible, you have:"Therefore, just like humanity died spiritually through Adam's sin, so you also are dying spiritually because of you sin."

Wrong. The verses that follow, as I put in my original post, show that Paul meant that we die because of Adam's sin.

15. For if by the transgression of the one the many died
16. For on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation
17. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one
18. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men
19. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners

Adam (vs. 14) is a type of Christ, by way of contrast. This is shown in verses 15-21.

[Jac3510]

I hardly made any mistakes with regard to your position, DA. It seems that if you were to give due credence to criticism, you would at least be able to interact with problems presented--or at least perceived--in your arguments.

In the first place, I never said you were giving a translation. Quite the opposite, the rendering I offered of your position was very paraphrastic. That you would think "Therefore, just like humanity died spiritually through Adam's sin, so you also are dying spiritually because of you sin" is anything like a translation says something about your understanding of translation in general, your perception of my understanding of translation, or your disregard for the content of my actual critique. Perhaps there is still another reason, but that seems to be the limit of the possibilities as I see them. I just find it amusing that you start with the assumption that I was considering your words a translation when I never said anything like that in the first place.

In the second place, far from not understanding your words, I think I summarized your position rather neatly when I said "The idea that "we died in Adam," which is the standard Augustinian view." I assume you understand that the view your are espousing is Augustine's. The ICC on Romans lays each out in sufficient detail if you would like a bit of review there, although I hardly think you need it. On the other hand, I would have thought that it was rather clear that I was trying to take your words in every possible way, as my primary charge is that the grammar and general sense don't support your view (or Augustine's). Perhaps my mistake was that I was not being clear in that.

In the third place, I most certainly recognize that you take eph ho causally--despite your insistence that you've not offered a translation. It's been fairly evident from your other words. My point is rather that grammatically, your position does not work unless you do take the clause as "in whom," which you do not. Thus, as I said, "If you render it causally, you can't get the "death in Adam" view--spiritual or physical." Translation: the grammar works against you. The reason is simple enough, and evident from your own words: you have added to the text by insisting that 'in Adam' be bracketed. Augustine recognized that 'in Adam' was not in the second clause and chose to find his grammatical basis in eph ho. He was wrong there--at least in the opinion of many a good exegetes.

In the last place, you do have a tautology. All Augustinians do. Notice in my previous post I gave you the most generous reading possible. You've insisted on one far less generous . . . "Just as humanity died spiritually in Adam, so all men died spiritually in Adam." Duh?!? Still further, in your view, nothing in B is explained by an appeal to A. So all humanity spiritually died in Adam (in your view, which is wrong). Therefore . . . what . . . all humans are dead in Adam? There is no different consequence in A and B--death to people, only in A, "people" is humanity, and in B, people are individuals. Of course, only individuals can die, so you have a tautology.

Now, I don't know how to do this without sounding condescending or arrogant, so I won't try other than to ask you to recognize I'm being no such thing. I don't expect you to see, much less concede, the logical points above. I showed a long time ago how you made a very basic circular argument, and you refused to acknowledge it when it was plainly demonstrated in the clearest possible terms. Your error here is more subtle.

Look, I have always had a great deal of respect for Danny. Though he is convinced I am wrong (and I he), he is one with whom I can have a perfectly rational conversation, and through our conversations, I think both he and I come away sharper and more edified, regardless of whether or not we concede to the other. This is primarily because he and I are willing to admit when one or the other has demonstrated a flaw--even if unintentional--in the other's thinking. I've not gotten that from you, nor do I expect it. So with all due respect, as I told you before, you can have your views and this conversation, because this is not one in which--in this area anyway--I think you and I are going to be able to have anything even resembling a real dialogue.

God bless

[dayage]

Jac,

I actually use some of the evidences you shared in our debate about the Genesis 5 names (about a year ago). So, I do not ignore your critiques.

In the first place, I never said you were giving a translation.

I took you to mean this when you referenced my "we die in Adam" and then said that epi ho cannot support that understanding and should be translated "because." That is all I meant by me not translating the verse.

I assume you understand that the view your are espousing is Augustine's.

Nope, just looking at the context. I had no idea about Augustine's view. I think it is the following verses that bring out the meaning.

My point is rather that grammatically, your position does not work unless you do take the clause as "in whom," which you do not. Thus, as I said, "If you render it causally, you can't get the "death in Adam" view--spiritual or physical."

I do see why this is so. Verse 13 says that sin (transgressing God's law) was not imputed before there was Law. Yet, this death reigned from Adam to Moses. So what sin were we being held accountable for? It was our sinning in Adam. That is why he is a type of Christ. We are righteous in Him, not because we have been righteous ourselves.

In the last place, you do have a tautology. All Augustinians do. Notice in my previous post I gave you the most generous reading possible. You've insisted on one far less generous . . . "Just as humanity died spiritually in Adam, so all men died spiritually in Adam." Duh?!? Still further, in your view, nothing in B is explained by an appeal to A. So all humanity spiritually died in Adam (in your view, which is wrong). Therefore . . . what . . . all humans are dead in Adam? There is no different consequence in A and B--death to people, only in A, "people" is humanity, and in B, people are individuals. Of course, only individuals can die, so you have a tautology.

Part of the point being made is that one man brought sin into the human race (of which there were two members) and because of this sin came death. Part B shows that this death spread from the first man to everyone, because we all sin. The following verses show that it in Adam that we spiritually die. That is why we are lost before ever committing a sin. In my eyes there are no meaningless words here.

[dayage]

By the way, I hold the realist view, not Augustine's view. I am starting to lean towards the federalist view, but neither the federalist nor the realist views are impacted by epi ho being translated "because." In fact another view, Pelagius', is not impacted by epi ho.

In my mind, the federalist view gives an explanation of what happened to Eve. She ate first, but her "eyes" were not opened and she did not know that she was naked until after Adam ate. He was the federalist head of not only humanity, but also his family. I think he could have reversed the whole thing had he not eaten (Numbers 30:6-16).

I do not know how a realist would account for Eve, because she was already separated from Adam. And as the text points out, sin effected her only after Adam sinned (Genesis 3:6-7).

[Legatus]

I think a big problem here is the literal interpretation given here, not that you ARE interpreting it literaly, but that you ARE NOT interpreting it with total literalness, as if it were written by someone who said that every jot and tittle would be fulfilled. To do that you must see what it said, in the original language, and perhaps more importantly, what it DID NOT say, and then use STRICK logic.

To start with, here is a question, why, if the whole world would be changed, and there would become thorns and thistles and carnivores where before that there were none, and if, as we see now, there is no Garden of Eden, did God remove Adam and Eve from the garden, why not just change the garden as well, since God knows that it would eventually be gone? The answere is in the word GARDEN, which in the original means "an enclosed garden" (check a concordance). Remember, this is a God who had a choice of an infinite number of possible universes, an infinite number of possible cultures, languages, words in those languages, and writers of the Bible, so why choose the word "garden"? Simple, the Bible says exactly what it means, and means exactly what it says, down to the last jot and titil. It says garden because it MEANS "an enclosed garden", exactly as it was written. A garden is a place that is different from the non garden, it is tended and WEEDED and enclosed to keep out unwanted plants OR animals (like lions and tigers and bears). So God removed Adam and Eve from the garden becuase it WAS a garden, DIFFERENT from the non garden outside it, if it were not so, there would be no reason to remove them from it, just remove the Tree of Life, (which would be gone eventually anyway, since it is certainly not there now) and change the garden to have thorns and thistles and carnivores. If this were not so, the word Garden would have never been used, the whole earth would be "The Garden" and the word would be meaningless and would not have been used. Also, the Garden was said to have certain gographical boundries, as such, it must have been different from the world outside those boundries, otherwise, why would it be named?

Second, this God has infinite intelligence, hence, this God could see that in an infinite number of possible worlds, mankind would always fall (otherwise, why not just make a world where mankind does not fall, or, simply, keep Satan out of the Garden?). Also, we know from testing it, that time is dependant on matter and energy and the things this universe is made of, such that if we orbit a clock around the earth fast enough, the clock on the sattelite will read different from the clocks down here due to relevistic effects. Also we see prophicies that have come true in the past and recently. From these we know that God is outside of time. I will repeat that in big letters so you get it, GOD IS OUTSIDE OF TIME, because it is very important. This is also seen in the passage speaking of how to God a day IS AS a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. This is not some "secret code" that means when God says "day" he really means 1000 years, if he wants to say 1000 years he can just come right out and say it, what, you think he's dumb or something? What he means is that he exists outside of time, since he exists outside of, and was here "before" this space/time continium even existed, and thus does not see time as we see it. Instead, he sees it is pastpresentfuture all at once, hence the prophicies. (If he had meant that when I say day I mean 1000 years, he would not have said IS AS, he would have simply said IS)

So it goes like this:
God, in his eternal NOW, sees mankind fall.
In his eternal NOW, he creates a universe that has entropy, carnivores, death, thorns, thistles, and just plain weeds, starting from the beginning of time. All those things stem from entropy, which stems from mankinds wish to run the universe themselves, and thus the wish that God will not be eternally present running every little thing in an open universe where energy and information flow from God into it in a never ending stream of continual creation. Instead, he makes a universe designed as a closed system, with entropy, that can run (for a while anyway) on it's own. Essentually, what God has done here is changed the universe in occord with mankinds wishes, backdated to the beginning of time (you can do that if you're God), except, being God and knowing what would happen before it did, you don't need to "change" it, just make it that way to begin with.
BUT, there is a time where mankind IS here but has not yet fallen, so for them he created "The Garden", which is EXACTLY what it says and means, "an enclosed garden" which is tended and WEEDED and thus has no carnivores or thorns and which has food in abundence just like a garden we make now (only better). Inside this garden God was present, and inside it the universe, or at least that little part of it, was an open system with no entropy (for a short while anyway).
Then, mankind reaches for the fruit. It was not some magical, sin creating fruit that did it, otherwise God could have simply never created that fruit. it was, instead, the willfull act of reaching for it, of deciding to make ones own rules rather than obeying the one simple little rule that God had made. As such, mankind (BOTH Eve AND Adam, as it was said, Adam who WAS WITH HER, past tense, was there the whole time Satan talked to Eve, but didn't speak up or contradict Satan) had decided that they wanted THEIR rules to run the universe, and God simply let them try it. However, for THEIR rules to be in play, God had to withdraw from minute to minute control of everything, and let them live in the universe that, instead, runs itself, but has entropy, being a closed system. An entropic universe has to include thorns and thistles and carnivors, because thats the only way it can run. With limited enery or information, plants must protect themselves from having that taken away from them by animals that want to eat them, and some animals live by stealing the energy and information from other animals by eating them.
This entropic universe thus teaches mankind lesson, which is:
1) There is a God.
2)Your not it.
This is seen because, when we run things by our rules, bad things happen, lots of them. We don't have the creative energy to make this an open system, if we want to eat, for instance, we must work "by the sweat of our brow". Thus, we see that we are not God.
Then, God told them that he would send someone to show them what it could be like if they decide to let God run things. Someone who could show them a universe that is an open system, where entropy runs backwards, the lame walk, the blind see, the dead (the ultimate end of entropy) live again.

This idea is based on the simple idea that the bible meand exactly what it says, and says exactly what it means, EXACTLY. It is written that you are NOT to go beyond what is written. It is also written in the very end of the bible "Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
Rev 22:19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."
You would do well to heed this.

Given that, mandated by scripture, you read ONLY what the bible actually says, word for word, about "The Garden" and the fall, and further compare the physical evidence we have from science, which evidence God says back up what he said "so that they are beyond excuse", which shows that this is an entropy doninated universe and always has been, the above interpritation (if simply reading EXACTLY what is says can even be called that) seems the only POSSIBLE answere to carnivores and such.

[Canuckster1127]

Welcome Legatus and thanks for the very thoughtful post.

One thing in particular leaps out to me and so I'll ask you this,

Given that, mandated by scripture, you read ONLY what the bible actually says, word for word, about "The Garden" and the fall, and further compare the physical evidence we have from science, which evidence God says back up what he said "so that they are beyond excuse", which shows that this is an entropy doninated universe and always has been, the above interpritation (if simply reading EXACTLY what is says can even be called that) seems the only POSSIBLE answere to carnivores and such.

Does the New Testament and in particular Christ, practice what you suggest above in terms of a "literal" hermeneutic? I think, with very little effort, I can demonstrate within the Bible, other passages of the Bible understood and applied in a manner very much unlike what you're suggesting here as an absolute rule.

How do you reconcile that?

blessings,

bart

[RickD]

Legatus, you wrote:

or at least that little part of it, was an open system with no entropy (for a short while anyway).

I'm not sure if you are saying that there was no entropy in the garden. If you are saying that, could you explain why you believe that? The very acts of eating and breathing show that entropy is present. Thanks

[Legatus]

Welcome Legatus and thanks for the very thoughtful post.

One thing in particular leaps out to me and so I'll ask you this,

Given that, mandated by scripture, you read ONLY what the bible actually says, word for word, about "The Garden" and the fall, and further compare the physical evidence we have from science, which evidence God says back up what he said "so that they are beyond excuse", which shows that this is an entropy doninated universe and always has been, the above interpritation (if simply reading EXACTLY what is says can even be called that) seems the only POSSIBLE answere to carnivores and such.

Does the New Testament and in particular Christ, practice what you suggest above in terms of a "literal" hermeneutic? I think, with very little effort, I can demonstrate within the Bible, other passages of the Bible understood and applied in a manner very much unlike what you're suggesting here as an absolute rule.

How do you reconcile that?

blessings,

bart

That is easy, you simply see how that part of the bible was written, and read it as it was written. This part is a simple litteral nattative of what happened, and so is read as that. other parts are poetry, or doctrine, or law, or history (very similar), or symbolic prophecy (revelation etc) or other things. It is rather obvious which is which. I would have to say that the operative words are "in context". There is rather a LOT of biblical discussion which is clearly not in context.

An example, the "millenial kindom". Revelations says "a thousand years" amd people read it like this, "symbolic symbolic symbolic litteral symbolic symbolic etc". It is clearly written as symbolic, 'a thousand years" means to to the writer pretty much what it means to us when we say it, not exactly 365 days times 1000, but a long but finite peroid of time. Despite this, whole books are written about "the millenial kindom" and vast amount of effort is wasted talking about it and inventing whole systems of theology around it.

Now with genesis 1, we see a simple factual narrative of what happened, thus when we get to chapter two we should read it a written, a continuation of factual, literal narrative. Thus my saying that it should be taken as literal, since it was clearly written to be. We further know this from science, where our scientific understanding now shows that genesis 1 tracks with what we now know about planetary formation etc.

[Legatus]

There are two options, effective non entropy and true (though limited in scope) non entropy.

Effective non entropy is simple, and probably the most likely in this case, the bad things entropy causes were not present, like thorns and carnivors, since God made sure that they were not present, hence the word "garden" and the specific referances to God making that garden before anyone would live in it.

For Adam and Eve, there could be effective non entropy, they did not die simply because they haden't been around long enough to do so, and nothing painfull happened to them since there was nothing that could do that in their environment, or very little and they simply haden't done that yet or had been led away from that by God. Or it could be true non entropy, Adam and Aeve were like superman and superwoman, they simply could not die or be hurt due to a continous inflowing of energy and information. Either are possible from the text, and it is not important which it was since the end result is the same.

I think it most likely the former, effective non entropy, and the "tree of life" represented the coming, later, true non entropy which would be ushered in later in the 'new heavens and new earth". In that case, the whole universe would be different than now, some writing of C. S. Lewis may give a tast of what it might be like in such a universe (see also Tolkiens "Leaf By Niggle", probably his best work). However, those are just a taste, God specifically stated that we could not know what he had in store for us, probaly because , since it will last forever, and we will change and grow in it, that it will change as well, resulting in endless creative newnesses. All the authors in the world coundn't dream up that.

BTW, it's possible to eat and breath even in non entropy, simply because we enjoy doing that, and more importantly, are used to it. If we did not do that suddently, or as Adam and Eve, suddenly had to where formerly they had not, it would simply freak us out. The bible does say they ate, it does not speak of breathing, although since they spoke it certainly seems likely. Since God new that they would inevitably fall (otherwise he could have easily prevented it), he prepared the way for them by giving them the ability to eat and breath. I consider the "effective non entropy" (gotta be a better word) the most likely, due to Gods specific statements about the "tree of life" and the specific inclusion of it in the garden, likely as a promise to mankind of what was to come, what they could have if they followed him and eccepted the redeemer he would send. BTW, Jesus'es body, after he rose, would be an example of true non entropic human life, he could eat, though he did not have to, he could appear and disappear at will and appear long distances away from where he last appeared, he could speak, using air I presume, etc. Since he has God, and no longer limiting himself to only human capability, some of what he did may not become possible for us later, but some, like eating when you don't really Need to, are likely (just cuz it tastes good and you're used to it).

[RickD]

Legatus, you wrote:

BTW, it's possible to eat and breath even in non entropy, simply because we enjoy doing that, and more importantly, are used to it. If we did not do that suddently, or as Adam and Eve, suddenly had to where formerly they had not, it would simply freak us out. The bible does say they ate, it does not speak of breathing, although since they spoke it certainly seems likely.

The Bible says:Genesis 2:9. God made all kinds of trees for food, certainly says that they were eating. There is nothing in the text to suggest that Adam and Eve were anything but normal, humans with a physical body. Not Superman and Wonder woman.

they simply could not die or be hurt due to a continous inflowing of energy and information.

Huh?

Effective non entropy is simple, and probably the most likely in this case, the bad things entropy causes were not present, like thorns and carnivors, since God made sure that they were not present, hence the word "garden" and the specific referances to God making that garden before anyone would live in it.

Entropy doesn't cause bad things. God created this physical universe with laws in place. This universe that God created, and called "very good", would not sustain itself without entropy. God created carnivores, so why do you say they're "bad things". Carnivores are necessary in the food chain. If you're saying that the garden was some kind of "heaven" where entropy didn't exist, then I can't see anything in the text that indicates that. IMO, Adam and Eve weren't created as eternal physical beings. There is an indication from the text that they needed the tree of life to keep them from dying.