Question for advocates of no animal death before Adam's sin

[RickD]

This question is for those who believe that Romans 5:12-15 helps make the case for no animal death before Adam's sin. Read Romans 5:12-15 and then answer the following question: If the one act of disobedience of Adam led to the death for all animals, did the one act of righteousness of Christ lead to life of all animals?

[DannyM]

Rick,

This question is for those who believe that Romans 5:12-15 helps make the case for no animal death before Adam's sin. Read Romans 5:12-15 and then answer the following question: If the one act of disobedience of Adam led to the death for all animals, did the one act of righteousness of Christ lead to life of all animals?

Good question.

[Gman]

This question is for those who believe that Romans 5:12-15 helps make the case for no animal death before Adam's sin. Read Romans 5:12-15 and then answer the following question: If the one act of disobedience of Adam led to the death for all animals, did the one act of righteousness of Christ lead to life of all animals?

That is a good question.. Nice flip there...

[RickD]

Aren't there any YECs here that could help me with the answer to this question?

[Canuckster1127]

I think if you search back through prior threads you might find that there's been some attempts to answer this. I seem to recall Jac addressing it.

[RickD]

I think if you search back through prior threads you might find that there's been some attempts to answer this. I seem to recall Jac addressing it.

Thanks, Bart. I'll do a search when I get a chance.

[Gman]

I think if you search back through prior threads you might find that there's been some attempts to answer this. I seem to recall Jac addressing it.

Thanks, Bart. I'll do a search when I get a chance.

Last week I think I witnessed a dog speaking in tongues.. If that might help answer the question..

[RickD]

I think if you search back through prior threads you might find that there's been some attempts to answer this. I seem to recall Jac addressing it.

Thanks, Bart. I'll do a search when I get a chance.

Last week I think I witnessed a dog speaking in tongues.. If that might help answer the question..

Gman, was anyone interpreting, or was the dog just babbling to draw attention to itself?

I searched through many pages of the carnivorous animals thread, and found nothing that directly addressed the question in my original post.

[Gman]

Gman, was anyone interpreting, or was the dog just babbling to draw attention to itself?

A poodle?

[DannyM]

I think if you search back through prior threads you might find that there's been some attempts to answer this. I seem to recall Jac addressing it.

Thanks, Bart. I'll do a search when I get a chance.

Last week I think I witnessed a dog speaking in tongues.. If that might help answer the question..

Gman, was anyone interpreting, or was the dog just babbling to draw attention to itself?

I searched through many pages of the carnivorous animals thread, and found nothing that directly addressed the question in my original post.

I'm sorry, but if there was no-one interpreting, then I can not take Gman's dog seriously...

[secretfire6]

does it say death entered all living things or just mankind? remember, the hebrew word for "earth" or "world" doesnt usually refer to the entire planet. In fact some instances it means "all the people of..." So you could say "through one man, sin entered into all the world of Eden and with it came death" In ancient hebrew you would be refering to just Adam and Eve and still be correct.

[Canuckster1127]

does it say death entered all living things or just mankind? remember, the hebrew word for "earth" or "world" doesnt usually refer to the entire planet. In fact some instances it means "all the people of..." So you could say "through one man, sin entered into all the world of Eden and with it came death" In ancient hebrew you would be refering to just Adam and Eve and still be correct.

The problem is if you interpret it as death of all living things, then to be consistent you have to take the subsequent promises to mankind in the ensuing passages to all of creation as well, but clearly it's speaking of mankind there, so you have a categorical inconsistency. I've seen a great deal of effort expended by some to work around that, but I've never been convinced that you can come to the conclusion from the text alone. It requires a predetermined agenda and a willingness to accept some pretty strong internal contradictions. I see it as an example of how the underlying assumptions of the interpreter circle back to select those elements that support them and then seek to explain away the difficulties. The problem with that, that I see is the hermeneutic employed displaces the text itself as the authority. We need to read those passages and suspend our epistemological frameworks as much as we can and allow the text to speak for itself. I don't believe anyone reading these passages in Romans can make a case that death came to all creation in the fall with redemption coming to men only given the language of the passages. It's clear to me that the death being spoken of is spiritual separation of God which is reconciled through Christ. I'd prefer to deal with any difficulties that gives rise to, that to allow the difficulties to guide whether I'll accept the passage as it speaks for itself.

[secretfire6]

Well put canuckster. Even as a kid I believed that, in order for the cycle of life in God's plan to exist, that death had to exist before the fall. Same thing with Carnivores. If God's original plan was for everything to be a herbivore and they kept multiplying, then they would quickly run out of food. Logically it makes sense and the fossil record shows that as long as there have been animals, there has been something to keep their numbers in check. Whether natural disasters, disease or other animals to eat them, the balance has allways been maintained.