Evidence for God from Science

I have a few questions of my own . . .

Now, most of you know that I pretty strongly defend an OEC position the majority of the time. As I've already said, there's just a ton of evidence and pure rationality behind to support it, but from a purely exegetical perspective, I haven't been able to commit because the few issues raised against OEC haven't, in my mind, been satisfactorily. The general problem of "no death before the Fall," while well addressed by Rich, makes two assumptions that may or may not be valid. The first is that the "death" that entered into the world is purely spiritual, and thus applies only to man. The second is that the changes needed to make a world of herbivores carnivorous are too extreme.

Now, in my mind, the YEC can answer both of these very easily. As to the former, he can claim that "death" is not only spiritual, but since man's sin affected all of creation, it must extend to the physical realm as well. If it is responded that mankind was physically immortal, but not the rest of creation, I could, I think, make a argument of absurdity against the idea of a physically immortal Adam in a pre-fallen world where death can still take place in animals. Thus, we are forced to conclude that there is absolutely zero death (excluding the plant kingdom) before the Fall, or else the "death" that entered the world was of a simply spiritual nature. The former would be the YEC position, while the latter would be the OEC position.

The second assumption can be challenged on the grounds that the OECist is not considering the YEC arguments on YEC principles. If God created the entire universe is six literal days, then there is nothing so incredible about the concept of God cursing the world and moving it from a deathless world to one where death abounds. Yes, the changes would be astronomical, but nothing so much as a creation from nothing in a mere 144 hours.

So that I am not read wrong, I am not saying I necessarily advocate these arguments. I am saying that the traditional OEC answers are, in my opinion, not conclusive.

With that, I would like to see a better explanation of Genesis 1:29-30, which the NIV renders, "Then God said, 'I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.' And it was so."

The Bible says that God gave "everything that has breath in it" the green plant for food. God specifically mentions food here. If carnivorous activity was part of God's original plan, then something doesn't fit with me here, and I really don't like the "food chain" argument because, to be honest, it just seems like a textbook case of eisegesis. I hardly think Moses was contemplating the food chain when he penned this verse.

As for the need for food in general, Jesus ate in His post-resurrection body. I don't think anyone would assume that He is capable of dying again. If that is the case, I don't think we can argue that food was necessary for survival . . . at least, not on exegetical grounds. You could object that Jesus' body is a glorified body, while Adam's was not. But it could be answered that Adam's body was pre-fallen, so we can't say for sure what was or was not necessary. Such arguments lead us to ungrounded assumptions, and I don't suggest we go there, as we find more division than harmony.

TO be completely transparent, at this stage, I'm neither YEC nor OEC. I have to look at each more thoroughly, but I also need to look into other interpretations. The Gap Theory is totally out for me, but several other options look attractive . . .

So, thoughts?

For now I'll respond to your first point where you take that OEC's believe only spiritual death came in at the fall. Such is not accurate. I'm not sure whether Rich would advocate that only a spiritual death happened to humanity, and I certainly do not believe that "only" spiritual death occured. However, I would limit the scope of spiritual death, and by the same token physical death, to that of humanity.

It stands to reason God could or would have sustained humanity physically, and I believe, especially in light of further Scripture (e.g., Romans 5:12), that physical death of mankind entered at the fall. This does not mean physical death did not exist in animals pre-fall, which do not have the same spiritual capacities for a relationship with God as we do, only that physical death would now also come to mankind.

Yet, one should not neglect the importance of "spiritual death" which I believe is supported in Genesis 2:17: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Now if Adam and Eve did not "die" on the day they ate from the tree, in what way did death in that day due to their sin? The death they felt was nakedness, and a break down in their relationship with God.

Kurieuo

In relation to the second issue regarding Genesis 1:29-30, there is no strict prohibitation on eating meat. Those who believe there is will need to come to a consistent resolution on the Creation Psalm (Psalm 104) wherein God gives the lion its prey. This passage is strong support for carnivorous activity before the fall since it parallels God's creation as can be seen in the article I previously linked to on Psalm 104 and Richard's comparison ats http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/psalm104.html.

Additionally, one also needs to provide their reasons on "why" there was no animal death pre-fall. It just seems like an odd doctrine to hold to when God clearly identifies Himself as a responsible participant in animal death, predatory or otherwise. And one also needs to also explain "how" death came into the world (e.g., did God re-create again after the sixth day as punishment? Or did Sin (Satan?) ruin God's original creationm creating "death" and new animals so wonderfully adapted to their new harsh environments?).

Finally I came across further comments on this passage with further points regarding this passage, which I'll simply quote here:

(3) Genesis 1:29-30; 9:1-4
1:29 Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food.

9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. 2 The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. 3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. 4 Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood."

Before the Fall, God gave the vegetation to Adam and the beasts of the earth for food. After the flood, it would seem that God lifted the restriction on meat, and gave "every moving thing" for food, just as he had given the green plant. Young earth creationists therefore argue that prior to the Fall, man and beast alike were herbivores.

But Genesis 1:29-30 does not explicitly say that meat was forbidden. It only says the positive: God gave man and beast "every green plant for food." Kline suggests that this passage has a special literary purpose. [4] It was not given to define man's diet comprehensively, but to set the stage for the prohibition of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the following chapter (Gen. 2:16-17).

Furthermore, it is clear that God entrusted man with lordship over all the realms of creation, not just the plant kingdom. Man is to rule over the fish, birds, cattle, and every thing creeps on the earth (Gen. 1:26, 28). This rulership over the sub-human realms of creation is defined in the most general terms ("rule over … subdue"), suggesting not merely the use of certain domesticated animals for labor, but the also the use of milk, eggs, wool, animal skins, and so on. "You make him to rule over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field" (Psalm 8:6-7).

The post-flood account in Genesis 9:1-4 is best explained as a re-issuing of the same general lordship over creation that was given to Adam prior to the Fall. Notice that the command to "be fruitful and multiply" is identical with that given to Adam (Gen. 1:26). The fact that the mandate given to Noah, who is here pictured as a second inaugurator of the human race, includes the giving of all creatures for food, not just plants, suggests that the same mandate was given to Adam before the Fall.

It is doubtful that the permission to eat meat recorded in Genesis 9:3 must be interpreted as the first time that God authorized such a diet, since it would appear that animals had been killed at least for sacrificial purposes as early as Genesis 3:21 (the divine provision of animal skins for Adam and Eve) and 4:4 (the sacrifice of Abel). Kline argues that "what Genesis 9:3 actually authorized was the eating of all kinds of meats, thus removing the prohibition against the eating of unclean animals that had been instituted for Noah's family within the special symbolic situation in the ark-kingdom."

Animal Death Before the Fall: What Does the Bible Say? by Lee Irons

I think it important to note that Irons does not adhere to the Day-Age position, even if there is a mutual agreement on certain issues. Furthermore, it is interesting that while God positively says mankind can eat animals in Genesis 9, it is never positively stated that animals can eat others. So to say that God only gave vegetation to animals for food contradicts Psalm 104:21 where God gives the lion its prey. Finally, I see nowhere in Scripture which clearly and directly tells us that the fall produced carnivorous activity. So given all Scripture does tell us, I think it most plausible to assume God created carnivorous animals during His creation days.

Kurieuo

I'm not at all trying to be difficult, K. I do appreciate the clarifications . . . I wonder how you mean:

Kureiuo wrote: I'm not sure whether Rich would advocate that only a spiritual death happened to humanity, and I certainly do not believe that "only" spiritual death occured. However, I would limit the scope of spiritual death, and by the same token physical death, to that of humanity.

I really wish I had Vos' Biblical Theology on hand . In chapter three, he discusses the words "mortal" and "immortal" and the various ways they could be applied to Adam (and Eve) prior to the Fall. He talks about three "levels" of each word, which I'll try to summarize. We can say a person is immortal in the sense that they are everlasting creatures. The soul--the immaterial part of man--never dies. Of course, the Annialationist would disagree with this, but excluding them, all would agree that not only Adam and Eve, but everyone is immortal in this sense. We could also say that the a person is immortal in that death is not inherit in them. In other words, barring actually getting killed by some outside cause, there is nothing in a person that brings about death. The disease, we might say, isn't there. Death must come from without, for it is not present within. So we can say that he or she will never die. They are immortal. The third way to speak of "immortal" is in the tradional sense of the word, which would simply mean "immune to death." The only being we know of right now that holds this attribute is God, and it seems hard to apply it to a pre-fallen Adam and Eve. Suppose, for argument's sake, that Adam had fallen from a high cliff. What would have happened to his physical body were he "immune to death"? Have you ever seen Death Becomes Her? It is a comedy about two girls who cannot die, which at first is fun, but by the end they are trying to kill each other. They end up destroying their bodies but still being alive in those broken and useless shells. It would seem a person who is immortal in this grand sense would require a glorified body, such as Christ has and which we will have in the Resurrection.

Now, when we say "there was no physical death in man" prior to the Fall, we are saying that he was immortal in some sense. The claim itself excludes the first sense, and logic seems to exclude the third. Therefore, we must conclude that pre-fallen Adam was immortal in the second sense. Thus, Adam would have been both mortal and immortal. Nothing in him would have brought him to die naturally, but death was possible from without . . . at least, if we want to say that the natural laws of the world were to remain consistent! You actually brought this up yourself when you talked about the need for food implying the need for survival.

If this is all fair and accurate, as I believe it has to be, then would it be fair to say that, for you, pre-fallen Adam simply did not age, and that the curse against him was that of aging, which would result in physical death?

I say this because that is precisely the position that a YEC would take, at least, it would be if they wanted to be logically consistent. But why would this be limited only to humanity? Would animals have died of aging? And if so, why? If aging is a direct result of sin, and if animals had never sinned, then why would animals die of it? Or should we assume that there was no aging of any kind prior to the Fall, and that death was external always rather than internal? The OECist cannot assume this, because for him, animals had lived and died for million of years before Adam's sin.

[Let me continue to clarify in all this that I am not advocating YEC over OEC or vice-versa. However, as OEC is being advocated particularly in this thread, I find this a good chance to get some questions answered. I have many questions for the YECist that I bring, hopefully, in the same manner.]

In any case, that is the reason that I would say that, to be logically consistent, you would have to say that only spiritual death came with sin in the OEC position. It seems wildly speculative and totally against the grain of the nature of the thought process that embodies OECism that everything aged and died--that is, death was inherant within everything--with exception to mankind. It looks like a case of special pleading, and I would charge that it is. But, when you limit it to spiritual death, that objection falls away, because man has something that nothing else has: an everlasting soul. He was made in the image of God, which separates Him from the animals in a unique way. Now, he is still physical, and because he is still physical, we still must say he is subject to physical death, but he is also spiritual, whereas the lion or bear are not. Therefore, they are not liable to spiritual death, whereas man is.

Of course, for the YECist, all of this is moot, because for him, there was no death before the Fall, save in the plant kingdom. There was no aging in anything, but Adam's sin changed all that.

Now, I suppose in response to all this, you could simply reply as you have already said, "It stands to reason God could or would have sustained humanity physically." I understand the argument, but again . . . it's just special pleading. If for billions of years the universe has worked by natural laws (barring special creation events), then why this one particular creation does God protect it from its own surroundings? Was it possible for Adam to die, but then immediatly be resurrected? Or if he fell, did God make the ground soft? Could he hurt himself, or was all of this only limited to death? And if he could hurt himself, did God immediately heal the injury?

Of course, we would ask these same questions the the YECist, but he can simply say "Yep, God sustained Adam and everything else." I'm sure how you can see that you can't say the same thing in your position without the objection. So, you can safely--and as I see it, without danger--limit death to the spiritual realm.

Anyway, as for your response to my particular question regarding Genesis 1:29-30, if it were not for Genesis 9:3 I think I could agree. I especially like Kline's argument that it is a literary introduction, but again . . . it just doesn't do the text enough justice. The plain reading is that God gave the animals the green plant for food. The "lack of prohibition" doesn't make a good argument because, in the YEC scheme of things, there is already no death, so how could there be a prohibition against something that doesn't exist?!? And besides this, Genesis 9:3 does give Noah the permission to eat meat. You can't gloss that over. I do respect Kline for tying it the restriction against eating unclean food in the ark, but--and this is especially true considering how polished Genesis is from a literary perspective--you just cannot ignore the fact that everything in the mandate to Noah was a repeat of the mandate to Adam except the part about eating meat. Now, does this prove that God never said to Adam he could eat meat? No . . . but, if you are going to start putting words in God's mouth, you'd better be REALLY sure of yourself! I don't think Kline has enough Scriptural support to do that.

Now, I do suppose that you could appeal to Ps. 104, because if that proves carnivorous activity before the Fall, then we have to interpret everything else in that light. But, I'm not sure it does. I'll grant that it is a creation psalm, but I won't grant that it is a commentary on Genesis 1. Why can't it be a psalm of praise that is rooted in God's work of creation, which itself is rooted in God's sovereignty over everything? In that scheme, the passage about God giving the lion its food doesn't have to refer to a pre-fallen Creation. It would just be, "God, you did this, and that, and this and that, and you do this, and that, and this, and that . . . how great You are!" That seems more the scheme of the psalm to me.

For what it is worth, though, I do think you can use it to argue strongly for a local flood, because that section of the passage does seem to be strongly referring to the creation event itself.

Like I said, I'm not trying to be difficult, but I really have some issues with the specifics of the OEC model. I have major issues with the specifics of the YEC model as well. I just don't think it is unwise to question things . . . thanks for the help.

God bless

Genesis 1:30 (Whole Chapter)
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

I am amzed that you would think that a YEC could accept that God created everything, but that he would have to change it through evolution.

If God can say let creatures exist, why is it a stretch for him to say I give meat for food?

I am amzed that you would think that a YEC could accept that God created everything, but that he would have to change it through evolution.

I would agree that any YECist who accepts the changes in animal diet due to evolution is way over the edge. That would be a ridiculous assumption. My argument is that, from a YEC perspective, there is no reason to believe that God could not change the physiology of certain animals as He so chose as part of the curse on creation. That was the point I was trying to make when I said:

If God created the entire universe is six literal days, then there is nothing so incredible about the concept of God cursing the world and moving it from a deathless world to one where death abounds. Yes, the changes would be astronomical, but nothing so much as a creation from nothing in a mere 144 hours.

I do find it ironic that so many YEC advocates appeal to evolution to help with the problems in their positions . . .

Jac3510 wrote:I'm not at all trying to be difficult, K. I do appreciate the clarifications . . .

I understand. Questions are good, but bear in mind that at the end of the day there is I believe no absolute certainty on anything. Rather we have to decide for ourselves which side seems most probable given all we know, and then go with it. If we waited for absolute certainty on everything, then we could not practically live our life.

I should also point out not all OEC's would hold to this doctrine incorporating spiritual and physical death. Some may infact limit the death which came to Adam to only the spiritual, however I personally believe it also encompasses the physical.

Jac wrote:We can say a person is immortal in the sense that they are everlasting creatures. The soul--the immaterial part of man--never dies. Of course, the Annialationist would disagree with this, but excluding them, all would agree that not only Adam and Eve, but everyone is immortal in this sense. We could also say that the a person is immortal in that death is not inherit in them. In other words, barring actually getting killed by some outside cause, there is nothing in a person that brings about death. The disease, we might say, isn't there. Death must come from without, for it is not present within. So we can say that he or she will never die. They are immortal. The third way to speak of "immortal" is in the tradional sense of the word, which would simply mean "immune to death." The only being we know of right now that holds this attribute is God, and it seems hard to apply it to a pre-fallen Adam and Eve. Suppose, for argument's sake, that Adam had fallen from a high cliff. What would have happened to his physical body were he "immune to death"? Have you ever seen Death Becomes Her? It is a comedy about two girls who cannot die, which at first is fun, but by the end they are trying to kill each other. They end up destroying their bodies but still being alive in those broken and useless shells. It would seem a person who is immortal in this grand sense would require a glorified body, such as Christ has and which we will have in the Resurrection.

I believe we are all immortal in your first sense, that is the soul (or immaterial part of man) never dies. I leave open the possibility that God could annihilate the soul, however I do not believe this to be the case. In your second sense of immortality, that there is nothing in a person that brings about death, I believe Adam and Eve's bodies had the potentiality to die, but that this potentiality was restrained by God. The natural tendency of Adam and Eve's physical bodies were to age, be destructible and so forth, yet while in relationship with God they were physically safe. If I understand your second sense correctly, Adam and Eve were not immortal in this sense. In your third sense of immortality, that is immunity from death, I believe Adam and Eve were immortal although this immunity came from their relationship with God. If they fell off a cliff, God would be there with them, watching over and looking after them. Whether this was the case or not, I see hardly matters in the OEC/YEC debate.

Jac wrote:Now, when we say "there was no physical death in man" prior to the Fall, we are saying that he was immortal in some sense. The claim itself excludes the first sense, and logic seems to exclude the third. Therefore, we must conclude that pre-fallen Adam was immortal in the second sense.

Actually I had it the other way around?? I believe left to their own natural states without God's sustenance, that Adam and Eve's physical bodies would have succumbed to the natural laws. While they were in relationship with God, why not believe that while they were naturally mortal that God sustained them while they were in relationship with Him?

Jac wrote:If this is all fair and accurate, as I believe it has to be, then would it be fair to say that, for you, pre-fallen Adam simply did not age, and that the curse against him was that of aging, which would result in physical death?

Adam and Eve would have aged, but aging effects such as liver spots and so forth would have perhaps been absent. I certainly believe they would have been protected from physical death pre-fall, even if they did suffer some effects of aging. Yet, at the same time, I believe God also created mankind with the knowledge this physical world wherein we live, including our physical bodies, were not intended to be everlasting.

Jac wrote:I say this because that is precisely the position that a YEC would take, at least, it would be if they wanted to be logically consistent. But why would this be limited only to humanity? Would animals have died of aging? And if so, why?

Animals would have died, because the natural way of things in the physical world is to age and die, and there is no reason to believe God's sustenance was extended to the animal kingdom. By your same reasoning of being "consistent", wouldn't it be consistent to say that the "spiritual death" humanity experienced was also extended to the animals? Wouldn't animals have also suffered a "spiritual death"? No you say, since you believe animals don't have the spiritual capacities we do. Well then, why say in one instance of death that it is limited to humanity, while in another it isn't? The inconsistency appears to be in saying that only mankind experiences spiritual death, while both animals and humanity experienced physical death. It seems more consistent to apply the consequences to where Scripture only mentions the consequences applying—us, humanity. It was Adam and Eve who were told by God not to eat of the tree or they would surely die in the day they eat of it (not they and all the creatures God created!). And it was only Adam and Eve that such a punishment was for. Just because a stream of Augustinian theology within Western church tradition, has blurred "all" death post-fall as somehow a more orthodox and Scriptural position, in no way justifies it as such or being a default and more consistent position. I see it as more consistent from my end to apply "death" only to that of humanity. Extending it to animals is for me reading into things and being inconsistent.

Furthermore, Romans 5:12 only ever mentions to scope of death passing upon man. Therefore, if it were true to apply the death punishment to the animal kingdom, the Romans passage ought to read "and so death passed upon all creatures, for all have sinned." But this then gets tricky, since one then has to say that animals have the capacity to sin, and I'm sure you will agree with me that this is not possible since animals lack the spiritual capacity to sin.

Jac wrote:If aging is a direct result of sin, and if animals had never sinned, then why would animals die of it?

There is nothing inherently wrong with death, otherwise Scripture wouldn't associate God so closely with being responsible for it. Yet, God was simply telling Adam and Eve if they ate from the tree, then He would not longer be there to personally look after them like He had been. All His provisions for them (physical and spiritual) would be taken away, for their relationship with Him would become severed due to their sin. God did not have this same relationship with the animals, and perhaps could not since they have limited capacities.

Now two questions still remain to be answered for YECs which begin to make things very favourable for the OEC position. That is, "why" would animals have been prevented from death? And "how" did the new creation based upon death come about after God's creation works had finished? These two questions help to uproot the tendency for people who have been taught to believe "no death before the fall", that it is the default position. For when answered, the OEC can provide answers which show Scripture contradictions in holding to such a theology.

This will do me for now...

Kurieuo

As far as the way immortality can be attributed to pre-fallen Adam, I understand you as saying that you would give say he would have aged, so to speak, but yet would be constantly regenerated by God . . .

I suppose that's acceptable. I think we could take that line of thought further, as I have some philosophical problems with that, but the point didn't pan out as I had planned, so let's move on to your main ideas.

Well then, why say in one instance of death that it is limited to humanity, while in another it isn't? The inconsistency appears to be in saying that only mankind experiences spiritual death, while both animals and humanity experienced physical death. It seems more consistent to apply the consequences to where Scripture only mentions the consequences applying—us, humanity.

I don't see why there is an inconsistency, as both YEC and OEC have this "problem." Regardless, the reason it applies this way is that man, unlikes animals, is made in the image of God. Therefore, he can be "alive" or "dead" in a capacity that cannot aptly be ascribed to creatures in the animal kingdom. The actual line of thought, if we are going to be consistent, is that there was no death in creatures of flesh, but death entered with sin. It affected everything it encountered in the maximum way possible. For animals, that resulted in physical death. For man, that resulted in both physical and spiritual death, because man has a great capacity for life (and thus death).

As for Romans 5:12, the text says that death entered "the world." Now, a lot has been written on this, and if you want to take "the world" to mean "mankind", I suppose you can do that. But, I completely reject the notion that it can refer to "all creatures." The word nowhere else means that. It means either "the created universe" or "mankind." Now, since we know that the whole of creation was cursed due to the sin of Adam (which shouldn't be surprising, given that Adam was the steward of well . . . everything!), it seems much more probable to me that we should take "the world" in the normal sense of the word. In other words, if you want to take it as "mankind", go for it, but I consider the burden of proof to be on you to prove that to be the better interpretation. If that is the basis of the OEC position, I would be forced to reject the whole thing outright without a solid exegetical argument to support the narrower rendering.

There is nothing inherently wrong with death, otherwise Scripture wouldn't associate God so closely with being responsible for it.

A YECist would not be obliged to accept this argument. Keep in mind, for him, there was NO death before the Fall, including carnivorous activity. Therefore, death is a necessary evil. Consider the Lake of Fire. There is most definitely something inherently wrong with that, but God is very closely associated with it. It is God who will cast men into it! Why? Because it is a necessary, and thus justified, evil.

If death came as a result of the sin of Adam, then we cannot blame God for it, even if He is "closely related."

As a matter of fact, we can turn this point into a YEC argument. If death is part of original, pre-fallen creation, then why is it so universally regarded with fear, and why does it bring such sorrow? When we use the moral argument, we always go to the idea of a "forgotten memory of the way things should be." It is the basis of the idea of an absolute standard. Man knows that sin is wrong because his "natural" condition is not a sinful one. That is a result of the fall. On the same basis, if death is a "natural" condition in both man and the animal kingdom, why is it considered so evil?

Now two questions still remain to be answered for YECs which begin to make things very favourable for the OEC position. That is, "why" would animals have been prevented from death? And "how" did the new creation based upon death come about after God's creation works had finished? These two questions help to uproot the tendency for people who have been taught to believe "no death before the fall", that it is the default position. For when answered, the OEC can provide answers which show Scripture contradictions in holding to such a theology.

Well, I'll try to answer on behalf of the YEC community.

1) Why would animals be prevented from death? It is obvious by the testimony of conscience that death brings sorrow and pain and is unwanted. It is fairly common knowledge that the Fall alienated mankind in at least three ways. First, it alienated man from God. Second, it alienated man from creation. And third, it alienated man from himself. Now, if in a fallen world people can become attached to certain animals, how much more in a pre-fallen world, before the alienation between man and creation existed, could he have become attached to them? What pain would a child, or even Adam himself, for that matter, have experienced when an animal he cared for deeply passed away?

The question could be returned: what benefit did animal death have in a pre-fallen world in the YEC framework? I can't think of any.

2) How did the new creation based upon death come about after God's creation works had finished? I believe I already offered a solution to this. Suppose that God did create the world in a mere 144 hours. Suppose there was no death before the Fall. Now, when Adam sinned, death entered. The changes to the environment, including individual creatures, would be astronomical. But, would they be so great as the creation event itself? Of course not. There is nothing at all difficult about the thought that God's cursed changed the physiology of certain creatures--even certain plants (and that much we know did happen, see Gen. 3:17-18). If it is objected that God's creative works were finished and thus precludes and further changes to creation, then several "changes" can be cited in rebuttal, including the Flood, the change of languages at the Tower of Babel, the stilling of the sun and moon, and even "smaller" miracles like the feeding of the 5,000 (that certainly included a "creation event"! ).

I would think it should be obvious that when we say the creation process ended at the sixth day, we are referring to the original creation. There is nothing that says God can't come in later and change something as He sees fit.

So, if those are answered, I still fall back to my major question relating to Gen. 1:29-30, and the parallel text we have seen in Gen. 9:3. Given my previous comments on Kline's take on these verses, is there anything else I should be aware of?

I just know this discussion is going to end up with me being labeled . . . :p

Jac3510 wrote:Anyway, as for your response to my particular question regarding Genesis 1:29-30, if it were not for Genesis 9:3 I think I could agree. I especially like Kline's argument that it is a literary introduction, but again . . . it just doesn't do the text enough justice. The plain reading is that God gave the animals the green plant for food. The "lack of prohibition" doesn't make a good argument because, in the YEC scheme of things, there is already no death, so how could there be a prohibition against something that doesn't exist?!?

I personally don't like the idea of a literary introduction, and think this is reading too much into things. The "lack or prohibition" I do think is significant given what we have in Genesis 1:29-30 are not commandments by God, but rather God simply saying that He has given them "seed-bearing" vegetation to eat. Does this mean they are not "allowed" to eat other forms of vegetation, eggs, milk, insects, fish, lamb and so forth? No, because they aren't being commanded to eat only seed-bearing vegetation, God is simply advising what He has given them. If they desired other food, then they would most likely have to work for it.

Now in the "no death pre-fall" scheme of things, if a proponent of such a thing can accept that God pronounced a punishment based upon "death," then there should be no problems God prohibiting something that didn't exist. Yet, I don't believe it was God's intention to prohibit anything, just as He wasn't giving strict commandments on what to eat. Now Paul says in 1 Timothy 4:3-4, "... commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving." If we take this passage seriously, we observe that God is responsible for creating creatures to be eaten with thanksgiving! Should we be thanking our sin if it was responsible for affording to us such foods? To even put forward such a suggestion that we ought to be thanking our sin for foods we eat instead of God seems to me a great insult to God! And the food God gave to eat in Genesis 1:29, in addition to being freely available without work, seem to be consistent with dietry recommendations (as I will touch on further below). They were certainly not mandates or commandments!

Jac wrote:And besides this, Genesis 9:3 does give Noah the permission to eat meat. You can't gloss that over.

I am not sure why you think this passage was glossed over, especially since I was the one who introduced this passage. Now a point not to gloss over is that there is "no commandment" saying what to eat, just as there is "no prohibition" on what ought not to be eaten.

It has also been observed that there are good dietry reasons for why God only mentioned vegetative food, while further mentioning the eating of animals with Noah. It is pointed out in The Genesis Question that meat possesses a high concentration of heavy elements (10-10000 times as much more than vegetation). Such has an insignificant health risk for people living up to 120 years, while the longevity of the first humans like Adam and Eve, eat meat as a stable would have a great impact.

Furthermore, Irons points out God was pleased with animal sacrifice long before God gave further words on what to eat in Genesis 9:3. In Genesis 4:4 we have: "Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering." This backs my thought that Genesis 1:29 is not a commandment, but rather at most guidelines on good food God provided to mankind without any real work being required of them.

Jac wrote:I do respect Kline for tying it the restriction against eating unclean food in the ark, but--and this is especially true considering how polished Genesis is from a literary perspective--you just cannot ignore the fact that everything in the mandate to Noah was a repeat of the mandate to Adam except the part about eating meat. Now, does this prove that God never said to Adam he could eat meat? No . . . but, if you are going to start putting words in God's mouth, you'd better be REALLY sure of yourself! I don't think Kline has enough Scriptural support to do that.

I would have thought you to have considered my views with a bit more merit rather than attempting to pull a heretic portrayal of me putting words in God's mouth. The fact of the matter is the text lacks specifics. Some interpret God only recommending seed-bearing vegetation for mankind means there was a prohibitation of anything else. Fact is God simply says that He gives seed-bearing fruit and seed-bearing plants to Adam and Eve for food. Fact is God does not "mandate" or "command" what mankind is to eat. Fact is that God never "prohibits" the eating of meat or other non-seed-bearing foods. So to say meat is prohibited, to take a tact out of your own book, "if you are going to start putting words in God's mouth, you'd better be REALLY sure of yourself!"

An important point I do believe Irons points out is God entrusting man with ruling over the fish of the sea, birds of the air, cattle, and all created things and not simply the plant kingdom (Genesis 1:26, 28). As Irons writes: "This rulership over the sub-human realms of creation is defined in the most general terms ("rule over … subdue"), suggesting not merely the use of certain domesticated animals for labor, but the also the use of milk, eggs, wool, animal skins, and so on. "You make him to rule over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field" (Psalm 8:6-7).

Jac wrote:Now, I do suppose that you could appeal to Ps. 104, because if that proves carnivorous activity before the Fall, then we have to interpret everything else in that light. But, I'm not sure it does. I'll grant that it is a creation psalm, but I won't grant that it is a commentary on Genesis 1. Why can't it be a psalm of praise that is rooted in God's work of creation, which itself is rooted in God's sovereignty over everything? In that scheme, the passage about God giving the lion its food doesn't have to refer to a pre-fallen Creation. It would just be, "God, you did this, and that, and this and that, and you do this, and that, and this, and that . . . how great You are!" That seems more the scheme of the psalm to me.

Certainly not all things mentioned in Psalm 104 refer to the period of God's creation. For example it is obvious that the ships mentioned in verse 26 would not exist. Yet, the whole chapter does indeed refer to God's creation and parallels Genesis 1 in many ways. For example Psalm 104:19 reads, "The moon marks off the seasons, and the sun knows when to go down," which parallels Genesis 1:14. Then the following verses are poetic in describing how the lifestyle of His creaturely creations fit in with this design of God's creation: "20 You bring darkness, it becomes night, and all the beasts of the forest prowl. 21 The lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God. 22 The sun rises, and they steal away; they return and lie down in their dens." Now there seems to be a clear indication that the author thinks one reason God setup the cycle of night and day is because it matches the lifestyle of preditory animals. Preditory activity wasn't a last minute change which happened due to sin destroying God's original creation, but predatory activity was something God had already thought out while designing the day and night cycles! Therefore, this is strong support that God originally intended to create carnivorous animals such as lions!

Furthermore, it is definately clear in this passage that God gives the lion its prey. Those lions (especially "young lions" as intended in verse 21) love to sport after their food. And those teeth which rip and tear into the flesh of their victim as they enjoy eating their kill. And yet, God gives the lion its prey... and Scripture has entirely no problems saying God is responsible for such a thing! So if someone does have a problem with such creations, then their problem is with God and Scripture, not me or an old Earth perspective.

Another passage I wish to point out is Job 39:13-18 which reads: "The wings of the ostrich flap joyfully, but they cannot compare with the pinions and feathers of the stork. She lays her eggs on the ground and lets them warm in the sand, unmindful that a foot may crush them, that some wild animal may trample them. She treats her young harshly, as if they were not hers; she cares not that her labor was in vain, for God did not endow her with wisdom or give her a share of good sense. Yet when she spreads her feathers to run, she laughs at horse and rider." Here we see that God did designed the ostrich without wisdom or good sense. Therefore the fact she treats her young harshly, is because of God designed her that way, not because "sin" changed the dynamics!

Finally, I wish to direct attention to Pslam 104:25-30:

• 25 There is the sea, vast and spacious,
  teeming with creatures beyond number-
  living things both large and small.
  26 There the ships go to and fro,
  and the leviathan, which you formed to frolic there.
  27 These all look to you
  to give them their food at the proper time.
  28 When you give it to them,
  they gather it up;
  when you open your hand,
  they are satisfied with good things.
  29 When you hide your face,
  they are terrified;
  when you take away their breath,
  they die and return to the dust.
  30 When you send your Spirit,
  they are created,
  and you renew the face of the earth.

The page at http://www.answersincreation.org/psalm104.htm comments on this passage:

• "Here we have an even clearer case for carnivorous activity. It is clear that God provides food for His creatures. It is also clear that His creatures die. But most compelling is verse 30, where God creates them, and renews the ground. God's creative acts ended at the end of Day 6, with the creation of man. Thus, here we have God creating animals AFTER previous animals had died and returned to dust! The renewing of the ground is a clear indication of the renewing nature of God's creation, i.e. the food chain. As animals die, they decay and feed the plants, which in turn are eaten by plant-eating animals, who in turn are eaten by meat-eating animals, and the process starts all over. God's self-renewing creation is perfect for a system which maintains itself, and is indeed "very good" as God states in Genesis 1:31"

Now I think Scripture (particularly in Psalm 104) is clear that God (not sin) is responsible for the "natural" process of death and revitalisation. God created such a cyclic process for a purpose, and Scripture appears to represent such a process as good. Therefore there is really nothing wrong with the food chains and cycles within the ecosystem, and there is nothing sinful with physical death which is an intended part of God's design for our world that brings value to life.

Kurieuo

Jac3510 wrote:As far as the way immortality can be attributed to pre-fallen Adam, I understand you as saying that you would give say he would have aged, so to speak, but yet would be constantly regenerated by God . . .

I do not believe they were constantly regenerated by God pre-fall, but simply that the natural effects normally taking place may have been stopped within Adam and Eve by God sustaining them. Now there are no passages in Scripture which say it was this way Adam and Eve were prevented from dying physically, but Scripture is silent on as to how this would be so and this is something that makes sense to me. To those who ask why I believe God sustaining Adam and Eve was the way they were prevented from dying physically, I'd simply reply why not given God basically walked and talked with them and the intimate relationship they had with Him? God did not have the same intimate relationship with any other part of His creation, therefore it makes no sense to extend God's sustenance to other parts of His creation.

Jac wrote:

Well then, why say in one instance of death that it is limited to humanity, while in another it isn't? The inconsistency appears to be in saying that only mankind experiences spiritual death, while both animals and humanity experienced physical death. It seems more consistent to apply the consequences to where Scripture only mentions the consequences applying—us, humanity.

I don't see why there is an inconsistency, as both YEC and OEC have this "problem."

Firstly, I do not see this kind of "consistency" as necessarily being a problem. When you say my position is "inconsistent" I gather you only mean you find my position of spiritual and physical death being limited to mankind as gratuitous or superfluous, as is evident when you ask "But why would this be limited only to humanity?" This is because you advocate spiritual death coming to mankind and physical death to all creatures as somehow more consistent (i.e., "less gratuitous"). However, I see the position you advocate as being more gratuitous or superfluous since it unnecessarily extends God's protection of life to animals. There is no reason to think the break in relationship between us and God had the same consequences upon animals, and I will argue Scripture does not support animals receiving the consequences of death but only mankind.

Futhermore, you have claimed I am "logically inconsistent" but this is a much stronger inconsistency than the one I understand you to be claiming of my position. To be "logically inconsistent" is to mean two ideas held by a person contradict each other, and there is certainly nothing logically inconsistent with my position. Now I will accept my position may appear to you "inconsistent," but "logically inconsistent" it is not. Yet, as you would label my position of limiting spiritual and physical death to mankind as being "inconsistent," I would return this labelling "inconsistent" the position you are here advocating (of physical death extending not simply to humans, but to all earthly creatures, while spiritual death only to humanity). Therefore, an argument based upon this kind of inconsistency is a very weak and subjective argument. Furthermore, arguing that someone is "inconsistent" in this sense with the intention of dismissing their position appears to amount to an argument along the lines of you are wrong, and I am right for I feel it is so. Thus, there is special pleading to see ones own position as true which begs the question.

Now in responding your personal objection of inconsistency, I think something helpful is to understand that you seem to view physical death perhaps as a form of divine punishment, whereas I view physical death as a natural consequence of a break in mankind's relationship with God. Spiritual death for me quite naturally means mankind would no longer be sustained physically by God. On the other hand, animals never had this spiritual relationship with God, therefore they would not have had God's sustaining power. Maybe at the request of Adam and Eve, if they loved certain animals like pets, God would have sustained such animals also; however, such would have only been on the basis of Adam and Eve's relationship with God. So while spiritual death came in at the fall, the consequences of spiritual death meant also that physical death would be experienced since God would no longer provide for our every need and good desire.

Of further interest is the fact that God had planted a "tree of life" in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:9). Such a tree, symbolic or otherwise, could have been intended to keep Adam and Eve from dying a physical death (and perhaps even other animals?), however it was removed once they sinned. This also introduces the question of what was the purpose of the tree of life in the Garden, if God had not created Adam and Eve to have otherwise died?

Jac wrote:Regardless, the reason it applies this way is that man, unlikes animals, is made in the image of God. Therefore, he can be "alive" or "dead" in a capacity that cannot aptly be ascribed to creatures in the animal kingdom. The actual line of thought, if we are going to be consistent, is that there was no death in creatures of flesh, but death entered with sin. It affected everything it encountered in the maximum way possible. For animals, that resulted in physical death. For man, that resulted in both physical and spiritual death, because man has a great capacity for life (and thus death).

I'm still unconvinced that I'm being gratuitous (i.e., inconsistent), and hope I have helped change your personal thoughts of my position. I understand you introduce further theology to make the position you are defending less gratuitous, yet I believe I should be entitled to do the same. For example, as I understand it you believe that animals don't have spirits which makes consistent why you believe spiritual deaths wasn't extended to animals. Yet, if I'm also entitled to add further theology, I see that God only ever said "Adam and Eve" would die in the day they ate the fruit, and that death is only ever said to have been passed upon humanity (Romans 5:12). Therefore I see that it is reading into things, and going against Scripture, to say death was extended beyond humanity to include animals.

Now something I'd like to further point out is 1 Corinthians 15:21 where Paul states: "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man." If as you are advocating, "death" came to animals as well as humans, then the logic of Paul's statement would mean animals are also connected to the resurrection! Yet, there is nowhere in Scripture where animals are connected to resurrection, and I'm sure you will agree with me here. Only man is resurrected, and therefore the death that came through man is limited to humanity and is not extended to animals unless one believes they are also resurrected!

Something I'm sure we can agree upon, is that for those who do not accept that animals have no spirits/souls (I'll make no distinction between "soul" and "spirit" here), it would really appear gratuitous to believe "spiritual death" came to humanity but was not extended to the animal kingdom, if one believes physical death came to both. And to illustrate a point I was previously making, such an argument does not necessarily make the beliefs of such a person wrong, but it does create a wonder on how such a person came to accept such beliefs.

Jac wrote:As for Romans 5:12, the text says that death entered "the world."

And the text only ever identified death as coming unto man—"in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." According to Paul why did sin come to all men? Can animals sin? Never once does Scripture identify death as coming unto all creatures, let alone a change in God's original creation which brought about pain and suffering. I must say, such a doctrine is probably one of the largest most accepted doctrines without Scriptural warrant.

Jac wrote:Now, a lot has been written on this, and if you want to take "the world" to mean "mankind", I suppose you can do that. But, I completely reject the notion that it can refer to "all creatures." The word nowhere else means that. It means either "the created universe" or "mankind."

I think you are speaking before understanding properly what is being said, for you are debating where there is no point in doing so since I never attempted to say "world" meant "mankind" (although I believe it can—e.g., 2 Peter 3:6: "By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed."). Nor did I attempt to say that "man" meant "all creatures." My point was that Romans 5:12 supports death being limited to mankind, and what you say of this passage still allows this. To quote the passage in question: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men (not "all creatures"), because all sinned—" (Romans 5:12)

Jac wrote:Now, since we know that the whole of creation was cursed due to the sin of Adam

Actually "we" do not know this. I thought you were more familiar with the Day-Age perspective? Please find those passages revealing such a thing to us in the light of reading Does Genesis 3:17 Really Say That God Cursed the Ground of the Entire Earth? and Does Romans 8:19-22 Refer to the Cursed Creation?
To hinge such a large doctrine on two passages which have to be forced to support a curse upon "all creation" does not amount to our "knowing" it is so.

Jac wrote:(which shouldn't be surprising, given that Adam was the steward of well . . . everything!), it seems much more probable to me that we should take "the world" in the normal sense of the word. In other words, if you want to take it as "mankind", go for it, but I consider the burden of proof to be on you to prove that to be the better interpretation.

Jac, you're again assuming something I never said for however one interprets "world" here has nothing to do with my interpretation of Romans 5:12. Please spend more time considering what I write rather than jumping to debate me from a brief skim. As a sidenote, and I mean no offense by this, but I've noticed throughout other threads the new Jac seems more eager to respond in an aggressive demeanor and an "I'm right, that's it!" kind of attitude. I can understand you may be more passionate about certain ideas, but the old Jac seemed to be more open and gracious. Perhaps this is simply getting use to the board environment again, and I don't intend what I say here to offend, but I certainly hope to see more of the old Jac again.

Jac wrote:If that is the basis of the OEC position, I would be forced to reject the whole thing outright without a solid exegetical argument to support the narrower rendering.

OEC simply means one allows for an older Earth, and not the age of 6000-50000 years a YEC believes in accepting God created within six earth days. Thus, Day-Age is a type of OEC, Theistic Evolutionists could be another type of OEC, Gap Theorists still another type, and perhaps Gerald Schroeder's model could be considered under the umbrella of OEC. Whether one accepts death before the fall or not, as I believe I've previously mentioned, has no impact upon the OEC/YEC debate. Even YECs, for example Jbuza here, may be convinced to believe animal death did infact occur before the fall while retaining a belief in a young Earth.

Now accept or reject what I've been saying if you wish since that is your perogative. However, lacking solid exegetical arguments, being inconsistent, and whatever you may think I am being by limiting death to mankind only I see lacks any merit or swaying power. For if your dismissals were valid then I am all the more amazed as to why some here who were once enthusiastic YECs, believing only their position had strong scriptural support, came to align themselves somewhat with my Day-Age creation beliefs. Now I'm not really sure you do believe these things about my beliefs, I'd hope you would know me a bit better and give me more credit than that for my beliefs. And if you don't believe such things, then your comments make it appear to me your focus has been more to debate and try win in playing the YEC advocate—not necessarily giving consideration and much thought to what is being written. If you wish to play theological debating games, then I'm really not interested and I'll let you have last say. On the other hand, if there are others who are reading this, have some questions on this matter, and desire a Day-Age perspective or response without turning it into some sort a debating game... then I am open to dialogue.

Jac wrote:

There is nothing inherently wrong with death, otherwise Scripture wouldn't associate God so closely with being responsible for it.

A YECist would not be obliged to accept this argument. Keep in mind, for him, there was NO death before the Fall, including carnivorous activity. Therefore, death is a necessary evil. Consider the Lake of Fire. There is most definitely something inherently wrong with that, but God is very closely associated with it. It is God who will cast men into it! Why? Because it is a necessary, and thus justified, evil.

A YEC who considers Scripture authoritative would be obliged to accept this argument for Scripture does not simply associate God with death, but identifies him as the cause of death in various instances, even identifying it as apart of His created design (as I argued in my previous post, and will further argue below). Furthermore, there is nothing "wrong" (or "evil") about the Lake of Fire, and I'd expect one would only see something wrong with it if they took a more secular and hedonistic stance on right and wrong (e.g., what is feels bad or is distasteful is "bad," what is tasteful or feels good is "good"). Unless you wish to push morality in this direction, then there is nothing inherently wrong with the Lake of Fire for meets the demand for God's righteousness as you touch upon. Now even if we accept "death" is as necessary as the Lake of Fire, then there should be no problems with God being the creator of death anymore than God being the creator of the Lake of Fire!

Jac wrote:If death came as a result of the sin of Adam, then we cannot blame God for it, even if He is "closely related."

If God created our world with the intention of it being "good" and "very good" only to have all His original creation destroyed by sin, then what does this say about God? It makes God out to be impotent to protect His creation from the ravages of sin. On the other hand, if God is truely omniscient, knowing all truths, then God knew that when He created the world mankind would fall. Since we are here it seems we can assume God who is omniscient believes that our world with its pain and suffering, and death was still a good thing to create. Thus, unless one desires to limit God's omniscience, or say that God was impotent against stopping sin from destroying His "good creation," then one should accept that God's creation is still good and furthermore that God is ultimately responsible for all of it.

Now saying that sin destroyed God's good creation not only belittles God's power and knowledge, but it attributes power to Satan (and a power that God was unable to stop!). If God did not create death as a natural part of life, then who did? The obvious connection is that if death came through sin, then ultimately something evil (i.e. Satan?) had the power to create! And second of all, God was not powerful enough to have stopped this "evil" destruction of God's creation. Yet, I read in my Bible that God created everything (please read Genesis. 1:31, Nehemiah. 9:6, Isaiah 44:24, John 1:3, Mark 13:19, Colossians 1:16, Ephesians 3:9, Revelation 4:11). So I believe there is nothing inherently wrong with the natural process of living and dying, especially in relation to animals who aren't as sentient as humans and who aren't made in God's image (the reason God gives for why we should not kill each other [Genesis 9:6]).

Jac wrote:As a matter of fact, we can turn this point into a YEC argument. If death is part of original, pre-fallen creation, then why is it so universally regarded with fear, and why does it bring such sorrow? When we use the moral argument, we always go to the idea of a "forgotten memory of the way things should be." It is the basis of the idea of an absolute standard. Man knows that sin is wrong because his "natural" condition is not a sinful one. That is a result of the fall. On the same basis, if death is a "natural" condition in both man and the animal kingdom, why is it considered so evil?

Tell me, do you have any moral objections to people eating meat? What about yourself eating a nice, seasoned, hot roast dinner? Did you enjoy the last thanksgiving or this Christmas with meat or without? It would be a rare thing to hear someone in front of such food calling it bad. Rather I can hear words in my head ringing such as "Mmmm...", "yum", and "that was good" and I'm getting rather hungry now thinking about it . Now I am sure you would have eaten a roast chicken, duck, lamb or the like, and I am also sure there would have been a time you said grace beforehand. Tell me, did you give thanks to God for creating your meal to be eaten, or did you give thanks to Adam and Eve for their sin? This is a point not to be neglected, for I see it as a serious insult to God if we thank Him in one breath for our food, while really attributing to sin what we just thanked Him for.

You ask why death is regarded with fear and sorrow? Well because it is an end to one's physical life. I never attempted to deny this. Yet, death can also be a good thing which brings respect and meaning to ones life. If we lived forever here without death, then we would never appreciate the gift of life, nor do I believe we would respect the lives of others. There are many good aspects to death and one thing that I don't believe can be said of it is that it is inherently evil. Pain and suffering is also not inherently evil which is something we reasoned together some time ago:

Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 202 AD), an early Christian Father, saw two stages to God's creation of human beings. In the first stage, Irenaeus saw human beings as being brought into existence as immature intelligent creatures with the capacity for immense moral and spiritual growth and development.3 The second stage of creation was believed to consist of gradually being transformed through their own free responses from human animals into “children of God.”4 Accordingly, God's purpose in creating this world was not to construct a hedonistic paradise whose inhabitants would experience a maximum of pleasure and minimum of pain. Rather this world is to be viewed as a place of “soul making,” where free beings can still enjoy life's pleasures, while having to grapple with life's pitfalls in order to become be furnished into “children of God.”

For brevities sake, we will not go further into Irenaeus' theodicy, however we wish to highlight an important point. Spiritual growth and maturing appears to be possible because of pain and suffering. As a parent would know, there are many cases where allowing pain and suffering to occur in their child's life is beneficial in order to bring about some greater good, or because there is some sufficient reason for allowing it. In James 1:2-4 we are told perseverance through trials matures us and makes us complete. Additionally, 1 Peter 1:6-7 acknowledges some as suffering all sorts of grief, because they are being refined as though by fire, to prove their faith is pure and genuine towards God.

God may therefore permit the process of suffering in our lives to mature us or to test us, or for some overriding end. C.S. Lewis on the death of his wife discovered this process can be very painful, and reflecting upon these concepts of a good God allowing pain and suffering mused:

• The terrible thing is that a perfectly good God is… hardly less formidable than a Cosmic Sadist. The more we believe that God hurts only to heal, the less we can believe that there is any use in begging for tenderness. A cruel man might be bribed—might grow tired of his vile sport—might have temporary fit of mercy, as alcoholics have fits of sobriety. But suppose that what you are up against is a surgeon whose intentions are wholly good. The kinder and more conscientious he is, the more inexorably he will go on cutting. If he yielded to your entreaties, if he stopped before the operation was complete, all the pain up to that point would have been useless.
  
  What do people mean when they say, “I am not afraid of God because I know He is good”? Have they never even been to a dentist?5

Within Christianity, it is believed this process of maturing and testing will come to an end when this temporary world passes away. Yet, God promises to set up a new world wherein He will dwell with His people, and “He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” (Revelation 21:4) Bearing all this in mind, the second assumption that an all-good God would prefer a world without the “evils” of pain and suffering, is far from obvious.

Now one is going to say carnivorous activity or animal death is bad, then according to Scripture I see such a person has no option but to call God bad. For what did God clothe Adam and Eve with after they sinned? Animal skins (Genesis 3:21). Also, what should we make of the following verses if all death is really bad?

• Psalm 104:21
  "The lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God."
  
  Job 38:39-41
  "Do you hunt the prey for the lioness and satisfy the hunger of the lions when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in a thicket? Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God and wander about for lack of food?"
  
  [Things that ravens eat include rodents, insects, grain, fruit, bird eggs and refuse]
  
  Job 39:13-18
  "The wings of the ostrich flap joyfully, but they cannot compare with the pinions and feathers of the stork. She lays her eggs on the ground and lets them warm in the sand, unmindful that a foot may crush them, that some wild animal may trample them. She treats her young harshly, as if they were not hers; she cares not that her labor was in vain, for God did not endow her with wisdom or give her a share of good sense. Yet when she spreads her feathers to run, she laughs at horse and rider."
  
  [Here God created the ostrich who treats her young harshly, because God withheld such intelligence and wisdom from his creation - not because sin changed the dynamics.]

Now if a person has no problems accepting such verses as these, then there should be no problems accepting that God created animals and plants to live and die. Further still, Richard who I'll quote at length makes his own interesting insights regarding God's relationship to death (some of which I've touched upon):

Richard Deem wrote: Is death and pain bad or evil? First, I would like to point out that animals are incapable of sin. Since they lack a spirit with which to communicate with God, they have no concept of God and are not under any of God's laws or judgment. Therefore, death and pain inflicted by animals on other animals and plants is not evil. In addition, scripture clearly tells us that God Himself allowed humans to kill (Genesis 4:4) and eat animals (Genesis 9:3). In fact, God was pleased with the sacrifice of Abel, which involved the killing of animals. Therefore, scripture itself eliminates the death of animals and plants as being evil or bad.

In fact, God Himself is implicated in the death of animals. First, God killed animals to clothe Adam and Eve after the fall (Genesis 3:21) and then killed many animals during the flood (Genesis 7). God set up the system of animal sacrifice for atonement for sin (Exodus 23:18 ). In addition, scripture tells us that God created carnivores on day 6 and provides food for the carnivores of the Earth, therefore condoning the death of some animals for the survival of others:

• "Who prepares for the raven its nourishment, When its young cry to God, And wander about without food?" (Job 38:41)
  "Can you hunt the prey for the lion, Or satisfy the appetite of the young lions, [God speaking] (Job 38:39)
  The young lions roar after their prey, And seek their food from God. (Psalms 104:21)
  There is the sea, great and broad, In which are swarms without number, Animals both small and great... They all wait for Thee, To give them their food in due season. (Psalms 104:25, 27)
  Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. (Luke 12:24)

If one states that the death of animals and carnivorous activity are evil, then one must admit, according to scripture, that God is responsible for these things and therefore a perpetrator of evil. Such a viewpoint would make God a sinner - something vehemently refuted by scripture. Views that the deaths of animals are evil are common arguments from atheists and New Agers, some of which has been seeping into the Church.
Is the death of human beings evil or bad? God designed physical death and made it come upon humanity when Adam sinned. This death is both judgment and mercy. Sin brings about spiritual death, which can only be atoned for by the blood of Christ. Judgment of sinners is based upon their evil deeds. Therefore, God, in cutting short the lives of sinners, reduces their punishment for sin. One should note that long life was not a blessing, but a curse on early mankind. These long lifetimes led to widespread wickedness, such that God was forced to eliminate nearly all of mankind and reduce the lifetimes of post-flood humanity. Scripture tells us that the death of the righteous is actually good:

• Precious in the sight of the LORD Is the death of His godly ones. (Psalms 116:15)
  for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. (Romans 14:8 )
  For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. (Philippians 1:21)
  But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better; (Philippians 1:23)
  And I heard a voice from heaven, saying, "Write, 'Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on!'" "Yes," says the Spirit, "that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow with them." (Revelation 14:13)

Is the Young-Earth Interpretation Biblically Sound?

Jac wrote:

Now two questions still remain to be answered for YECs which begin to make things very favourable for the OEC position. That is, "why" would animals have been prevented from death? And "how" did the new creation based upon death come about after God's creation works had finished? These two questions help to uproot the tendency for people who have been taught to believe "no death before the fall", that it is the default position. For when answered, the OEC can provide answers which show Scripture contradictions in holding to such a theology.

Well, I'll try to answer on behalf of the YEC community.

1) Why would animals be prevented from death? It is obvious by the testimony of conscience that death brings sorrow and pain and is unwanted. It is fairly common knowledge that the Fall alienated mankind in at least three ways. First, it alienated man from God. Second, it alienated man from creation. And third, it alienated man from himself. Now, if in a fallen world people can become attached to certain animals, how much more in a pre-fallen world, before the alienation between man and creation existed, could he have become attached to them? What pain would a child, or even Adam himself, for that matter, have experienced when an animal he cared for deeply passed away?

My question wasn't asking "why" the fall alienated mankind. Your response, however, that death brings sorrow and pain and is unwanted has not been denied (and I've responded to this earlier in this post). As for Adam and Eve becoming attached to certain animals, as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, I see no reason why God could have sustained beloved animals of Adam and Eve on behalf of their intimate relationship with God. So we really only have your "death brings sorrow and pain," but as I have covered this does not make it "evil" unless one wishes to accept a secular definition of good and evil. Thus, we are left with no reason "why" animals would or need be prevented from death.

Jac wrote:The question could be returned: what benefit did animal death have in a pre-fallen world in the YEC framework? I can't think of any.

It should be noted that all things being equal, there is no reason why one ought to shrink back at the idea that God could or did create death as a natural part of His "original" creation. Therefore I am quite happy to leave it at all things being equal even if I can think of reasons such as death adding value and respect for life, a dependance and hope in God, natural resource deposits, a balanced ecosystem, good tucker, and the like.

Jac wrote:2) How did the new creation based upon death come about after God's creation works had finished? I believe I already offered a solution to this. Suppose that God did create the world in a mere 144 hours. Suppose there was no death before the Fall. Now, when Adam sinned, death entered. The changes to the environment, including individual creatures, would be astronomical. But, would they be so great as the creation event itself? Of course not. There is nothing at all difficult about the thought that God's cursed changed the physiology of certain creatures--even certain plants (and that much we know did happen, see Gen. 3:17-18). If it is objected that God's creative works were finished and thus precludes and further changes to creation, then several "changes" can be cited in rebuttal, including the Flood, the change of languages at the Tower of Babel, the stilling of the sun and moon, and even "smaller" miracles like the feeding of the 5,000 (that certainly included a "creation event"! ).

The method of "how" things were changed still appears unanswered. I understand death entered after the fall since it is after all the topic of discussion. However, this does not answer the question of how things changed, or how death entered? Are you offering up that a literal personified figure called Death entered the scene after the fall, ruining God's creation and making these astronomical changes to the environment which brought about death in the new creation? Or if God cursed the whole of creation, does this mean God punished creatures who had not sinned along with humanity who did? Why do some creatures appear to have reaped more consequences than others when He changed them from herbivores to carnivores, or made them the staple of an animal higher on the food chain? Why couldn't lions continue eating grass like a cow or horse like many YECs would believe they did before the fall? Why couldn't spiders be like other insects that eat nectar, but instead flies and other insects were made their staple? Why with preying mantises does the female now eat the male after procreation, where other insects escaped such punishment? I don't understand why some species were infected or punished more than others with the changes they incurred. Thus, it seems like Sin personified or God in dishing out punishment, was selective in respectively ruining or changing the "original" and "perfect" creation.

Jac wrote:I would think it should be obvious that when we say the creation process ended at the sixth day, we are referring to the original creation. There is nothing that says God can't come in later and change something as He sees fit.

Although it is odd we see no mention of this in Scripture.

Kurieuo

We see in scripture three times where God came in and changed things (at least). The fall, after the flood, and the tower of babal.

3:14 The Lord God said to the serpent,36
“Because you have done this,
cursed37 are you above all the wild beasts
and all the living creatures of the field!
On your belly you will crawl38
and dust you will eat39 all the days of your life.
3:15 And I will put hostility40 between you and the woman
and between your offspring and her offspring;41
her offspring will attack42 your head,
and43 you44 will attack her offspring's heel.”45
3:16 To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase46 your labor pains;47
with pain you will give birth to children.
You will want to control your husband,48
but he will dominate49 you.”
3:17 But to Adam50 he said,
“Because you obeyed51 your wife
and ate from the tree about which I commanded you,
'You must not eat from it,'
cursed is the ground52 thanks to you;53
in painful toil you will eat54 of it all the days of your life.
3:18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
but you will eat the grain55 of the field.
3:19 By the sweat of your brow56 you will eat food
until you return to the ground,57
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust, and to dust you will return.”58

9:1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. 9:2 Every living creature of the earth and every bird of the sky will be terrified of you.1 Everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea are under your authority.2 9:3 You may eat any moving thing that lives.3 As I gave you4 the green plants, I now give5 you everything.

11:5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the people14 had started15 building. 11:6 And the Lord said, “If as one people all sharing a common language16 they have begun to do this, then17 nothing they plan to do will be beyond them.18 11:7 Come, let's go down and confuse19 their language so they won't be able to understand each other.”20

Doesn't it seem reasonable that carnivorism came after the flood? Is their any real evidence that it happened at the fall?

IT doesn't seem to me that the whole of psalm 104 is about how things were at creation, but David's praise to God for his creation and how he sustains it.

K:

I don't have time now to walk through your entire post. Let me just deal with some background issues, instead. First off, I've said at the outset over and over again that I'm neither YEC nor OEC. As such, I am not trying to "debate you" . . . I am trying to work through what I perceive to be difficulties in each position. You are a strong advocate of the OEC position, and you felt you could respond to the questions I posed. My debate, then, is with OEC, not you personally. I have YEC questions as well, and I assure I have these same types of discussions with its proponents.

Secondly, you repeatedly make claims that "I should know you better," and I do. Is it, perhaps, possible that you have misunderstood my argument, or at least my motivation? You are responding to me, as you have admitted, as a YEC advocate, be it devil's advocate or real questioner. And yet, K, I am NOT advocating the position! I am not here trying to prove YEC right. I have severe problems with the OEC interpretation, but I have worse yet with YEC. As you thought I should know you better, I didn't think I would need to explain this to you concerning myself. The questions I have for you relate to problems as I see OEC having. Now, you disagree with the problems. That is expected. If you didn't, then you wouldn't be OEC. And you know that I am familiar with the OEC positions. But there are some things that I don't think you or Rich have considered, or, if you have, you have not made them clear. A prime example relates to Ps. 104. This is such a strong proof text for you, and yet, I am finding myself less and less inclined to take it as Rich does. JB's brief summary seems to me, from an exegetical perspective, to be right on the money. Another example relates to the lack of prohibition . . . K, I have never insisted that the WAS a prohibition! I said just the opposite when I pointed out that you cannot prohibit what does not exist!

Given this, I fail to understand the tone of your responses. You accuse me--granted with a disclaimer in which you don't want to offend--of being harsher than before. I have read through my recent posts, and K, I just don't see that. Maybe it is a matter of getting used to a board environment again, but I fail to see where I have been "more eager to respond in an aggressive demeanor and an "I'm right, that's it!" kind of attitude." Every position I have been advocated has been backed by what I thought to be strong reasoning. That is hardly an authoritarian stance! I believe in the discussion you and I had concerning the aquisition of grace, we came to an understanding. I felt our discussion was both entirely civil and profitable. On some issues I have been more firm--especially those relating to salvation. That, K, is not mere theology, but that is the Gospel itself. Against this, it is you who has seemed harsh in these past responses. I am genuinely seeking answers from someone I think to be very well versed in this particular interpretation. I expected you to not only be able to understand, but further to handle, a harsh examination of OECism.

If truth be told, I have held a very great deal back out of fear of a) being labeled as I have repeatedly said in this thread, and b) trying to AVOID offending. As a result, I have tried to be more personal and conversational in this discussion, rather than maintain the strictly professional, cold, and cut demeanor better suited to theology conferences and evangelism. Maybe I'm reaching here, but I considered this a discussion between two friends and brothers in Christ about the serious questions of one in relationship to a view the other holds.

I have absolutely NO interest in changing your mind on this. NONE. I am trying to answer the question for myself. I hope that you can take my questions as they are: real concerns from someone who is better educated on the matter than the typical hack who has only been exposed to one position. I simply was not aware that, with you, I would be forced to qualify every statement with an explanation concerning the standard answers in the position I am examining.

So, if I've offended you in any way, I sincerely apologize. Can we now take this discussion, and these issues, seriously, without the assumption that I'm simply rehashing old arguments that I've not read the stock answers to?!?

1:30 And to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground — everything that has the breath of life in it — I give62 every green plant for food.” It was so.


hmmmm. Seems clear that there was no animals eating other animals. I don't see anything in the curse that indicates that animals began to eat other animals, in fact I don't see where the animals were cursed at all. The serpent was cursed, and since it does say "above all the other animals", that could indicate that the animals were cursed, but nothing is recorded as to what that might be.

I do see that God is able to change the diet of Animals. Especially the passage in Isaiah 11:6-9 that tells that Lions will eat hay. And since we know from Genesis 1 that every animal ate green herbs we know that at some point God changed things, could have been the fall, but we know he is going to change them back.

In any event whether there was 1000 years before the fall or 4,499,994,000 years before the fall I don't see what difference it makes with reguards to animal diet (of course Adam's life span and my interpretation indicates it was a very short amount of time before eve gave into the temptation).

I have no problem with the idea of no death bfore the fall, and I don't think it is really a yec/oec issue. Genesis clearly indicates that the woman didn't give birth until after the fall, so perhaps it isn't unreasonable to think that the animals did not either. In any event God is certianly capable of keeping things in perfect balance for a day or a billion years. I don't happen to be convinced of the billion years, but certianly God could have done it.

Jbuza wrote:Doesn't it seem reasonable that carnivorism came after the flood? Is their any real evidence that it happened at the fall?

Not in light of the fact Abel made a fat sacrifice to God.

K wrote:IT doesn't seem to me that the whole of psalm 104 is about how things were at creation, but David's praise to God for his creation and how he sustains it.

This hasn't been denied. I refer to my previous post for a deeper analysis of the part I particularly use, along with other arguments from Scripture.

Jbuza wrote:1:30 And to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground — everything that has the breath of life in it — I give62 every green plant for food.” It was so.

Again, this is not a commandment. This is really all I wish to emphasis. God is simply saying what He gives them to eat, which does not mean they must eat such food, for if they prefer to work for other food I'm sure they could have. If one believes this is a commandment as to what to eat, and only what to eat, I think too much is being read into this passage.

Anyway, it looks to me like we may agree on certains thing while disagreeing on others. I know you believe in a younger Earth and it is not my intention to change that, but rather to defend and make what I feel to be a strong case for my position which has been argued against.

Kurieuo

Jac,

I can tell you weren't pleased with some of my comments, and I apologise if they caused offense, and I guess I need to explain where they came from a bit more.

Jac3510 wrote:I don't have time now to walk through your entire post. Let me just deal with some background issues, instead. First off, I've said at the outset over and over again that I'm neither YEC nor OEC. As such, I am not trying to "debate you" . . . I am trying to work through what I perceive to be difficulties in each position.

It seems to me you are entering into debate by offering up questions which you then appeared to be defending further. I know you are not YEC, and you perhaps swing closer to OEC, but for your questions posed are definately advocating the position of their being no death before the fall. Now you may actually be undecided on the matter, but for all practical purposes it seems apparent you are here advocating no death pre-fall.

Jac wrote:Secondly, you repeatedly make claims that "I should know you better," and I do. Is it, perhaps, possible that you have misunderstood my argument, or at least my motivation?

I just didn't appreciate being told I may be putting words in God's mouth, when I see that this is not the case. In debates, both sides attempt to look better by making the other look the worse. And if I look more like a heretic, then people will be more willing to side with the side opposing me. And "unscriptural", "heretic" and the like are claims I'm sure you are aware YECs love throwing at OECs. These are debating tricks used to stir emotion, and I am very aware of them when I discuss with people. Perhaps such a thing was unintentional, and simply carries over naturally from being experienced with online discussions and debates... but I wasn't going to let such a comment slide.

So I attempted to highlight this by responding that you should know me better than to think I am putting words in God's mouth. Now I do think you know me better, which means this appears to be a trick serving to make my position look bad, which mind you doesn't make sense if you are simply posing questions. However, I accept it may have now been unintentional...

Jac wrote:You are responding to me, as you have admitted, as a YEC advocate, be it devil's advocate or real questioner. And yet, K, I am NOT advocating the position!

As I just mentioned above, you are indeed for all practical purposes advocating no death before the fall within this discussion so far. I am not saying your personal choice is the same as the side you have taken within this discussion, but you are "here" advocating no death pre-fall even if in reality you sit on the fence.

Jac wrote:Another example relates to the lack of prohibition . . . K, I have never insisted that the WAS a prohibition! I said just the opposite when I pointed out that you cannot prohibit what does not exist!

But my other side to that was there is no commandment as to what to eat either. God is simply saying what He has personally provided for them without them working the ground, hunting, and so forth.

Jac wrote:Given this, I fail to understand the tone of your responses. You accuse me--granted with a disclaimer in which you don't want to offend--of being harsher than before. I have read through my recent posts, and K, I just don't see that. Maybe it is a matter of getting used to a board environment again, but I fail to see where I have been "more eager to respond in an aggressive demeanor and an "I'm right, that's it!" kind of attitude." Every position I have been advocated has been backed by what I thought to be strong reasoning. That is hardly an authoritarian stance!

Bear in mind I wrote my post over several days bit by bit. When I wrote this portion I had just read your very strong stance against Calvinist belief where you call it a curse, a blight to theology, and a heresy. You were essentially one step from saying all Calvinists are going to burn. I thought this is a different Jac from the old one, but now I've noticed you have entered more into a civil dialogue and that Religious Fanatic wasn't too courteous himself at the time. However, take a read of the following you wrote, and hopefully you'll understand my remarks here better:

I re-read both the article and my reply to it. I see nothing sarcastic. My reply to your assertion that I was unaquainted with Calvinism was hard, but it was not sarcastic. I laughed because I literally laughed when I read your question. Now, this may be hard, by let's call this like it is: your assumption that I am unaquainted with a doctrine so large as Calvinism because I disagree with a basic point of yours is very, very arrogant. It assumes that the only way any rational person could reject your view outright is that he or she is uneducated as to some basic facts. To this, I replied, and I replied strongly . . . not only am I educated on the matter, but it is something that I have looked into very, very deeply. The system known as Calvinism is a curse upon man. It is a blight to theology, and a stain on the name of Christianity worse than anything the Roman Catholic Church conceived of in the Middle Ages. Calvin himself was a murderer--an evil man who, if not for the system of thought he introduced, should never have been remembered by history. His teachings are warmed over Augustinian ideas. Credit should be given where credit is due. Calvin himself offers us very little.

If I sound bitter and angry at the system, I am. It is absolutely disgusting, and read no sarcasm in that remark. The indignation Jesus felt toward the Pharisees, so much so that He referred to them as white-washed tombstones, represents the same conviction I have as it relates to this heresy. Better to be an modalist than a Calvinist, for the five-pointer (and many four-pointers as well) turn God into a monster that is far from the God depicted in Scriptures. Calvinism is an assault on the Person and Character of our Holy God. The only one who makes such attacks is Satan himself. If we hate the antichrist for maligning the name of Christ, how much more do we reject the teachings of genuine Christians as they smear the very name and character of God Himself?

To say again, I do notice things appear to have taken a different tune now, which I think is great to see.

Jac wrote:So, if I've offended you in any way, I sincerely apologize. Can we now take this discussion, and these issues, seriously, without the assumption that I'm simply rehashing old arguments that I've not read the stock answers to?!?

No need to apologise, but it is accepted anyway in that there are no hard feelings. Furthermore, I have been taking this discussion seriously otherwise I would not have put in the time I did in producing a response. The personal remarks you mention I made were very brief, and the rest of my posts I believe possessed solid refutations, explantions and/or content which I really hope is not overlooked just because of these remarks or because it is massive. So I hope you do take the time to read over them and try understand what I am saying. I also apologise for any offense.

Kurieuo