Evidence for God from Science

Creation did not fall with Adam. It was created to be temporary.

The terms "good" and "very good" only apply to earth and only have to do with God changing one of earth's initial conditions(no form, void of life and dark). This is why the term "good" does not appear on day two. The expanse did not change one of these conditions.

cslewislover,

Gen. 1:29 is a command given to Adam. Verse 30 is an O-by-the-way statment to Adam that plants will be part of the food for animals too. This was not a command to animals. Also note that water creatures are absent from the list, so it can not be a limit on what animals can eat. There is also the fact that the animal's diet was never said to change as it did for man.

Gen. 2:5-onward is about day six. It only deals with the conditions in the land of Eden and the garden therein. Adam was created in Eden and then put into the garden once it was ready.
Also, the condition for no plants (in Eden) in verse 5 are met in verse 6 (God sent a rain cloud - ed to water the ground, not mist or stream). Then in verse 7 He formed Adam - the cultivator.

Gen. 2:16 You are right, God could have explained it to Adam or He could have created him with an understanding preprogrammed. If Adam did not already have a grasp of language, he and God would have had a hard time communicating.

Gen. 3 (serpent) Satan probably disquised himself as a snake. He chose to look like an animal that would allow him to get the job done.

Gen. 3:14 means "cursed are you from among all" the animals. No the other animals were not cursed.
3:17 This refers to the land of Eden. It was a paradise, but now thorns and thistles would take over and cause man to work harder.

Gen 4 The keeping of flocks was probably just for the milk and sacrifices. Both sacrifices were for worship and niether was better. Cain did not give from the best of what he had and did not do it in faith. These sacrifices were examples of the Jewish grain offering and peace offering.

Gen. 6 You maybe right that man was beginning to eat animals, against God's will. There is just not enough evidence.

I believe the "days" were literal long periods of time. See Hebrews 4:1-11. We are still in the seventh day. It will end when God creates the New Heavens and the New Earth.

cslewislover,

As far as Hebrews 4:1-11, maybe you read something like this article from Answers in Genesis:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/rest.asp

This author gets hung up on the fact that without faith we can not enter God's rest. Then from this tries to say that it must be the Kingdom of God. How we enter has nothing to do with what that rest is.

Andrew S. Kulikovsky does however admit that the Hebrew language of Gen. 2:2 means that the rest/ceasing began in the past, but it does not mean that it ended in the past.

The only places that the rest is defined are Hebews 4:3-4 and 9. These verses tell us exactly what the rest is. It is the seventh day. In fact verse 9 says, refering to the rest, a Sabbatismos remains for the people of God. Sabbatismos is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Shabbaton. They both mean a sabbath-keeping/observance. Well if your keeping sabbath that means it is the sabbath.

The author of Hebrews seems to be using Moses' own words when he defines the rest that we may join God in as the seventh day of creation.
Exodus 31:15 also puts the seventh/Sabbath connection together as well as the Sabbath-keeping/observance. Here it reads:

Six days you may do work, but on the Seventh day, a Sabbath (Shabbat) of Sabbath Observance (Shabbaton), holy to the Lord; everyone that does work on the Sabbath (Shabbat) must die.

Since God is still not creating, but will in the future, we can still join Him in His Sabbatismos.

“Cursed are you [Satan/serpent] above [or more than] all the livestock and all the wild animals” (Gen 3:14a)

In this place min (from, out of , more than) should be understood "out of" or "from among." Nowhere does the Bible refer to animals being cursed at the fall. The Serpent/Satan was cursed because of what he did. What did the animals do?

God will not restore creation, He will destroy and replace it.

Much of what you refer to confuses the 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth with the New Creation. In Isaiah 11 and 65 the animals are symbols for the nations and people in Isaiah 11:9-10. It is not about animals that stop eating meat. It is about a peace among nations and people that would seem as dramatic as the animals changing diets.

But I do not think God would include information about animals that was simply symbolic of something else, like peace between man. That's already said in an obvious way, so there would be no need to state it in another, more ambiguous way.

For the same type of symbolism see (animals and then shown to be people or nations):
Is. 30:6-9; 46:11; 56:9-12
Jere. 5:5-6, 10-11, 15-17; 12:7-12; 51:37-40
Ezek. 22:27
Zeph. 3:3
Micah 4:3

Is. 65:19-24 refers to the peace and safety that God's people would enjoy. This all builds up to the symbolism in Verse 25.

Do not forget that death will be there as well Is. 65:20. Is this part of the "restored creation?"

God's intent was for creation to be temporary.

Ps. 104:21, 28 show that God is responsible for the carnivores and it is seen as GOOD. If it was not good be for the Fall why would it be good after the Fall?

In Genesis 1:29-30 God is talking to Adam. He tells Adam what he was to eat and then says animals will also eat plants. God does not give animals instructions on what they should eat. He does not limit them like He did Adam. In fact in Gen. 9:3-4 God changed man's diet, but never changed the animal's.

Also, notice that in Gen. 1:20-23 sea creatures are created and given instructions. In Gen. 1:28 man is told to rule over these sea creatures. In Gen. 1:30 they are not mentioned. What were they eating? Each other.

Gen. 6:11 is speaking of humans.

God never called Creation perfect, He called it Very Good. This was in contrast to Gen. 1:2. Each day that was called "GOOD" was one in which God changed one of those initial conditions. Notice day two is not called Good.

Everything I used is from the sources cited, so you can argue with those authors if you'd like. I very much disagree with you on the wording of Genesis 3:14, however, since the bible translations and commentaries use what I have presented here, not what you claim.

In Genesis 1:29-30 God is talking to Adam. He tells Adam what he was to eat and then says animals will also eat plants. God does not give animals instructions on what they should eat. He does not limit them like He did Adam. In fact in Gen. 9:3-4 God changed man's diet, but never changed the animal's.

I really don't know what bible you are reading. My bible, an NIV, says this: "'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" (Gen 1:30). I don't know how this could be more clear. If you want to view it symbolically, or the whole creation account allegorically or metaphorically, then that is up to you. But I think this statement is very plain. And, I never said that God changed the animals' diets in Gen 9.

The word perfect was used in one of the sources I cited, and I believe from the context it meant that it was perfect in that it was what God intended and it could not be improved upon for our living. I think it's kind-of silly to get into an argument about that. There is no point, as far as I can tell; I don't believe the source was trying to convey more meaning than that.

The Millennial Kingdom and the New Heaven, New Earth is a whole other issue and it was not necessary to get into it here, I didn't believe. It's not at all the main point. There are verses that seem to refer to both, or they can't be distinguished, so I'll leave it the way I stated it.

I would like to add that Mal Couch, in An Introduction ot Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics: A Guide to the History and Practice of Biblical Interpretation (Kregel 2000), uses Isaiah 65:25 as a specific example of when NOT to take something symbolically when it seems "naturally" implausable (pp 74-75). I added this to the above post's sources.

cslewislover,

I very much disagree with you on the wording of Genesis 3:14, however, since the bible translations and commentaries use what I have presented here, not what you claim.

Meaning is determined by context. There is no context to suggest that animals (who had done nothing) were cursed.

If you want to view it symbolically, or the whole creation account allegorically or metaphorically, then that is up to you. But I think this statement is very plain. And, I never said that God changed the animals' diets in Gen 9.

I have always held Genesis to be literal history. My point was that God was speaking to Adam, not giving a command to the animals. I did not say that you claimed that for Gen. 9. But, this is the logical place for a change. Since the Bible specifies man's diet and then specifies a change, why would God "specify" the animal's diet, but not mention it changing.

I would like to add that Mal Couch, in An Introduction ot Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics: A Guide to the History and Practice of Biblical Interpretation (Kregel 2000), uses Isaiah 65:25 as a specific example of when NOT to take something symbolically when it seems "naturally" implausable (pp 74-75).

I showed you from the text and other examples why not to take it literally. This has nothing to do with it being plausable or not.

Commentaries are ok for a guide, but they are not the standard nor are translations of the Bible. You must be able to demonstrate your position from the language and the context.

Dayage - sorry to jump in on your conversation, but I have a quick question for you (if you've already answered it, feel free to point me in the right direction, or quote yourself, or tell me to get lost--I've not taken the time to read the thread yet):

With reference to your view on animals being given green plants and that being directed at Adam, let's look at something quickly:

• Statement: And God said
  
  1. Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed;
  
  2. to you it shall be for meat.
  
  1' 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,
  
  2'. I have given every green herb for meat:
  
  Conclusion: and it was so.

OK, so we have this cute little structural outline. The statement and conclusion are an easily recognizable device used for all the days. What is really important is what is in the middle. Fine. Now, we have two broadly parallel statements, each with parallel clauses:

The first you have rightly identified. God gives to Adam plant life, and that is explicitly stated to be food. I don't know anyone who doesn't take this as a prohibition against eating meat. I think pretty much all are agreed that man was first a herbivore. Of course, YOU may disagree, and if so, fine. You can tell me here.

Next, we haev the parallel second statement. Just like man was given plants, animals were given plant life, again for food. Now, if the first statement is taken to be a reference to herbivorous activity, why not the second as well? From a purely linguistic basis, what evidence do you have in this passage that the sense of the second statement is not the same as the first given the (rather obvious) parallelism?

I mean, suppose I have two kids, and I say to them: "John: I have given you $10; I have given Jane $10," how are we to expect John to interpret the second statement? How is anyone expected to interpret the second statement? If I really gave her $100, people would rightly object, no? And if I said, "No, but I DID give her $100. I just also gave her $90 more I didn't tell you about," you would tell me I was playing silly word games, no?

Now, I am all for taking the text in its plain sense of the wording. That's why I have no problem with something taking "yom" as meaning "age," because that can be the plain meaning. But your view, taken in its context, seems to be outside of what is connotated.

Your thoughts?

Hi Jac3510,

The first thing I will say is that Gen. 1:29 is not where people got the idea that man was to be a herbivore. That came from God saying that He was going to add to man's diet (Gen. 9:3-4). Without this text people reading Gen. 1:29 or hearing it would just assume that God was telling man that plants were a food source. The text does not say "you shall only eat vegetation." The people in Moses' day already ate plants, as well as meat.

Yes, I think man was supposed to be a herbivore, but what some may have done after the Fall I do not know.

This whole section is spoken to man, not the animals. It starts in verse 28:

And God blessed them (man); and God said to them "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Then God said (to them), "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the surface of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food.

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, every green herb for food:"

And it was so.

"I have given " in verse 30 is not part of the text. It is taken from God saying it in verse 29, showing that this is one continuous statement.

There are two parts to what God tells man. The first is about his ruling. The second is about food sources. Like I said, the only tip that man's diet is restricted is found in Gen. 9:3-4.

God never gave instructions to the animals as to what to eat and He never changed their diets. So, to assume that their diets were restricted to herbs is unwarranted.

Also, there is the problem with the water creatures. Their diet is not mentioned at all.

Ps. 104:21, 28 show that God is responsible for the carnivores and it is seen as GOOD. If it was not good be for the Fall why would it be good after the Fall? God provides the food for both the carnivorous birds and mammals (Job 38:39-41; Ps. 147:9; Luke 12:24)

Usually the main objection to animals eating animals before the Fall has to do with God calling all that He created "GOOD." I've said about this before:

God never called Creation perfect, He called it Very Good. This was in contrast to Gen. 1:2. Each day that was called "GOOD" was one in which God changed one of those initial conditions. Notice day two is not called Good.

Yes, I went outside the text.

The first thing I will say is that Gen. 1:29 is not where people got the idea that man was to be a herbivore. That came from God saying that He was going to add to man's diet (Gen. 9:3-4). Without this text people reading Gen. 1:29 or hearing it would just assume that God was telling man that plants were a food source. The text does not say "you shall only eat vegetation." The people in Moses' day already ate plants, as well as meat.

Ah, well there's one place of simple disagreement. I take this as instructive/informative. (God instructing/informing man) We are perfectly warranted in taking this as a prohibition in two ways:

1. That is the nature of instruction. For example, I have written tutorials for students on how to accomplish certain things online for their class assignments. I get calls from time to time when students can't get the instructions to work. Almost invariably, the reason is that they did something that was not a part of the instructions. When I tell them that, they are apologetic, because they realize that they acted outside the boundry of what they were told to do.

In short, instruction requires me only to tell you what you are to do, not to deliniate all the things that you are not to do.

2. In another sense, it is not a prohibition in the literal sense of the word. In the historical setting of the account, man didn't have to be told not to eat animals on the simple basis it wasn't done. Have you ever read silly warnings on the backs of small appliances? "Do not use in the shower," on the back of a hair dryer, for instance . . . we laugh at such things because it is downright stupid. Such a warning is unnecessary, and yet, the instructions on how to use it properly are understood as "prohibitions" against using it improperly. By the same token, if animals were, like humans, originally herbivores, then a direct prohibition would be rather silly. This particular argument, then, is fallacious in that it asks for a level of proof that is historically impossible. But if taken as instructive/informative (as I've said I believe it should be), then everything works out in the plain, common sense meaning of the terms.

Against these, you've suggested that it is very important that the text doesn't say, "You can ONLY eat plants" (while it does say, in effect, "I have given you this menu"); but on the flip side, it does also NOT say, "Animals can ALSO eat meat." So this argument from silence cuts both ways. Put differently, it proves to much, for it it proves the traditional view wrong, by the same token, it proves your own view wrong. That is not to say either view is wrong--it is only to say that it seems to me that you need to find another argument here.

This whole section is spoken to man, not the animals.

No one doubts that, but that ignores my point. God says, in effect, to man, "I have given both you and animals plants to eat." God is informing/instucting man about the nature of reality.

"I have given " in verse 30 is not part of the text. It is taken from God saying it in verse 29, showing that this is one continuous statement.

I'm not too sure what to do with this . . . I suppose we could diagram it in Hebrew? That seems a bit excessive. The point is that there is only one main verb in 1:29-30, namely, nathath (to give). It governs both the clauses in 29 and 30. It is common to supply words in translation to make for smoother English. Certainly, it could have been translated as one long sentence, but that doesn't work too well in our language.

In any case, it is one continuous statement which seems to make the same point I did above: God gave to man and to animals plant life for food. I'm not sure, then, how you would make an argument out of this that God did one thing for one class of creatures and another thing for another class of creatures when there is only one governing verb!

There are two parts to what God tells man. The first is about his ruling. The second is about food sources. Like I said, the only tip that man's diet is restricted is found in Gen. 9:3-4.

God never gave instructions to the animals as to what to eat and He never changed their diets. So, to assume that their diets were restricted to herbs is unwarranted.

I don't see two parts? Please phrase it out for me like I did for you. I see one part: God told man, "I am giving you plants for food." He makes the same point about animals (even though, as you so rightly point out, it is all one statement, even if it two parallel clauses).

Second, and more importantly, I think 9:3-4 counts heavily against your position. If we take Gen 1:30 to say, "God gives animals plants to eat, but not exclusively!", then as the construction is just the same in 29, we must make the same argument in 29. Fine. Perhaps I am wrong, but I bet that, were it not for 9:3-4, you would take 1:29 in just that way, that man could have eaten both animals and plants. But, then we have a change in 9:3-4. It is because of THAT that we interpret 1:29 as being exclusive. But if 29 is exclusive, then 30 must also be exclusive, for it is the same structure. You have no textual warrant for separating the two. You may try to appeal to theology, but bear in mind that the text informs you theology, not vice versa.

Also, there is the problem with the water creatures. Their diet is not mentioned at all.

And Genesis doesn't mention the creation of bacteria? This sounds like an argument that comes from atheists who try to discredit the creation account. Just because things are not mentioned doesn't mean they don't exist.

Ps. 104:21, 28 show that God is responsible for the carnivores and it is seen as GOOD. If it was not good be for the Fall why would it be good after the Fall? God provides the food for both the carnivorous birds and mammals (Job 38:39-41; Ps. 147:9; Luke 12:24)

Irrelevent. I don't take Ps. 104 as a creation Psalm. Certainly you don't believe that people had to have Psalm 104 before they were capable of understanding Genesis 1? Because if that is the case, then the Exodus generation was incapable of understanding what was written for them. Since we both agree the text was intelligible to its original audience, then Ps. 104 cannot determine its meaning.

Usually the main objection to animals eating animals before the Fall has to do with God calling all that He created "GOOD." I've said about this before:

God never called Creation perfect, He called it Very Good. This was in contrast to Gen. 1:2. Each day that was called "GOOD" was one in which God changed one of those initial conditions. Notice day two is not called Good.

Well, it's not my objection. You can supply that argument to someone who decides to make it.

Yes, I went outside the text.

Yes . . . yes you did. Perhaps our difference is methodological, then (that is, hermeneutical). I believe that the meaning of each text is found within the text itself and is intelligible within the text itself. If I have to go to other texts to prove my point, what I am effectively doing is building a theology through which to read my passage. But that is the very definition of eisogesis. We are not to build our theologies and THEN go to the text. We are to go to the text, extract the meaning, and use that meaning to build our theology. If, then, you can't get your meaning from the text itself, then I suppose our disagreement has nothing to do with what the text says and everything to do with your personal theology. And, I'm sure you can forgive me for taking your theology as authoritative on this issue as you take mine to be.

Sola Scriptura.

God bless

Jac3510,

I take this as instructive/informative. (God instructing/informing man)

I will agree that it is an instruction to man, but it only informs him that animals too eat vegetation. Most land animals to this day eat vegetation to one degree or another and this would have been the case during Moses' day. This would have been the most likely understanding of the hearers.

Also, the text seems to make a distinction in what is said to man and then to animals:
To man
It starts - "Behold, I have given you..."
It ends - "lachem (to you) yihyeh (it shall be) le (for) ochlah (food)."

About animals
It starts - "(Behold, I have given) to every beast, etc...."
It ends - "le (for) ochlah (food)."

Man again is instructed (Gen. 9:3) same as before:
"Every moving thing that is alive, lachem (to you) yihyeh (it shall be) le (for) ochlah (food)..."

Man seems to be getting actual instructions. The animals get just an o-by-the-way mention. O-by-the-way, animals eat vegetation too. There is nothing in this text or any other that limits animals to vegetation.

I don't see two parts?

This was dealing with my showing that it was directed at man. I quoted, starting in verse 28 where God instructed man to rule the animals. That was the first part I refered to:

And God blessed them (man); and God said to them "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Then God said (to them), "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the surface of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food. 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, every green herb for food:"

And it was so.

God does go into greater detail about man in Chapter 2. In 2:5 it says that no "plant of the field," which is cultivated grains, had come up because there was no cultivator (man). In verse 15 God gives man that task. Then gives instruction on which trees to eat and not eat from (vs. 16-17). So, from this we get an idea of man's diet, but it is still not clear that he is limited until Genesis 9:3.

The point about sea creatures:
All of the animals are mentioned as having been made on days 5-6.
They are all mentioned again in man's instructions to rule (Gen. 1:28).
They are absent from the "vege diet" of verse 30.
This is enough to cause doubt about land animals being strict vegetarians. We have no record of them having their diets changed, as with man.

And I'm sorry, but Ps. 104 is a creation Psalm. It praises God for what He did during creation and how it is seen to the psalmist's day. And carnivorous activity is seen as God's doing and as good.

Certainly you don't believe that people had to have Psalm 104 before they were capable of understanding Genesis 1? Because if that is the case, then the Exodus generation was incapable of understanding what was written for them. Since we both agree the text was intelligible to its original audience, then Ps. 104 cannot determine its meaning.

Would people have understood who the Serpent was or his seed, without the New Testament? I do not think so. It is in the book of Revelation 12:9, 15; 20:2 that we find out who he was.

If I have to go to other texts to prove my point, what I am effectively doing is building a theology through which to read my passage. But that is the very definition of eisogesis.

There are just some things a text will not answer and you have to go to the rest of God's revelation to determine the answer.

How did the earth become the way it was in Genesis 1:2? See what God said in Job 38:8-9.

Do not be like the Mormons and build a doctrine on one verse (1 Cor. 15:29). If you interpret a scripture in a way that is contradicted by other scripture, or the record in nature, check your interpretations of them all. God will not contradict Himself.

I'm going to side with dayage on this one... Best explained by Rich IMO...

"Young earth creationists believe that God's original creation was "perfect" in every way - no weeds, no disease, no suffering, and no death. In reality, the "perfect paradise" paradigm fails in its lack of biblical support and also in the underlying assumptions that it forces upon a "Christian" worldview. Under the "perfect paradise" paradigm, God is relegated to the position of a poor designer, whose plans for the perfect creation are ruined by the disobedience of Adam and Eve. God is forced to come up with "plan B," in which He vindictively creates weeds, disease, carnivorous animals, and death to get back at humanity for their sin. Young earth creationists inadvertently buy into the atheistic worldview that suffering could not have been the original intent of God, stating that the earth was created "for our pleasure."

In contrast, old earth creationists believe that the universe was created with a perfect purpose, in which human beings are to choose good from evil and bring glory to God in doing so. The "perfect purpose" paradigm states that God created the universe as a temporary place, in which evil and suffering fulfill the will of God toward a higher goal than just to give us pleasure or a nice place to live. We, the followers of Jesus Christ, manifest the abundant grace of God, even in our sufferings, witnessing for the gospel to our fellow human beings and also the angels."

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html
Source: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/paradise.html

Dayage,

Well we have reached the fundamental area of our disagreement, so I am content to let it stand. We have a different hermeneutic. I believe in taking the text in and of itself at face value, whereas you believe we should look to future revelation to reexplain past revelation. Put differently, I believe in a literal-historical-grammatical method of interpretation, whereas you are reading the passage through a theology you build on a different passage (namely, Ps 104).

Now, here is where I concede your arguement. If Ps 104 IS a creation psalm (which I reject anyway), and if your hermeutic is correct, then you have a valid reason for taking the passage as you do. But as I concede neither of these, I cannot take the passage as you do. Again, our difference is not theology. It is methodological. So there is no need in continuing to debate what the passage means if we disagree on how to get at a passage's meaning.

Gman,

As I already said to dayage, I do not support the YEC theology that God created the world as perfect. I don't make that argument at all. My issues are exegetical, not theological. I join with you in rejecting that argument.

Jac wrote:Well we have reached the fundamental area of our disagreement, so I am content to let it stand. We have a different hermeneutic. I believe in taking the text in and of itself at face value, whereas you believe we should look to future revelation to reexplain past revelation. Put differently, I believe in a literal-historical-grammatical method of interpretation, whereas you are reading the passage through a theology you build on a different passage (namely, Ps 104).

These statements seem quite suspect to me.

How so, K? He says I should not "build a doctrine on one verse (1 Cor. 15:29)." Of course, I don't believe I am, but explaining his point further, he seems to think I am interpreting "a scripture in a way that is contradicted by other scripture, or the record in nature." In short, his problem with my view is theological. Because I take Gen 1:29-30 in and of itself, with reference only to its own immediate context, I come to a different conclusion than he does. But that conclusion is at theological odds with conclusions he draws from other passages of Scripture (and worse to me, from his interpretation so nature, as if that had any bearing on what the text says), and thus argues that I must take those too into account when looking at these verses.

Now, I certainly agree that Scripture does not contradict itself. But I am firmly opposed to the idea of reading former revelation in the light of latter revelation. That is textbook eisogesis. But if I may make the point with a less purjoritive term, I simply say we have a different method of interpretation.

In short, I say, "Don't go outside the text." He insists on it, because if we dont, we become "like the Mormons."

So again, I say the problem is methodological, not theological. On the assumption that you disagree, as you take exception to the statements, how do you see our disagreement differently?