Carnivorous animals before the fall...

[dayage]

Jac3510,

Please link me to a resource that limits (literal-historical-grammatical method of interpretation) as you do.

You are ignoring a large part of this type of interpretation: "Using Scripture to interpret Scripture"

Here is a link showing multiple articles
http://www.simplythegospel.org/journal/ ... ug2006.pdf

Your limited understanding of this type of interpretation causes problems:
How many angels are at the tomb? 1 or 2
How many demoniacs were there? 1 or 2

If you do not interpret Scripture with Scripture how do you decide which New Testament author you will believe?

By interpreting the right way, you find that in both cases there were two and one probably did the talking or at least was the more prominent.

Does baptism take away sin (Acts 2:38) or does forgiveness come first (Acts 10:44-48)?
Comparing different texts shows that forgiveness of sins comes from repenting not baptism. At that time many repented (and called on the Lord) as they went into the water for baptism.

[Jac3510]

As our conversation has no moved to a new subject (the proper method of interpretation), I have opened a new thread on the subject:

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =9&t=33474

K, if you like, you can reply there as well. Either way, I'll respond to you in that thread so that anyone who wants to continue talking about carnivorous activity before the fall (either now or in the future) can do so in this thread.

[Kurieuo]

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.

How did I consider your statements to be suspect? Well, it seems to me you are claiming superiority when it comes to your method of interpreting Scripture without having justified this in any way. So your statements are suspect, in that victory seems to be getting claimed for your interpretation based upon your method without any real validation. Thus, I consider the statements made and perhaps the illusion of victory based on your interpretative approach to be suspect.

It seems like everyone likes to think they use the correct hermeneutic when coming to Scripture. Those who perform historical-critical methods believe they are applying the correct immediate context, not just grammatically, but historically. Thus, I am sure they would think they take the more plain view of Scripture than yourself. It seems to me that you believe your method of interpretation is free of any bias personal, theological or otherwise, however your own theology clearly affects how you interpret Scripture and what limits you believe should be applied when interpreting. For example, you say future revelation (future passages in Scripture) should not reexplain past revelation (older passages in Scripture) thereby setting a limit based on your dispensationalist theology

Personally, I believe the best method of interpreting Scripture to be a canonical approach, that is, taking Scripture in a holistic manner. If we as Christians consider Scripture authoritative on the basis it is inspired by God and God-breathed through the authors who penned it, then there is one Author behind the scenes Who brings it all together. As such, future passages in Scripture do not necessarily re-interpret or re-explain previous passages, but they can be used to help clarify them.

I do agree there is merit in reading passages by themselves alone, but in doing so we must be careful to close out the varying different understandings. Keep in mind that the Trinity is not built on any one passage alone, but rather many passages. JWs prefer to treat each of these passages individually (many of which are still quite tricky to respond to), and in this way they are quite largely able to maintain a wrong picture of Christ. However, taking Scripture collectively rather than reading individual passages separately, means for example that when Jesus says the Father is greater than Himself we understand Christ to be talking of position rather than power.

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.

I must say I do believe one should use all passages to clarify other passages, regardless of whether they are past or future revelation. To dissect Scripture in a manner that treats its parts like the whole picture I think it just plainly wrong given I believe there is only one true Author who forcefully guided every word together through many human authors. Furthermore, if Scripture is being dissected into parts, and it is still claimed the whole picture can be seen to know what the literal and intended meaning of the individual passage is, such is perhaps analogous to many post-moderns who believe they can see the elephant while everyone else who disagrees with their take on truth is only touching its trunk, tail, or leg.

PS. I do have half a response saved in the dualism thread (I have not forgotten about that discussions). I will get around to completing it hopefully sooner than later.

[Jac3510]

K,

I am replying to this in the hermeneutics thread I opened in the Bible and Scripture forum.

[dayage]

This whole topic has moved here

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=33474

[dayage]

Try this

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =9&t=33474

[For_Narniaaa]

I have a question, kind of related to a debate on earlier pages about death being before or after the Fall. My question is, is physical death even a punishment?

But from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.
Genesis 2:17, NASB

As someone mentioned earlier, Adam and Eve didn't fall to the ground physically dead when they ate of it, so it must have referred to spiritual death. In a book I read by a YEC'ist (it wasn't specifically about that, but the author was one), he mentioned that physical death did'nt enter man until Genesis 3, after sin. However, the Bible doesn't say that they had NO physical death before that. I wonder if the death God meant all along was spiritual, and Adam and Eve were created to be mortal beings. For, if OEC'ists think that there was animal death before the Fall, and that it wasn't evil, why couldn't there have been human death, as well? Did God always intend for this life to be temporary?

[warhoop]

I have a question, kind of related to a debate on earlier pages about death being before or after the Fall. My question is, is physical death even a punishment? ...
I wonder if the death God meant all along was spiritual, and Adam and Eve were created to be mortal beings. For, if OEC'ists think that there was animal death before the Fall, and that it wasn't evil, why couldn't there have been human death, as well? Did God always intend for this life to be temporary?

I guess how you answer that depends largely on what you believe God's purpose was for creating man.

[For_Narniaaa]

I have a question, kind of related to a debate on earlier pages about death being before or after the Fall. My question is, is physical death even a punishment? ...
I wonder if the death God meant all along was spiritual, and Adam and Eve were created to be mortal beings. For, if OEC'ists think that there was animal death before the Fall, and that it wasn't evil, why couldn't there have been human death, as well? Did God always intend for this life to be temporary?

I guess how you answer that depends largely on what you believe God's purpose was for creating man.

Yes, well, what I said wasn't very Biblical. I went and looked in Genesis, and human physical death is mentioned as a punishment they received after sinning. "By the sweat of your brow will you have food to eat until you return to the ground from which you were made. For you were made from dust, and to dust you will return." (Genesis 3:19, NLT)

Why was physical death a punishment for man, but not for animals? I always thought that man's sin brought death to ALL of creation, because man was made the steward of the earth, and therefore had an impact on it. What did the animals ever do wrong before the Fall to deserve death? Because this verse seems to paint physical death as a punishment...

[Byblos]

Yes, well, what I said wasn't very Biblical. I went and looked in Genesis, and human physical death is mentioned as a punishment they received after sinning. "By the sweat of your brow will you have food to eat until you return to the ground from which you were made. For you were made from dust, and to dust you will return." (Genesis 3:19, NLT)

Why was physical death a punishment for man, but not for animals? I always thought that man's sin brought death to ALL of creation, because man was made the steward of the earth, and therefore had an impact on it. What did the animals ever do wrong before the Fall to deserve death? Because this verse seems to paint physical death as a punishment...

Where in that passage does it say death was a penalty? Working for food as a penalty maybe, but death could be taken as a natural consequence of birth (from dust to dust).

[Jac3510]

Come on, Byblos . . . I've heard what could be classified as stretching before, but this takes the cake. The theme of death runs deep through Gen 2-5. Notice:

2:17 - God warns man that if disobeys, then he will die;
3:3 - Eve repeats (with expansion) God's warning of death;
3:4: - The serpent calls God a liar, directly claiming Eve will not die;
3:19 - Adam is promised that he will die

Before going any further, note that there is no discussion of "spiritual death" anywhere in this passage. Perhaps it can be inferred from their eyes being opened to their nakedness, but even that is pressing the text, for the fulfillment of 2:17 lies far more clearly in 3:19 than in 3:7!

Now, if physical death is the actual punishment, we would expect much more discussion about such a matter, and so we see it:

3:21 - God makes garments, which implies an animal's death (the first sacrifice)
3:22 - God banishes Adam and Eve from the garden to ensure that they do not live forever (not talking spiritually here!)
4:8 - Cain kills Abel, the first human death
4:14 - Cain fears being killed
4:23 - Lamech brags over his killing two men
4:25 - Abel's murder is emphasized

Next, you have chapter 5, which repeatedly ends in that dirge, "And he died" (8 times), with only one exception, Enoch in the seventh generation. But Enoch did not die because "Enoch walked with God." Finally, in chapter six, you have the flood coming because men were so murderous.

The point of all this is painfully obvious. Death reigns because Adam disobeyed God. Enoch and Noah stand in sharp relief to that. Death is the direct result of sin; put different, these chapters teach that death is a sin-problem. So, yes, physical death is clearly the penalty for Adam's sin.

edit:

And on this, I'll have to agree with your church:

(1) The sin of Adam has injured the human race at least in the sense that it has introduced death -- "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men". Here there is question of physical death. First, the literal meaning of the word ought to be presumed unless there be some reason to the contrary. Second, there is an allusion in this verse to a passage in the Book of Wisdom in which, as may be seen from the context, there is question of physical death. Wisdom 2:24: "But by the envy of the devil death came into the world". Cf. Genesis 2:17; 3:3, 19; and another parallel passage in St. Paul himself, 1 Corinthians 15:21: "For by a man came death and by a man the resurrection of the dead". Here there can be question only of physical death, since it is opposed to corporal resurrection, which is the subject of the whole chapter.

(2) Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, "for as by the disobedience of one man many [i.e., all men] were made sinners" (Romans 5:19). How then could the Pelagians, and at a later period Zwingli, say that St. Paul speaks only of the transmission of physical death? If according to them we must read death where the Apostle wrote sin, we should also read that the disobedience of Adam has made us mortal where the Apostle writes that it has made us sinners. But the word sinner has never meant mortal, nor has sin ever meant death. Also in verse 12, which corresponds to verse 19, we see that by one man two things have been brought on all men, sin and death, the one being the consequence of the other and therefore not identical with it.

(3) Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality. The explanation of the Pelagians differs from that of St. Paul. According to them the child who receives mortality at his birth receives sin from Adam only at a later period when he knows the sin of the first man and is inclined to imitate it. The causality of Adam as regards mortality would, therefore, be completely different from his causality as regards sin. Moreover, this supposed influence of the bad example of Adam is almost chimerical; even the faithful when they sin do not sin on account of Adam's bad example, a fortiori infidels who are completely ignorant of the history of the first man. And yet all men are, by the influence of Adam, sinners and condemned (Romans 5:18, 19). The influence of Adam cannot, therefore, be the influence of his bad example which we imitate (Augustine, "Contra julian.", VI, xxiv, 75).

[zoegirl]

HOwever, in all of the verses you show, Jac, none directly writes about therebeing no animal death. In fact, even your example of the first animal sacrifice is an assumption on your part.

I have acouple of problems with proclaiming that there was no animal death:

IF there were no carnivorous animals before the fall then either:

1) the carnivorous body plan existed befroe the fall... the *design* of the carnivore: pointed teeth, raspy tongue of the cats, forward fcing eyes, different digestive system, different brain, different behavior. different energetics existed before fall, in which case God decalring them "good" seems rather silly if not downright wrong. Sharks? stone cold killers? If not before the fall then their entire structural and functional design was wrong .

2) the carnivores were completely different design....in which case it seems duplicitous for those creationists to wax poetic (I hear these on the radio station sometimes saying this) of how great the design of the animals always was...and the include the lions, the wolves, the sharks as tstaments to His gret design. But if they were not carnivorous, then a huge chagne happened....a HUGE change, and they were not as God ha originally deisgned them

Also, the entirety of the ecological cycles, the ecycling of nutrients, indeed our very bodies depends on death. Cell death, programmed cell death (apoptosis, fun word) is present in our skin, our brains, our stomachs, all over our bodies. Leaf cells die in the fall, cells die during fetal development of the finger and toes.

IF death in some form wasnt present, then teh creation MUST have been fundamentally,*really* fundamentally different.

I find numer 1 absolutely abhorrent....why would God create a design that wasn't "good?" And where is the evidence for number 2

[zoegirl]

HOwever, in all of the verses you show, Jac, none directly writes about therebeing no animal death. In fact, even your example of the first animal sacrifice is an assumption on your part.

I have acouple of problems with proclaiming that there was no animal death:

IF there were no carnivorous animals before the fall then either:

1) the carnivorous body plan existed befroe the fall... the *design* of the carnivore: pointed teeth, raspy tongue of the cats, forward fcing eyes, different digestive system, different brain, different behavior. different energetics existed before fall, in which case God decalring them "good" seems rather silly if not downright wrong. Sharks? stone cold killers? If not before the fall then their entire structural and functional design was wrong .

2) the carnivores were completely different design....in which case it seems duplicitous for those creationists to wax poetic (I hear these on the radio station sometimes saying this) of how great the design of the animals always was...and the include the lions, the wolves, the sharks as tstaments to His gret design. But if they were not carnivorous, then a huge chagne happened....a HUGE change, and they were not as God ha originally deisgned them

Also, the entirety of the ecological cycles, the ecycling of nutrients, indeed our very bodies depends on death. Cell death, programmed cell death (apoptosis, fun word) is present in our skin, our brains, our stomachs, all over our bodies. Leaf cells die in the fall, cells die during fetal development of the finger and toes.

IF death in some form wasnt present, then teh creation MUST have been fundamentally,*really* fundamentally different.

I find numer 1 absolutely abhorrent....why would God create a design that wasn't "good?" And where is the evidence for number 2

[Byblos]

Come on, Byblos . . . I've heard what could be classified as stretching before, but this takes the cake. The theme of death runs deep through Gen 2-5. Notice:

2:17 - God warns man that if disobeys, then he will die;
3:3 - Eve repeats (with expansion) God's warning of death;
3:4: - The serpent calls God a liar, directly claiming Eve will not die;
3:19 - Adam is promised that he will die

Before going any further, note that there is no discussion of "spiritual death" anywhere in this passage. Perhaps it can be inferred from their eyes being opened to their nakedness, but even that is pressing the text, for the fulfillment of 2:17 lies far more clearly in 3:19 than in 3:7!

Now, if physical death is the actual punishment, we would expect much more discussion about such a matter, and so we see it:

3:21 - God makes garments, which implies an animal's death (the first sacrifice)
3:22 - God banishes Adam and Eve from the garden to ensure that they do not live forever (not talking spiritually here!)
4:8 - Cain kills Abel, the first human death
4:14 - Cain fears being killed
4:23 - Lamech brags over his killing two men
4:25 - Abel's murder is emphasized

Next, you have chapter 5, which repeatedly ends in that dirge, "And he died" (8 times), with only one exception, Enoch in the seventh generation. But Enoch did not die because "Enoch walked with God." Finally, in chapter six, you have the flood coming because men were so murderous.

The point of all this is painfully obvious. Death reigns because Adam disobeyed God. Enoch and Noah stand in sharp relief to that. Death is the direct result of sin; put different, these chapters teach that death is a sin-problem. So, yes, physical death is clearly the penalty for Adam's sin.

edit:

And on this, I'll have to agree with your church:

(1) The sin of Adam has injured the human race at least in the sense that it has introduced death -- "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men". Here there is question of physical death. First, the literal meaning of the word ought to be presumed unless there be some reason to the contrary. Second, there is an allusion in this verse to a passage in the Book of Wisdom in which, as may be seen from the context, there is question of physical death. Wisdom 2:24: "But by the envy of the devil death came into the world". Cf. Genesis 2:17; 3:3, 19; and another parallel passage in St. Paul himself, 1 Corinthians 15:21: "For by a man came death and by a man the resurrection of the dead". Here there can be question only of physical death, since it is opposed to corporal resurrection, which is the subject of the whole chapter.

(2) Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, "for as by the disobedience of one man many [i.e., all men] were made sinners" (Romans 5:19). How then could the Pelagians, and at a later period Zwingli, say that St. Paul speaks only of the transmission of physical death? If according to them we must read death where the Apostle wrote sin, we should also read that the disobedience of Adam has made us mortal where the Apostle writes that it has made us sinners. But the word sinner has never meant mortal, nor has sin ever meant death. Also in verse 12, which corresponds to verse 19, we see that by one man two things have been brought on all men, sin and death, the one being the consequence of the other and therefore not identical with it.

(3) Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality. The explanation of the Pelagians differs from that of St. Paul. According to them the child who receives mortality at his birth receives sin from Adam only at a later period when he knows the sin of the first man and is inclined to imitate it. The causality of Adam as regards mortality would, therefore, be completely different from his causality as regards sin. Moreover, this supposed influence of the bad example of Adam is almost chimerical; even the faithful when they sin do not sin on account of Adam's bad example, a fortiori infidels who are completely ignorant of the history of the first man. And yet all men are, by the influence of Adam, sinners and condemned (Romans 5:18, 19). The influence of Adam cannot, therefore, be the influence of his bad example which we imitate (Augustine, "Contra julian.", VI, xxiv, 75).

Jac,

I was referring to the quoted passage only but I can always count on you to keep my theology in check (and hopefully I yours). But it gives me great pleasure to see you quote material from my church and agree with it. There's hope for you after all my friend .

As for the subject of physical death as a penalty for sin, at heart I do agree with it but this little nagging theistic evolutionist in me keeps creeping up. I'm working on it though.

[B. W.]

Let's not forget who God was speaking too when he told who would die if they ate off the forbidden tree and God was not speaking to animals was he?
-
-
-