Death is an intrusion, not the norm.

Precisely.

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Daddy
Member of TRBC. My Blog
The Puritan Pub (Team Blog)
Board Rules-Signature Requirements-Suggestions?

Says who?

The problem is that you're imposing your view of what is "natural" and what is "very good" onto God. Why do you say the natural food chain that includes the death of plants and animals is an intrusion and not very good? Why would God think it is an intrusion? See, you're imposing your values onto God. I'm sure God is very pleased with the way He created spiders to spin their webs to catch their prey. Besides, to say there was no death before the Fall is to say God drastically re-ordered all of His creation after the Fall, which, while possible, just doesn't seem plausible. And what about the beasts of the field in Chapter 2? Did they just stand in the field and enjoy the sunshine, ignoring all that nice grass God created for them? And what did they do with their stomachs and intestines before the Fall?

Seems like an unnecessary stretch to say death didn't occur in the animal and plant worlds prior to sin.

__________________
Mason
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA)
New York, NY

"Come now, and let us reason together," says the Lord, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool." - Isaiah 1:18

O.k. I have to chime in.

1. "the fact that overwhelming scientific evidence shows the earth is far older than 10,000 years does help our understanding of the Genesis 1 account." This is faulty at best. Letting the world determine what the bible says?? If a person doesn't know the faults of the dating methods to justify this position, I will be glad to start a thread to show these. Most of the methods have faulty premises that assume an old earth. i.e., assuming pure uranium parent-daughter ratio's in dating methods. And the so called dating depending on how deep we dig, well these people assume the flood never happened. A flood would lay levels like the so called archaeologists claim are "millions" of years and would explain the fact that fossils even exist at all.

2. Animal deaths before fall?? There were no carnivores before the fall. Read Gen 1:30. "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." Therefore, vegetarian was the way. (Don't worry, after the flood, God said we could eat meat, so enjoy that steak.) Also, the phrasing of life within itself refers to plants, so they do not die like living creatures do.

3. Exegesis is not compatible with old earth. I.e. " But this goes to show that you are reading post-fall scientific presuppositions back into the text." is rampant in the old earth presupposition. What does Geneva have to do with Darwin??

4. And yes, dragons equals dinosaurs. They are to be killed by knights to rescue damsels in distress. Probably more true than is given credit.

__________________
Timothy Johnson
First United Presbyterian of Moline
PCUSA (Yea, I know)
Theology/Philosophy Sunday School Teacher
Davenport, IA

God didn't "re-order" anything. Sin distorted everything. There is no stretch in this understanding. It's believing what has been revealed, drawn from, exegeted from Scripture.

we all know that there was no need to eat before the fall

__________________
Bruce
PCUSA
Ocean City NJ

I am talking about "death" in terms of "spilled blood."

Thanks for the bolded point.

__________________
~Gloria M.~
Member, Trinity Presbyterian Church, PCA, Southeast Georgia

"Turn my eyes from looking at worthless things; and give me life in your ways." Psalm 119:37

Well this seems to be getting too far off germain points. But doesn't blood spill when a carnivore bites another animal's head off. Or they were all herbivors killing plants. Take your pick. This rabbit trail should die. No pun iintended.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
http://reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com/
The Regulative Principle of Worship: Explained and Applied (Xulon Press)
A Conquered Kingdom: Biblical Civil Government (Reformed Worldview Books)

Not true. In fact, there is explicit provision for such. "Of all the trees in the garden you may freely eat..." However, eating fruit that's provided from a tree hardly kills the tree, now does it? Furthermore, I think Creation Research Society or somebody has distinguished between "life" as found in plants, and that of life that is found in animals and humans.

I hear you and am sorry for making lite of it. I do not wish to be contenteous over this issue. It seems to be all speculation on this issue. An issue that in my opinion does not shed light on the bigger issue. Sorry again.

No offense taken, Sir.

I don't consider plants "sentient beings."

In short, I don't believe the animals were eating each other. Given my presuppositions about ontology, this seems normal. If it is absurd, how much more so in the eschaton

Isaiah 11:6-9:

Makes sense total sense to me. I went into this corner with much haste. Thank you.

Rather than responding to each post individually, here are some thoughts addressing several issues:

1. The issue of death before the Fall is a major rabbit trail, and is irrelevant to the "nature of days." Even if I were a YE creationist, I would still believe in death before the Fall. The problem with the view that there was no death before the Fall is that there is no Scripture to support it. It also defies logic. To specifically address some things that were said:

Joshua - to somehow argue that by eating fruit only there was no death is both directly against Scripture ("every green herb" along with "every tree") and scientifically irrational. Fruits were once "living" with billions of cells each. The cells had to die for the fruit to ripen and of course when eaten. Are cells not considered living? If not, where do you draw the line between living and not living? It is an impossible distinction to make. Thus there was, without doubt, death before the Fall, as the very least on the cellular level.

Ivanhoe - your Isaiah verse is taken out of context. Those verses are in reference to a prophecy, a Messianic prophecy in fact, which illustrates in vivid terms the peace the Christ will ultimately bring. Nowhere does it imply or state this was the condition of original creation. Also, when did the idea of "sentient" beings become a legitimate theological term, especially since the concept has its origins in Buddhist and Hindu philosophy? Nowhere in the Bible is moral or spiritual weight given to any creature other than humans, into whom God breathed the "breath of life." There is no gradation of moral weight in the animal and plant worlds. This point has absolutely no Scriptural basis, and I would argue is thoroughly anti-Biblical in nature. And as I pointed out in Joshua's post, there is no place to draw the line. Do you draw the line with insects? Fish? Cows? Birds? Certain species of birds? Certain species of reptiles? Of mammals? Furthermore, how do you arrive at death in terms of "spilled blood?" Fleas and mites have lifespans of a few days - they need not have their blood spilled in order to die. Once again, you have no Biblical basis to support your claim, and it defies basic logic.

Gymir - Genesis 1:30 doesn't necessarily exclude carnivores, since it never mentions water animals and never says animals on ground would eat ONLY herbs. But let's say you're right, and there were no carnivores. It still does not say there was no animal death - only that animals didn't eat each other.

2. While some dating techniques have flaws in terms of their accuracy at various ages, most are reliable enough to indicate the Earth is older than 10,000 years. Christian scientists who try to find flaws with all these techniqes lose credibility because they selectively choose what they consider negative qualities as if to discredit the methodology as a whole. I don't believe there is any evidence that the Earth is 4.4 billion years old, or even millions, but it's pretty safe to say accurate, reliable tests indicate it is older than 10,000. We can of course discuss this topic more if you wish, Grymir, but I would encourage you to really research this topic and understand it before supporting certain claims you may have read.

3. This point of this thread (at least it seems to me) is to discuss the exegesis and hermeneutics of the Bible in terms of Old Earth and Young Earth creationism. There are certainly arguments for both, but neither is absolutely conclusive or fatally flawed. The reason I posted initially and the reason I think this topic is interesting is because so many YECers are so very ardent in their defense of the 24 hr day view. But why? I have no problem with the YEC view, and believe it could very well be correct. But there seems to be no room for allowance for the OEC view, even when there is certainly Biblical and scientific evidence to support it as strong or stronger than the YEC view. No one has really answered this question: Does it change anything if the OEC view is correct? I fail to see how it does. God is just as great, His creation just as amazing and awe-inspiring if He created it in an extended period of time, in six 24 hour days, or even instantaneously. Furthermore, it doesn't change any theology. As I've said before, an OE creationist and YE creationist can agree 100% on theology.

This is a great discussion - thanks to Ivanhoe, joshua, AV1611, grymir, CT, and many others for your great insights. I've learned a lot from what you've had to say....

ColdSilverMoon I tried to pm you. Can you e-mail me a5pointer@aol.com ?

Again, Romans 5 doesn't say "such and such kind" of death. It says death. The death. Universal. Death wasn't here before sin brought it.
Herein lies the problem. You're trying to determine pre-fall conditions, by post fall conditions. You see, I believe presuppositionally and according to the Analogy of Scripture that death came through sin. I don't have to seek post fall "Science" to read into narrative of pre-fall in order to ascertain how things worked. Instead, I can just believe God's Word. God doesn't have to tell me about everything that did happen. For example, I don't see either an example of something dying or not dying in the narrative. But you know what? I don't need that. Why? Because Romans 5 tells me when and how death came into the world. I trust in it, before I trust in Science's speculations on God's pre-fall order.
Where did I use the term only?

Again, you must have missed when I wrote:

Furthermore, I think Creation Research Society or somebody has distinguished between "life" as found in plants, and that of life that is found in animals and humans

But a couple of corrections need to be made. Answers in Genesis, not CRS. You as well as I both know that Scripture does not classify plant "death" in the same manner as animal or human death. I hate to be a copy and paste kind of guy (Sorry Jacob!), but I'll leave you with this, and I'm pretty much done with this thread as a civilian participator.

The Fall: a cosmic catastrophe

You keep making these statements, and yet it's you, my friend, who is without a biblical foundation. In fact, I'm arguing for the Biblical understanding, as opposed to the post-fall import of logic into pre-fall conditions. I know it's difficult (impossible) to discern my tone, so please know I'm not upset, or riled up, etc.

To you as well.

Have a good Lord's Day and you guys don't act up or KILL the thread to DEATH.

Joshua,

We've each had our say, so I suppose your word is the last. We'll just have to agree to disagree on some of these points. But again, thank you for your informative posts. I have enjoyed and look forward to reading and learning from your thoughts on various topics in the future.

</