Adam ruling over a "very good" creation - death pre-fall

panta dokimazete · #1 (**permalink**) 11-28-2008, 10:31 PM

Interesting article over on Today's New Reason To Believe

Quote:

One point of contention among those who believe in creation is the issue of death and decay in the original created order. The question, simply stated, is whether or not death, decay, disease, harsh conditions, etc., exists as a part of the world before the fall of Adam.

When God proclaimed creation “very good,” (tob meod) was the world blissful, like the popular concept of Nirvana—or did it function under harsh conditions?1 Was it “perfect,” with self-sustaining agriculture and lions that literally ate straw? Or was it a world full of potential, in need of taming and management? Did fruit trees need pruning and did lions “lie in wait in a thicket” to “hunt the prey”?

Many old-earth creationists (OEC) hold that death and subsequent decay did occur in the original created order, but just not for man in his closed environment called “the Garden of Eden.” Young-earth creationists, on the other hand, often have a more restrictive interpretation. For example, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati writes, “A straightforward interpretation of Genesis shows that death of humans and vertebrate animals (Hebrew nephesh chayyah, “living creature”) is the result of Adam’s fall.”2 Is this as clear as Dr. Sarfati asserts—or does the Bible suggest another interpretation?

The answer to this question may be found in the words kabash and radah (rendered “subdue” and “rule,” respectively, in most English translations) as used in Genesis 1:28. God instructs Adam to...

***fredtgreco*** · #2 (**permalink**) 11-28-2008, 11:17 PM

Seems pretty simple to me:

Quote:

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.

James 1:15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death

panta dokimazete · #3 (**permalink**) 11-28-2008, 11:49 PM

I believe the article differentiates between human death (to which theses verses refer) and animal-plant death.

SolaScriptura · #4 (**permalink**) 11-28-2008, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

I believe the article differentiates between human death and animal-plant death.

I think so too.

ChristianTrader · #5 (**permalink**) 11-28-2008, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

I believe the article differentiates between human death and animal-plant death.

The article makes the distinction but the question is whether or not Scripture also makes that differentiation.

CT

***fredtgreco*** · #6 (**permalink**) 11-29-2008, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

I believe the article differentiates between human death (to which theses verses refer) and animal-plant death.

Which of course is an unBiblical and foolish distinction.

panta dokimazete · #7 (**permalink**) 11-29-2008, 12:09 AM

Is it? I don't see a Scriptural correlation in terms of value or consequence for the death of an animal or plant and that of a human, but that could be an oversight.

That is - I don't see anywhere in Scripture that the death of plants/animals is a bad thing or correlated in terms of value.

Genesis 3:21
And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.

***fredtgreco*** · #8 (**permalink**) 11-29-2008, 12:13 AM

The exegesis is absolutely horrible. To interpret a Hebrew word's use in pre-Fall times by its application in a sinful (and death-filled) world is ridiculous. What about words like "authority"? Do we assume that pre-Fall, Adam's authority over Eve was like post-Fall authority? Do we interpret Eve's relationship to Adam in Genesis 2 with reference to her relationship in Genesis 3? In other words, do we assume that she had sinful desires to dominate pre-Fall, because that is how Genesis 3 describes it?

If we take this kind of faulty exegesis, why can we not say that pre-Fall life included war and murder? Those are aspects of "dominate" post-Fall, aren't they? Just ask James:

Quote:

James 4:2 You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask.

What a ridiculous methodology. My 10 and 11 year old sons can do better exegesis.
-----Added 11/29/2008 at 12:13:54 EST-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Is it? I don't see a Scriptural correlation in terms of value or consequence for the death of an animal or plant and that of a human, but that could be an oversight.

That is - I don't see anywhere in Scripture that the death of plants/animals is a bad thing or correlated in terms of value.

Genesis 3:21
And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.

Come on, JD! You are way beyond grasping at straws. The text you cite is about sacrifice and death being used in an atoning fashion. And it is post-Fall.

panta dokimazete · #9 (**permalink**) 11-29-2008, 12:18 AM

Hold on, Fred - not trying to incite a riot, here, just examining the rationale.

***fredtgreco*** · #10 (**permalink**) 11-29-2008, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Hold on, Fred - not trying to incite a riot, here, just examining the rationale.

JD,

You need to examine the point. I'm not trying to be mean (really!). But look at what these fools (and that is what they are, degrees and all) have got you to do:

You say, well, does Scripture say death is bad? And you use as a proof text a post Fall text. And it is a post-Fall text that is clearly redemptive in nature. It is God who kills the animals. That is what the text says.

Quote:

Genesis 3:21 And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them

Why would we try and do that? To "prove" an Old Earth? Why? This is foolishness. This is godlessness at its root.

And let me be clear: my sharp words are for the "authors" of this "article" (so called). Not you. Run away from this foolishness.

Webservant · #11 (**permalink**) 11-29-2008, 12:23 AM

My first thought was, is the forceful domination he spoke of an indication of the untamed wildness of the world or an indication of our own superior intellect and strength? If we were created in harmony with the world, and designed to be it's masters, perhaps this kind of absolute domination of creation is the only kind of domination we were capabale of. Does that make sense? In our present imperfect state we are nearly a force of nature. Imagine perfect intellect, ability, and strength.

panta dokimazete · #12 (**permalink**) 11-29-2008, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Hold on, Fred - not trying to incite a riot, here, just examining the rationale.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

JD,

You need to examine the point. I'm not trying to be mean (really!). But look at what these fools (and that is what they are, degrees and all) have got you to do:

You say, well, does Scripture say death is bad? And you use as a proof text a post Fall text. And it is a post-Fall text that is clearly redemptive in nature. It is God who kills the animals. That is what the text says.

Quote:

Genesis 3:21 And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them

Not disagreeing on the redemptive aspect, just not sure about why/how this disproves animal/plant death was present pre-Fall. Does the text suggest that this was the first animal death Adam and Eve had ever seen?

Quote:

Why would we try and do that? To "prove" an Old Earth? Why? This is foolishness. This is godlessness at its root.

Not sure why it is godless to consider an Old Earth if the text allows it and general revelation supports it...is there a Scriptural mandate for a Young Earth - is it GNC? I must confess that I vacillate...

Quote:

And let me be clear: my sharp words are for the "authors" of this "article" (so called). Not you. Run away from this foolishness.

Thanks, Fred - as I said, I vacillate and am interested to examine both sides of the aisle, inasmuch as the examination is to the glory of God.

This is not a salvific/orthodoxy issue to me and I normally take an "open hand" approach with the understanding that YEC and OEC rationale must acknowledge the uniqueness of Man as the Imago Dei and Creation as intimately guided by the Creator. That being said - I am certainly no "from goo to you" supporter.

I'll also confess that I thought the language usage proposition a stretch, not the dominion aspect, but the degree at which Man would have dominated. That is, given the premise (pre-Fall death), that Man would not have actually killed anything - again, granting the premise, I think that God set up the predator/prey relationship and Man would have been outside, but aware of, it.