Death before the 'Fall'?

quote:

---

I have seen a creationist comment suggesting that only fruits, seeds and vegetative growth were eaten prior to the fall. Thus the plant would not be killed.

---

I guess the next question would be: Since God made fruits (which contain seeds) and seeds, which deal with plant reproduction; did God intend for the plants to die?He provided for replacements. Not all plants that produce edible fruit continue to live once the fruit has ripened.Did they not eat any of the root plants like carrots, potatoes, etc.? I think fruit is considered produce of the ground and not just from the trees.So if they ate roots then they pretty much killed the plant.Just a thought.

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

quote:

---

(what was he keeping a flock for anyways? company?)

---

Wool from the sheep and milk from the goats.

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

I was so waiting for my nails to dry and your sarcasm just yelled for a total ruination.As far as the skin thing, some Jewish beliefs carry the thought that A&E were totally light, and when the big guy gave them skin, he really gave them skin, you know, like flesh.

quote:

---

you mean they were just vegetarians, not full vegans? what about chicken? fish? lobster? oh, wait, that's out.

---

I was just providing possibilies other than edible. So don't overload my brain with your chicken and fish nonsense.But seriously, to like keep the herbivore population from totally overpopulating the planet, there were either meat eaters or the first people did some major sacrificing.Oh, nails dry! Later Babe

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

quote:

---

And in any case, there is no reason why God could not have meant what he said, or felt what he said, and then changed his mind when the time came that he had to mete out punishment. Like a parent who orders a child not to do something or they will face a certain punishment, only to find they cannot carry through with that exact punishment. That is hardly lying.

---

I agree.How many times have parents told their chldren they would kill them if they did such and such. The parents had no intention of killing their children and the children usually know it. Was the parent lying or just impressing upon the child the importance of not doing such and such by exaggerating the punishment?Maybe that is what the serpent meant. He knew that God wouldn't actually kill them instantly.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

God is here conveying the concept that once this act has been committed, the death is inescapable

---

So then the possibility of death did exist before the fall. It was just escapable by eating from the Tree of Life. If it did not exist then there was nothing to escape.Death is a natural part of existence, and has been since from the moment the first human beings were created, otherwise God wouldn't have needed creatures to multiply before A&E ate from the wrong tree. They needed to replace themselves. They were all subject to death. Mortal.Bird flies into a tree. Dead.
Elephant steps on a mouse. Dead (the mouse, not the elephant)Replacements were apparently needed. Life is dangerous.This message has been edited by purpledawn, 02-13-2006 04:33 PM

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

But there are other reasons possible to "increase in number" other than to replace. Most people I know don't have more than one child with a view to replacing numbers - they do it cos the love kids.

---

Talking about critters, not people.Why else do animals have offspring other than to continue the species?
If animals couldn’t die, why did God create them with reproductive abilities?

quote:

---

This threads purpose is to examine whether death before the fall was indeed possible. Not to asssert it.

---

Actually the OP states: The originator feels that the Bible supports there was death before the fall.My text supports death. Show me text that shows my assertion is wrong.It is clear from the text that the fruit from the Tree of Life could give the eater immortality.If Adam and Eve already possessed immortality upon creation, why was the tree of life there?If Adam and Eve already possessed immortality, why did they need nourishment?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

”

quote:

---

I think the Tree of Life, although it did physically exist, was mainly symbolic of ”the fact that while they remained with God, they would be immortal. Notice that when ”they were seperated from God, the Tree of Life was taken away and guarding by flaming ”swords. Seems pretty simple.

---

While I agree that a lesson can be made concerning ”the symbology of the Tree of Life, that symbology doesn’t fit into the plain text reading though.”IMO, a plain text reading is what the originator is looking at concerning death before the ”fall. In the plain text reading the tree of life symbolizes immortality or everlasting life ””(depending on your religion) which aren’t necessarily the same.”That aside, in Message 155 I was talking about animals. Were animals to remain with God ”to remain immortal? Are animals promised everlasting life? I don’t see scripture that ”supports that.””

quote:

---

I understand your problems with how the laws of science operated before death. ”There is a seeming contradiction to how things work now.

---

Actually you don’t ”understand. I don’t have any problems with the laws of science and the A&E story. I ”have a problem with dogma and tradition. My preference is plain text reading when ”studying the Bible. I don’t have a problem with symbology when teaching moral or ”religious lessons.”Whether physical death occurred in animals before Adam sinned is not foundational to ”Christianity.In Message 146””

quote:

---

To start with, the finished creation was described by God as "very good" (Gen ””1:31). A system that requires animals to kill other animals for survival doesn't seem very ”good....effective maybe, but not very good.

---

Deeming creation very good doesn’t ”negate death. Death can be good to keep the world in balance. I’m not even talking ”about killing, just natural attrition. Animals dying from old age.””

quote:

---

Next, Romans tells us that sin and death entered the world as a result of Adam's ”rebellion (Romans 5:12 ff., 8:20-22; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22).

---

(Romans 5:12) ”Again I’m talking about biological animal death. Not humanity. Paul was dealing with ”humanity, unless you feel that animals were subject to sin.””(Romans 8:20-22) Creation suffering because it is subject to man doesn’t show that ”animals weren’t susceptible to death before Adam sinned.””(1Corinthians 15:21-22) 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made ”alive. ”
Again Paul is dealing with humanity, not animals. Will all animals be made alive in Christ?””(1Corinthians 15:26) Death as the last enemy is not dealing with biological death.”
”As I understand it thanatos ”deals with the judgement of death, as opposed to, ””teleute ”which deals with biological death.””

quote:

---

. and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any ”more pain: for the former things are passed away" (Revelation 21:4).

---

Again thanatos. No ”more judgement of death.”As far as the vegetarian animals, eating fruit doesn’t negate natural attrition.””

quote:

---

Because of Adam, a curse of death and suffering was brought into an otherwise perfect ”world.

---

A judgement of death was brought upon mankind.”””A judgement of death was given because of sin and since all men (not animals) sin they ”suffer the judgement of death.”So really none of your verses clearly support that there was no biological animal death before the fall.”

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Given the bloody-mindedness of the god described in the Old Testament, there is no real justification to say that "god didn't really mean it" in Genesis 3.

---

Sure there is, he didn't follow through. If he followed through he would have meant it, but since he didn't, he obviously didn't mean it.His later decisions are just that, later decisions.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

God has to now break his promise to kill off Adam before the sun goes down.

---

Is every statement a promise? I see no promise in the text.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

1. I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote hit and run.2.

quote:

---

but haven't responded to my post arguing that you have made a logical error eg: False dilema

---

Sure I did in Message 158. You were talking about people and I wasn't, so it was back in your ball court to come up with the other reasons animals needed to reproduce beside continuation of the species.All you provided in Message 164 was: IOW all you said was that only God knows. So you have no other reasons other than what I stated.I don't really understand the logical fallacy thing which you should now gather from my 3 minutes.I don't understand how my reasoning was in error or why classified as a "false dilemma."I think Rrhain pretty much covered anything I would have said in Message 181 concerning Message 164.3. I don't understand the begging-the-question deal.So not much I could say.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

If you are going to find fault with my reasoning concerning the text, then keep to the text.

quote:

---

It also presents us with a single choice as to why animals reproduced when there are reasonable alternatives. It is not necessary that we know why God may have wanted the earth to be populated other than to account for death. We can, for example, suppose that God created man in the first place, not because he had to but simply because he wanted to. God wanting to do something simply because he wants to is a valid alternative even if we don't know why he might have done so.

​

If this latter point is acceptable then you would have been engaging in presenting a false dilemna - offering an example (reproduce to replace dying creatures) as if it were the only choice when in fact, it isn't.

---

Not acceptable. Per the plain text, what is the other choice? God can do what he wants, isn't part of the text.No where in the text does God imply that any change was made to the animals (aside from the serpent) after A&E ate.In Genesis 2:15-17, God is talking to Adam. Adam was forbidden to eat from the tree of KG&E and subsequently Eve, but the animals were not.If Adam eats he will surely die, not that if he eats it, he will cause God to change all of creation.Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden, not the animals.God didn't want man to eat from the tree of life, not animals. Nothing implies that the animals changed, were banned from the garden, couldn't eat from the special trees or if they even had access to the garden or the trees to begin with.God provided food for the animals and providing food implies the potential for starvation.God put Adam in the Garden, nothing is mentioned of the animals. Even when the serpent is talking, it doesn't say he is in the Garden.IOW, the Garden incident didn't change the animals (except the snake), only man. Whatever they were before, they were after.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz