Topic: Was there DEATH before A & E? (Read 1588 times)

Zagzagel · « **on:** March 10, 2009, 05:31:00 PM »

This question has been buggin me for years now.

The YEC say that there is no death before E & A ate from the forbidden tree... all was perfect.. no death.. etc.

A friend (who is a YEC.. and I haven't put myself in any box right now concerning this) have been discussing this question.

His answer is that everything was perfect.. God created everything perfect.. thus no death existed before A & E ate from the forbidden fruit (which is another topic I want to get into one day).

My question which he can't answer is why God made spiders to spin it's web? To catch it's prey is the logical answer. I don't think the answer is that Spiders adapted this after the fall is logical at all. Thus the answer is that "death" did occur before E & A ate from the forbidden tree.

This also makes sense of Pauls words which state that Adam was created earthly.

Any thoughts?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #1 on:** March 11, 2009, 08:47:20 AM »

Re-read Gen. 1-11 so we are both on the same page.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #2 on:** March 13, 2009, 04:16:06 PM »

What did you want me to notice? Re-reading it just confirms my accepted view to me.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #3 on:** March 13, 2009, 09:17:57 PM »

k, well, you should have spotted at least two places where the order of creation was adjusted. Eve's punishment involved pain in childbearing which apparently would not have been there otherwise. Then, after the flood, man was permitted to eat animals. Presumably they were vegetarians before this. Also at this time the fear of man came into the animals.

None of this addresses situations where the extinction of one 'thing' is the lifeblood of another (a spider eating a fly, for example) but it does show that the text reflects a number of shifts in the nature of things. It isn't just that natural selection would have been at work after that but that there were some definite changes in what was created, too.

Personally, I have no problem with some degree of 'death' but of course it depends on the definition. I mean, technically our bodies have numerous defense mechanisms. For example white blood cells attack naughty bacteria. I guess you could say that the bacteria died, and the white blood cells to in the attack. I do not for this reason think that 'death' existed prior to the fall nor do I think that there was no need for white blood cells prior to the fall.

Similarly, I believe that the pain receptors in our bodies worked prior to the fall, too.

I don't feel like we have enough information to determine conclusively what degree of 'death' existed... I think spiders still ate flies and birds ate mosquitos and I don't consider that a blow to my YECism. What about higher up the food chain? I get more finnicky as I go up the food chain, since passages like Genesis 9 indicate that the 'food chain' was re-ordered prior to the flood. I don't know all the details, I just know that it was.

In this context, then, I stand by the view that there was no human death before the fall, and that if there was other kinds of 'death' it was a matter of degree and definition. Ie, I am comfortable with the idea that there was some kind of 'food chain' but am persuaded that this did not involve 'death' as defined as that which was brought about because of the fall.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #4 on:** March 18, 2009, 05:22:53 PM »

k, well, you should have spotted at least two places where the order of creation was adjusted. Eve's punishment involved pain in childbearing which apparently would not have been there otherwise. Then, after the flood, man was permitted to eat animals. Presumably they were vegetarians before this. Also at this time the fear of man came into the animals.

Those things didn't interest me too much but I will re-read that again and see IF there is actually something to it.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #5 on:** April 13, 2009, 11:04:35 PM »

k, well, you should have spotted at least two places where the order of creation was adjusted. Eve's punishment involved pain in childbearing which apparently would not have been there otherwise.

Should not have been? I disagree. The text says increase so this means there is a natural pain already.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #6 on:** April 14, 2009, 08:48:21 AM »

Quote

The text says increase so this means there is a natural pain already.

Even granting this you concede it was at least increased. In other words, no matter how you slice it there was a distinct change in things that apparently was not the result of physiological developments but spiritual ones.

As for there being natural pain in general I don't see what the problem is. I don't know of anyone who supposes that prior to the fall we didn't have nerves and pain receptors, etc. If a sinless Adam hit his finger with the hammer I think it would have still hurt quite a bit.

As for pain in childbirth, my understanding and observations of animals giving birth versus women giving birth is that the experience is completely different. My wife clearly found childbirth to be painful. When I've seen dogs giving birth they don't make a peep. Same with horses. It doesn't look like they are perfectly comfortable but neither does it seem anywhere near the same kind of ordeal.

I've always wondered about this issue. I doubt evolutionists have ever noticed the apparent divergence between the human experience of birth from animal birth. What would they say if it ever crossed their mind? I don't know.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #7 on:** April 16, 2009, 04:04:56 PM »

Even granting this you concede it was at least increased. In other words, no matter how you slice it there was a distinct change in things that apparently was not the result of physiological developments but spiritual ones.

You grant what I concede. Thus you must concede a point that is very interesting to me.

Yes there was a "distinct change". We have come to that ground of agreement. That is good. I knew that logic would lead us to that ground.

What I don't know is your meaning of "spiritual ones".

As a person brought up in the Pentecostal ways I think I know what you mean.. but I would like you to expound on this my friend.

As a former Pentecostal I was taught to be "spiritual" in every manner. But I'm afraid my teachers were never consistant.

jfoxton · « **Reply #8 on:** April 17, 2009, 01:21:38 PM »

Maybe I'm just naive, but, since the lion (quite a set of choppers there) will lie down with the lamb, why is it so hard to accept that there was no death, disease, genetic error etc., etc. before the fall. I could care less if I ever eat meat again if I could easily acquire all of my nutritional needs from other sources. The fall was a both and and experience, spiritual and physical - just like the redemption of our soul was (II Cor. 5:17) and our body will be (I Cor. 15). If Eve would have experienced discomfort but not necessarily pain (greatly multiply) in child birth before the fall, that is what the Word says - God so designed it. I think the animal kingdom by in large experiences this. How many stories have we heard about watching the kittens or puppies being born - no traumatic experience there. Having watched my wife give birth to my son and daughter (frank breech birth) - whoa, that's profoundly moving but powerfully painful! What would you do with the Word, by one man came death and another eternal life (forgive my paraphase), all of creation groans etc., etc. - sounds very straight forward to me.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #9 on:** April 17, 2009, 04:54:03 PM »

Thinking about your words. Comparing it to the Scriptures.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #10 on:** April 17, 2009, 04:56:40 PM »

Welcome Jfoxton to this thread. Appreciate your words here. I will think about what you want me to understand.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #11 on:** April 18, 2009, 12:41:42 PM »

Welcome, jfox.

Zag- by spiritual I'm sure I probably don't mean the same thing a pentecostal might.

In my view, spirit is more real than physical, and I think the odds are very good that just as there are physical laws of nature there are spiritual ones. Consequences of spiritual actions will have ramifications in the physical sphere. Ie, even an 'abstract' sin has a concrete effect, though we cannot always directly discern it. Think of the scene in the Lion the WItch and the Wardrobe where Aslan refers to the 'deep magic' and the white witch points out that she must have Edmund or else the whole universe would collapse. It would seem an odd thing that merely not letting the witch have hold of her prisoner could result in the destruction of the whole natural order, but this, I feel, is because of our general tendency- even by Christians- to act as though what we see is all that is real.

jfox- good thoughts and contribution. I especially noted your mention of the creation groaning. The passage that that is from is one of the inspiration passages for my book series, Birth Pangs. (http://www.birthpangs.com)

The text:

Zagzagel · « **Reply #12 on:** April 18, 2009, 06:21:13 PM »

Zag- by spiritual I'm sure I probably don't mean the same thing a pentecostal might. In my view, spirit is more real than physical,

Sntj... hmmm... you seem way off base to me at this point. I understand what you are trying to do but it just doesn't work for me.

Here is the thing.. even if what you are trying to do doesn't work for me the good news is still I will agree with God who created us all with purpose and with reason. :)

Zagzagel · « **Reply #13 on:** April 18, 2009, 06:25:57 PM »

The fall was a both and and experience, spiritual and physical

I've been thinking about this. I want to know how you come to this conclusion? I have the same view but you express this different than me.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #14 on:** April 18, 2009, 06:30:10 PM »

jfox- good thoughts and contribution. I especially noted your mention of the creation groaning. The passage that that is from is one of the inspiration passages for my book series, Birth Pangs. (http://www.birthpangs.com)

The text:

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #15 on:** April 18, 2009, 06:50:19 PM »

I am way off base believing that the spiritual is more real than the physical?

regarding the text- I wasn't citing it for you.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #16 on:** April 18, 2009, 07:12:48 PM »

I am way off base believing that the spiritual is more real than the physical?

regarding the text- I wasn't citing it for you.

Fair enough. I will go into deep think now. heh

This deep thinking takes alot of energy from me for some reason. sucks.

jfoxton · « **Reply #17 on:** April 19, 2009, 07:28:03 PM »

Real! I am going all over the place with that word in my mind. Gods home address - reality! Did you mean what is true? What is literal? The spiritual world is real and so is the physical world. Both and and. I absolutely believe that everything that the Word describes as real/literal (as well as figurative/symbolic verses) is true, spiritual and physical, like the creatures around the throne, are exactly as they are described (I have serious issues with anthropomorphic thinking). I actually believe we were made in God's image (probably never fully plumb that) - He does actually sit on a throne, Ezekiel 1, (in the spiritual realm) that is guarded by actual Cherubim/Seraphim's etc. etc. I Cor. 15:44 We are body, soul and spirit both and and. When we are born again, the Holy Spirit also enters into my soul & spirit currently contained in my body. Demons can possess a single person in legion (gospels). The world is not "either or" but both and and. If we affirm anything else we would have to ignore or dismiss large sections of the Word. We, as Christians, are commanded to build our spiritual man (fruit of the Spirit +) so we can be effective in advancing the Kingdom II Peter 1:5-10. Lots of examples in the epistles of those who got sidetracked or even some who shipwrecked their faith. Faith, hope and love - and everything and anything else the Word testifies to is real and true. The degree to which we experience it is based on our faith. Faith to faith, the journey is real, the rewards are real, Jesus is the beginning and then end of real. I kinda wandered around - hope it blesses you somehow.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #18 on:** April 19, 2009, 07:53:53 PM »

Don't worry, I'm not a gnostic.

God is spirit. At the very least, at that level, it must be conceded that yes, the spiritual is 'more' real than the physical, right?

I think 1 Cor 15:35ff has all sorts of good starts to understanding this. For example, "The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body."

I think this is pretty clear evidence that the spiritual realm is more... something... than the 'natural' realm, wouldn't you agree? I think 'real' is a useful and appropriate term.

Another place to look for elaboration on the point is the book of Hebrews. For example, where we are told that the 'Law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming- not the realities themselves.' (heb 10:1)

Shadows are real, of course, but they don't have the 'level of detail' as the object which is casting the shadow. A tree is more real than its shadow. The shadow is real, the tree is real, but the tree is more real.

This has nothing to do with 'literal' versus 'figurative.' A literal tree will have a literal shadow.

Your citation of 1 Cor 15:44 misses the point whereas my citation of it makes it. There is nothing that I said that should be construed as rejecting a 'both/and' perspective. I didn't say that the physical is unreal. I said that it was less real. At the very least, 1 Cor 15:44, which we have now both cited, proves definitively that what we are now is 'not able to inherit the imperishable.' What is coming is more than what we are now.

The above I think is unassailable. The additional contention is that already, in this 'natural' world, the spiritual is still 'more real' than the natural. Which again, is not to say that the natural is unreal. It seems like you miscontrued my statements as indicating that I was saying the physical isn't real at all. That's just not correct.

jfoxton · « **Reply #19 on:** April 19, 2009, 08:15:44 PM »

We completely agree. I was actually, I thought, responding to Zagzagel thoughts. I'm still not getting the hang of this yet. Maybe I understand better why the last couple of lines of the post you are referring to is wise and necessary. I had actually put the exact Heb. scriptures you were referring to in the post but thought I was getting to wordy. I did it several times - Cor. 15 and others. I have trouble ending a particular thought when it comes to scripture - its so comprehensive, so intertwined. Nice job on tying it up so concisely and rightly. Forgive my stubbling.

Author Topic: Was there DEATH before A & E? (Read 1588 times)