Carnivorous animals before the fall...

[Kurieuo]

In the interest of expediency, I think it would be best for you to focus on the actual questions that are given back to you.. Just a suggestion though; of course respond to whatever you will.

Expediency isn't always the best when working with Scripture and truths, especially when trying to convey correct doctrine issues that have been made overly complicated.

I'd encourage reading slowly through what I say to understand, and even read various translations for yourself, and/or look up words in e-Sword, to test whether what I write is true and accurate.

Please; just because I choose not to respond to every point does not mean I haven't read and comprehended it - have I taken anything you've said out of context yet? And besides, I'll ask for clarification if it's necessary.

I only intended that you follow my exposition of the Psalm 104 passage carefully, for paying it careful attention clearly reveals God gives the lion prey, that is, other animals it hunts, kills, and eats.

I've actually tackled this in two ways, which I'll highlight more clearly. The first way, was through my offering the position that our world was never really without sin. You respond to this further by reasoning Satan's sin is somehow irrelevant to it impacting creation, but I don't buy into your position as Scripture notes Satan has power in, and is even ruler of, our world (Luke 4:5; John 14:20).

I explained this by the fact that our sin is what allowed Satan to be ordained as ruler of the world. Prior to sin Satan had no hold on us, as we walked with God.

So how does your explanation not make Satan's sin irrelevant to its impacting upon creation like I said? Be careful with how you read what I say. I never took away from your explanation, I just don't buy it. And if you read past what you quoted of me here, you'll see I still present a way for the world to have once been sinless even though I don't buy into your explanation. So instead of focusing on this issue, I focused the main thrust of my response in my exposition of Psalm 104:20-22, and what I presented after my remarks on Satan here.

The main inference you draw which I'd disagree with, is that there is peace and harmony amongst animals in the future kingdom because it is a place without sin. The Isaiah prophecy does not explain what "a world without sin" would be like. The Isaiah prophecy explains what the future kingdom will be like. I'm sure you can see there is a big difference between these two!

I view the future kingdom as being fundamentally defined by the absence of sin - a return to our full relationship with God.

And I don't disagree.

I see everything flowing from that - and although I agree with your statement of my inferences, I disagree with your rejection of its validity.

So then, answer the question I posed previously: "as you read the Isaiah prophecy literally back into the original creation, why not also read the new kingdom containing no death back into the original creation?" Afterall, if everything of the new kingdom flows from it containing no sin, then as there was no sin pre-fall it is only consistent to adopt the view that there was no death pre-fall. Yet, you've clearly realised death did exist pre-fall in saying, "Now clearly there was animal death pre-fall (verse 29)." Therefore, perhaps not everything of the new kingdom flows as a consequence of it containing no sin? Including death and the absense of carnivorous activity...

Now in Revelation 21:4 we read that there "will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." Note that the difference between the old and new is one of "order" not one of "sin"!

Again, why don't you see the absence of sin as being the defining characteristic of the future kingdom? Let's get into that...

Again huh? In any case, this question appears irrelevant to the discussion at hand. No sin is a defining characteristic of the new kingdom, but the reason why the new kingdom is created having peace and being without pain, death, and sin, is because Christ forms it, rules it and it is final. Does Christ rule the new kingdom because it contains no sin, or is the absense of sin a consequence of Christ's rule? You're assuming the consequence (the absense of sin in the new kingdom) is the cause for the way the kingdom will be (specifically without carnivorous predatory activity). You've confused cause and effect.

To follow a tact of your own, why don't you see the defining characteristics of the new kingdom as being one of finality in God's plan, and under Christ's headship?

I personally still see a good creation around me, despite seeing how the future kingdom will be much better, but then the difference between the two is one of order in God's plan.

Well I'd like to point out that you see the creation through rose-colored glasses. In part because you're blessed to live freely and richly (as we all are on this board) and probably more importantly because you walk with the Lord. He is our sheppard after all. But ask someone in the Dafur region how good this creation is...

I don't appreciate you acting as though I live in an different world. You know nothing about me, so I think it best you remain quiet on how you think I see things, as though you know my life. Now, I never said creation was "perfect" which where your argument here would be potent. But given all of God's creation and everything that exists in the world including sin, I believe that on the whole, creation would balance out to be good. If one thinks otherwise, especially a Christian, then they are left in the sticky situation of having to answer the probabilistic argument of why an all-good God would "allow" evil to persist in our world to the extent it does. The fall does not effectively deal with this argument, as if God is all-good and all-powerful, then He could still restrain the extent of evil.

Yet, the discussion at hand is becoming derailed a little. We are talking here about animals still being a good creation. Now inspite of any Scriptural support for such a view, you apply the consequences of our sin onto animals to basically say our sin turned them into hunters which kill and eat each other! In this way you believe a good creation became bad, not in the moral sense, but in the sense that it became corrupted. Yet, I've got further Scripture besides Psalm 104, which does not support the belief that animals weren't created to be eaten:

• 1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
  2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
  3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
  4For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving.

Here we see God created creatures to be received as food with thanksgiving! God created us as omnivores to eat both plants and animals, which He created to be received as food with thanksgiving. Additionally, every one of God's creatures is good. There appears to be no exceptions here such as those animals which you'd believe may have been corrupted by sin.

With God no longer looking after them, Adam and Eve would have fell under the natural order of things including death. It is in this way, physical death came to mankind as written in Scripture (1 Corinthians 15:21-22; Romans 5:12), but Scripture never mentions God's relationship to animals being similar to that of humanities.

Hey at least we agree on something - the manner in which physical death came to mankind. Seems to me that you just don't agree with my point that because we were given authority over the Earth and animals in it, our relationship (or lack theroef) with God extends consequences onto them? Why not? Because it simpy seems unjust as you mentioned? I don't really see the injustice; animals still don't fall under the judgement of God.

I've been advocating that death came to mankind from the beginning of our discussions, so it shouldn't be a surprise we agree here. Now Scripture is only clear that death came to mankind, therefore it is reading into things to say death came to all creatures at the fall. Yet, you've already agreed that Scripture reveals death occured before the fall, so why ask such questions?

And I belive "simply" because it "seems" unjust? No. It is unjust! How isn't it? Yet, that is not only what I base my belief on. If you re-read words I've written previously and follow the reasoning closely (as I don't just write for the sake of writing, but despite my large posts I am usually careful right down to a word), you'll see why I believe Adam and Eve would not have died. My reasoning isn't so much to do with sin, as it is their relationship with God becoming severed. Their sin severed their relationship with God, which severed His special providence for them. As previously explained: "before the fall, I do believe God had been sustaining Adam and Eve's lives, but once their close relationship became severed through sin, God's sustaining was also severed. Thus, sin separated us from God and a close personal relationship with Him, and separation from God meant Adam and Eve were no longer sustained physically. This sin indirectly caused physical death, but the death sin causes is spiritual death, and spiritual death severs our relationship with God (hence we must be born again—spiritually)." God never had the same relationship with animals, as He did with mankind who was special. Therefore God was never sustaining animals in the same way He sustained Adam and Eve.

Kurieuo.

[Strix]

Kurieuo,

First of all, you start with a supposition: That Adam spoke Hebrew. What did he name what we now call the eagle? We don't know. The text does not reveal that to us.

Secondly, I believe that lions still eat grass as a part of their diet, which aids in digestion, as well as many other predatory animals.

The Scripture is clear: '"...and to every beast of gthe earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.' Gen. 1:30

Proverbs 2:6

[Felgar]

Heh... Looks like you did manage to find some old discussions with Kurieuo. I'll leave it to him to respond when he has a chance.

[Strix]

Kurieuo,

I responded to the questions you originally posed in your first post, and now I would like to respond to where this post has gone. Your responses are very long and cover many topics, however, I believe I have been able to accurately follow your line of reasoning through to this point...

An observation on your Scripture references:

Psalm 104 - I understand that the Holy Spirit wrote the Scripture, but through whom did he write this Psalm? Who's perspective is this from? Some anti-Diluvian soul or someone well entrenched in the world as we now know it?

More importantly, this Scripture reference (:20-22), does not bear weight on your argument that God created predators in the garden. Verse 21 is simply a statement of fact from David's day. If you continue with your line of thought, an Edenic application would have to apply to Verse 23 as well.

1 Tim. 4:1ff - If you look back at Mark 7:14, Jesus declared all foods clean. Why did He have to do that? Well, the Law forbade the eating of certain animals. Why were certain animals prohibited, when 1 Tim. 4:4 clearly states that every creature is good? I think we quickly spiral into circular reasoning if we do not pay attention to the crux of these verses.

I believe that God made certain provisions for the post-Adamic garden. Look back at Psalm 104: 14 "Who causes the grass to grow for the beasts, and vegetation for the labor of man, so that he may bring forth bread from the earth". The latter part of this verse certainly does not apply to an Edenic state. If we take 21,22 as applicable to the garden, then certainly we should infer from this verse that Adam was tilling the ground before the fall as well. A more mundane example of this that bears weight on us today is that I believe fossil fuels were created, but not for those in the garden. The most important example, however, is found in 1 Peter 1:20. I do not believe we were meant to spend eternity in Eden...

Proverbs 2:6

[cslewislover]

I have gone over this thread now and have quite a few comments and concerns. It started out with an assumption that YECers think that: creation was perfect; there was no death before the fall and therefore death is bad; carnivores either didn't exist in their present form or else they ate animals that had already died; that humans and animals were given plants to eat only; and that how things were before the fall is representative of how things will be when Jesus reigns (either in the millennial kingdom or on the new earth).

I don't know all that much about the debates between YEC and OEC, but I lean to OEC and don't see that there is much of a problem with what is said that YECers believe or adhere to — and this thread does not seem to represent many of them, anyway. To address the first issue, that of the creation being perfect, I think everyone here agrees that it was not perfect. Any bible commentary I've read always uses the words from the bible, good and very good. Another thing that didn't come up (and maybe it doesn't matter to a lot of people), that I recall, is how long Adam and Eve were around before the fall. It would seem to me that it was a short time, unless you take the account as myth. I say that because they had no children yet. The fall could've taken place a day after Eve was formed or nine months, but it would seem like not much more.

Two possible evidences were presented to support the view that carnivores before the fall behaved as we know them today. These were: their names and what is written in Psalm 104. The reasons already given for the names not having any real relevance are fine and don't need elaboration. Someone else suggested as well that the tower of Babel incident would alter names (thanks FL). Psalm 104 seems like a very straightforward praise hymn. With its description of nature as the author saw it, and of people working within creation, it seems a very contemporary piece of work. I don't see how it can be convincingly viewed as some sort of post-event prophecy (I don't know if there's a good word for that).

I want to address the issues, but I won't be doing it all in one post (!). The greatest concerns for me are God's character, God's plan for the future, and how we are to view those things. One problem for me isn't death itself, but how living beings interact with other living beings. I do think the prophecies in Isaiah and elsewhere are not just symbolic. If God wanted to convey that there would be peace amongst humans only, He could have conveyed that. I also think that most people (not someone like Teddy Roosevelt, say) long in their hearts for what Isaiah wrote, and that longing is from God.

[B. W.]

I have gone over this thread now and have quite a few comments and concerns. It started out with an assumption that YECers think that: creation was perfect; there was no death before the fall and therefore death is bad; carnivores either didn't exist in their present form or else they ate animals that had already died; that humans and animals were given plants to eat only; and that how things were before the fall is representative of how things will be when Jesus reigns (either in the millennial kingdom or on the new earth).

I don't know all that much about the debates between YEC and OEC, but I lean to OEC and don't see that there is much of a problem with what is said that YECers believe or adhere to — and this thread does not seem to represent many of them, anyway. To address the first issue, that of the creation being perfect, I think everyone here agrees that it was not perfect. Any bible commentary I've read always uses the words from the bible, good and very good. Another thing that didn't come up (and maybe it doesn't matter to a lot of people), that I recall, is how long Adam and Eve were around before the fall. It would seem to me that it was a short time, unless you take the account as myth. I say that because they had no children yet. The fall could've taken place a day after Eve was formed or nine months, but it would seem like not much more.

Two possible evidences were presented to support the view that carnivores before the fall behaved as we know them today. These were: their names and what is written in Psalm 104. The reasons already given for the names not having any real relevance are fine and don't need elaboration. Someone else suggested as well that the tower of Babel incident would alter names (thanks FL). Psalm 104 seems like a very straightforward praise hymn. With its description of nature as the author saw it, and of people working within creation, it seems a very contemporary piece of work. I don't see how it can be convincingly viewed as some sort of post-event prophecy (I don't know if there's a good word for that).

I want to address the issues, but I won't be doing it all in one post (!). The greatest concerns for me are God's character, God's plan for the future, and how we are to view those things. One problem for me isn't death itself, but how living beings interact with other living beings. I do think the prophecies in Isaiah and elsewhere are not just symbolic. If God wanted to convey that there would be peace amongst humans only, He could have conveyed that. I also think that most people (not someone like Teddy Roosevelt, say) long in their hearts for what Isaiah wrote, and that longing is from God.

Genesis 1:31, "And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day." JPS

The two words — Very Good or Good-Very are the words in questions. The Hebrew words translated as 'very good' both have a very rich meaning. For example:

Very — meaning: extremely, exceedingly, an abundance a word used to denote force of extremely, exceedingly, and great abundance.

Good - meaning: good, pleasant, agreeable, excellent quality, valuable, set to become or becoming, and can even mean abundance of bounty…

The context of the verse describes all God made (verse 1-30), therefore, it appears that everything God made was extremely, exceedingly rich, bountiful, abundance laden, all set to become, good, pleasant, agreeable, and of excellent quality.

In other words, God set the stage for things to become — good, pleasant, agreeable, excellent quality. I say this, in the light of hindsight that the bible offers from such scriptures as these scriptures which encapsulates this theme very well:

Isaiah 65:17 "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind…” ESV

Isaiah 66:22, "For as the new heavens and the new earth that I make shall remain before me, says the LORD, so shall your offspring and your name remain.” ESV

2 Peter 3:13, “But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.” ESV

Revelations 21:1, “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.” ESV

I point this out also because of who God is, in that God obviously foreseen the rebellion in Heaven and Humanities fall and God had had a plan before the foundations of the world…

Ephesians 1:4-5, “…even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will…”ESV

Romans 8:19-22, “For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now...” ESV

Look at Romans 8:20, “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope…”

There was only abundance and bounty on the sixth day, in this all was perfect in the sense being good to become. Think of it like that and you'll discover a new aspect of the wisdom of God being displayed in the scriptures regarding what he was doing.

Does not the bible tell us that Christ was slain before the foundation of the world as well as the Lord chose us in to be in him before the foundation of the world?

Back to Romans 8:20, “…but because of him who subjected it, in hope (hope means - expectation)…”

From this, I hope the readers can see that the theme from Genesis 1:31 is not that everything was already arrived at a state of perfection but rather it was set to become and therefore perfect in that regard! Ponder it a bit more…

Romans 8:20, “…but because of him who subjected it, in (expectation)…”

God was expecting something to become even better than it originally was...
-
-
-

[Kurieuo]

I have gone over this thread now and have quite a few comments and concerns. It started out with an assumption that YECers think that: creation was perfect; there was no death before the fall and therefore death is bad; carnivores either didn't exist in their present form or else they ate animals that had already died; that humans and animals were given plants to eat only; and that how things were before the fall is representative of how things will be when Jesus reigns (either in the millennial kingdom or on the new earth).

I don't know all that much about the debates between YEC and OEC, but I lean to OEC and don't see that there is much of a problem with what is said that YECers believe or adhere to — and this thread does not seem to represent many of them, anyway.

What form of OEC do you believe in? Do you still take the view that the days in Genesis 1 represent solar earth days? In which case, Adam and Eve were born six earth days after God's initial creation. If this is the case then the fossils we see of life early on being wiped out long before mankind existed must be explained away by Creation (Young-Earth) science, no?

Secondly, as someone who has in the past communicated and debated a great deal with YECs, I know what I assume of their beliefs are in fact commonly held beliefs. Felgar is a different case. This particular thread I pointed you to, I see towards the end may come across quite rough around the edges. Felgar and I really do respect each other. His moderator status is a symbol of the respect we have for Felgar who believed otherwise regarding creation.

To address the first issue, that of the creation being perfect, I think everyone here agrees that it was not perfect. Any bible commentary I've read always uses the words from the bible, good and very good.

Such a concept is rooted in that of Augustine who, as I made mention of earlier in this thread, attempted to explain why evil exists in the world. His reasoning was essentially that "evil" is the absence of good. Evil has no positive existence in and of itself. What God created was entirely good (perfect), however when Adam and Eve sinned, such perfection was lost. Many who disagree with such thinking point out, as I did, that obviously God's creation was not perfect if it could fail.

Since I have been politely charged with using a strawman assumption, I recommend just conducting a quick look around some Young-Earth Creationist websites. I can tell you now that many YECs do in fact equate "good" and "very good" with a perfect creation. For example, take the following quotes:

Adam and Eve did not have accumulated genetic mistakes. When the first two people were created, they were physically perfect. Everything God made was “very good” (Genesis 1:31), so their genes were perfect—no mistakes! But, when sin entered the world (because of Adam—Genesis 3:6, Romans 5:12), God cursed the world so that the perfect creation then began to degenerate, that is, suffer death and decay (Romans 8:22). Over thousands of years, this degeneration has produced all sorts of genetic mistakes in living things. (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c004.html)

The original creation was very good. According to Deuteronomy 32:4, “his work is perfect.” Obviously, things are not like this any longer.
...
God placed Adam and Eve in a perfect paradise...
...
Genesis 3 also reveals that the ground was cursed including thorns and thistles. Animals were cursed and serpent more than the rest. The world was no longer perfect but sin-cursed. Suffering and death then abounded in creation.

(http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 ... fering.asp)

Two possible evidences were presented to support the view that carnivores before the fall behaved as we know them today. These were: their names

Really just a topic starter I used, however Rich makes a more forceful Scriptural argument at http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/carnivores.html.

Psalm 104 seems like a very straightforward praise hymn.

Analyse the structure of Psalm 104 with the creation account in Genesis 1. Two pages in particular I would really recommend reading over include: http://www.answersincreation.org/psalm104.htm and http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/psalm104.html.

At the end of the day, I am not too concerned to persuade Christians like yourself to change their minds. All I'd hope for is more clear and consistent thinking, and honest thinking, to the glory of God. It is dealing with hard questions like how could God create a world where pain and suffering and death exists (what Augustine and YECs after him attempt to explain in their theology) that can really help others retain some hope in a God who does care. Reasoning offered through such explanations is to me admirable and something to be respected.

I want to address the issues, but I won't be doing it all in one post (!). The greatest concerns for me are God's character, God's plan for the future, and how we are to view those things. One problem for me isn't death itself, but how living beings interact with other living beings. I do think the prophecies in Isaiah and elsewhere are not just symbolic. If God wanted to convey that there would be peace amongst humans only, He could have conveyed that. I also think that most people (not someone like Teddy Roosevelt, say) long in their hearts for what Isaiah wrote, and that longing is from God.

God's character for me is retained as one who is loving over all creation. I am unclear to what extent you are applying the prophecies in Isaiah, however I can agree with your final sentence. Perfection, however, is for God's kingdom. A world where we are promised: “[God] will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” (Revelation 21:4)

Question: If God's purpose in creating this world was not to construct a hedonistic paradise whose inhabitants would experience a maximum of pleasure and minimum of pain, would this impinge God's all-good and benevolent character?

C.S. Lewis, whom you obviously love , did not think so. On the death of his wife he discovered life can be very painful and reflecting upon the concepts of a good God allowing pain and suffering mused:

The terrible thing is that a perfectly good God is… hardly less formidable than a Cosmic Sadist. The more we believe that God hurts only to heal, the less we can believe that there is any use in begging for tenderness. A cruel man might be bribed—might grow tired of his vile sport—might have temporary fit of mercy, as alcoholics have fits of sobriety. But suppose that what you are up against is a surgeon whose intentions are wholly good. The kinder and more conscientious he is, the more inexorably he will go on cutting. If he yielded to your entreaties, if he stopped before the operation was complete, all the pain up to that point would have been useless.

What do people mean when they say, “I am not afraid of God because I know He is good”? Have they never even been to a dentist?

Lewis understood that spiritual growth and maturing appears to be possible because of pain and suffering. In James 1:2-4 we are told perseverance through trials matures us and makes us complete. Additionally, 1 Peter 1:6-7 acknowledges some as suffering all sorts of grief, because they are being refined as though by fire, to prove their faith is pure and genuine towards God.

I do not understand how death existing pre-fall negatively encroaches upon God's character, however I can understand how it does if one has a wrong understanding of the reasons God created this world. Did God create this world to be perfect and complete, or did God create it to be temporary and transforming? What was God's original intents and purposes for His creation? Such questions, where the answers are often just assumed by many, I see are key when discussing God's character in the face of death, pain and suffering in the world.

[cslewislover]

Hi Kurieou. You're reading too much into some things. I don't have problems with pain and suffering or Lewis' thought (which there's a lot of - doesn't seem like you've read my other posts). And "Christians like me"??? Hey, keep it . It's Christians like me that love you.

I'm not prepared to respond yet because I've been reading BW's book, which I just finished yesterday. But I will post soon.

[Kurieuo]

Honestly, I did not mean anything by my words on a personal level at all. I was just saying. However, I can see that whole paragraph is going to be taken wrong now. So for clarity let me add commentry (in square brackets):

At the end of the day, I am not too concerned to persuade Christians like yourself [those who disagree with me regarding death pre-fall] to change their minds. All I'd hope for is more clear and consistent thinking, and honest thinking, to the glory of God. [that is, for all of us - we should all continually aim for this myself included] It is dealing with hard questions like how could God create a world where pain and suffering and death exists (what Augustine and YECs after him attempt to explain in their theology) that can really help others retain some hope in a God who does care. Reasoning offered through such explanations [including Augustine's and YEC's] is to me admirable and something to be respected.

Hopefully other parts of my post will not be understood wrong, but that you were offended when I was by no means intending to belittle or be arrogant just shows my words used are far from clear and perfect.

K

[cslewislover]

Lol, I still think it's funny that you used Lewis with me like that. You should read my blog - I have a review of that book (I don't have the book memorized and you didn't cite it, but it's A Grief Observed, right, since you brought up his wife?). I have no problem with that stuff.

Sorry, I came on here thinking I'd write more, but now I think I'm too tired. For now I want to say "thanks," and are great. The more the better, lol. Much nicer than "knowing" or sarcastic winks (lol).

Have you read Perelandra? Despite Lewis' stated beliefs in certain things (like Genesis being a type of myth, and evolution being OK to think about), Perelandra is very much a fictional theology (I guess you could say) of Genesis 3. He obviously believed what Genesis 3 said.

[cslewislover]

What form of OEC do you believe in? Do you still take the view that the days in Genesis 1 represent solar earth days? In which case, Adam and Eve were born six earth days after God's initial creation. If this is the case then the fossils we see of life early on being wiped out long before mankind existed must be explained away by Creation (Young-Earth) science, no?

I feel that I'm limited in knowing. I mean, how can I go through all of the details of what we know now (which is, of course, limited anyway), what may have been in the past (most of which no one can know), and what God did and intended (the knowledge of which is extremely limited). What I see of the natural world makes it look very old, and the scientific information would make it very old, so I go along with that. I just view it as something of a mystery, that's all, which I think most people do. I'm not trying to reconcile science with original creation; I'm trying to know how I should think of God and our future in general, and more specifically in relation to scientific knowledge.

Secondly, as someone who has in the past communicated and debated a great deal with YECs, I know what I assume of their beliefs are in fact commonly held beliefs. Felgar is a different case. This particular thread I pointed you to, I see towards the end may come across quite rough around the edges. Felgar and I really do respect each other. His moderator status is a symbol of the respect we have for Felgar who believed otherwise regarding creation.

That's partly what flavored my first response to you, I guess.

To address the first issue, that of the creation being perfect, I think everyone here agrees that it was not perfect. Any bible commentary I've read always uses the words from the bible, good and very good.

Such a concept is rooted in that of Augustine who, as I made mention of earlier in this thread, attempted to explain why evil exists in the world. His reasoning was essentially that "evil" is the absence of good. Evil has no positive existence in and of itself. What God created was entirely good (perfect), however when Adam and Eve sinned, such perfection was lost. Many who disagree with such thinking point out, as I did, that obviously God's creation was not perfect if it could fail.

I've seen you use the argument many times. I do not want to go by Augustine, I just want to look at what the bible says and various modern commentaries/theological works, many of which do not seem to follow Augustinian thought.

Since I have been politely charged with using a strawman assumption, I recommend just conducting a quick look around some Young-Earth Creationist websites. I can tell you now that many YECs do in fact equate "good" and "very good" with a perfect creation. For example, take the following quotes:

Adam and Eve did not have accumulated genetic mistakes. When the first two people were created, they were physically perfect. Everything God made was “very good” (Genesis 1:31), so their genes were perfect—no mistakes! But, when sin entered the world (because of Adam—Genesis 3:6, Romans 5:12), God cursed the world so that the perfect creation then began to degenerate, that is, suffer death and decay (Romans 8:22). Over thousands of years, this degeneration has produced all sorts of genetic mistakes in living things. (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c004.html)

The original creation was very good. According to Deuteronomy 32:4, “his work is perfect.” Obviously, things are not like this any longer.
...
God placed Adam and Eve in a perfect paradise...
...
Genesis 3 also reveals that the ground was cursed including thorns and thistles. Animals were cursed and serpent more than the rest. The world was no longer perfect but sin-cursed. Suffering and death then abounded in creation.

(http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 ... fering.asp)

OK. But there is reason to believe that we are degraded from our original condition, whether you want to call it perfect or very good. Since the bible says "very good," that's what I'm going to go by. It isn't just YEC people that believe this, so I'm not quite sure what you think. I'd like to go over this more later.

Two possible evidences were presented to support the view that carnivores before the fall behaved as we know them today. These were: their names

Really just a topic starter I used, however Rich makes a more forceful Scriptural argument at http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/carnivores.html.

Psalm 104 seems like a very straightforward praise hymn.

Analyse the structure of Psalm 104 with the creation account in Genesis 1. Two pages in particular I would really recommend reading over include: http://www.answersincreation.org/psalm104.htm and http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/psalm104.html.

I'll check them out more. But, I do plan on presenting some other things.

At the end of the day, I am not too concerned to persuade Christians like yourself to change their minds. All I'd hope for is more clear and consistent thinking, and honest thinking, to the glory of God.
It is dealing with hard questions like how could God create a world where pain and suffering and death exists (what Augustine and YECs after him attempt to explain in their theology) that can really help others retain some hope in a God who does care. Reasoning offered through such explanations is to me admirable and something to be respected.

I honestly don't get why we differ here, and it does make it seem like you are not getting my points. But that's understandable right now, since I haven't posted more details yet. So, OK. (Except for "Christians like yourself" - grrrr . . . without really knowing - grrr . . . .)

I do not understand how death existing pre-fall negatively encroaches upon God's character, however I can understand how it does if one has a wrong understanding of the reasons God created this world. Did God create this world to be perfect and complete, or did God create it to be temporary and transforming? What was God's original intents and purposes for His creation? Such questions, where the answers are often just assumed by many, I see are key when discussing God's character in the face of death, pain and suffering in the world.

I think it's more complicated than that. I think from what God's intentions are for the future can be gleaned from what He originally thought about creation, and other verses, just as BW posted. Since God foreknew that Adam and Eve would rebel, His plans as He would have liked them to be had changed. As creatures in time that doesn't make a lot of sense, but . . . Things in this world have changed through time too. And this is where I need to get a bunch of verses, lol.

To be continued . . .

[cslewislover]

After taking a look at the references for the names of the first carnivores and Psalm 104, I still stand by my original thoughts. Halley refers to it simply as “A Nature Psalm,” and I think that's a good way to view it.

I just want to begin at the beginning, going over some verses in Genesis 1 through 9.

Genesis 1:29-30. “Then God said, 'I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.' And it was so.”

I just can't get around this. It seems very straightforward and plain; it doesn't seem like God is referring to our existing food chain. Besides that, it comes up again in the covenant with Noah (granted, that covenant does not mention what animals are to eat).

In verses 2:4b-7, it states that when God made man, and this was on the sixth day, there were not yet any plants growing — except in the Garden of Eden. This is just so odd. God gave the animals plants to eat, but there weren't any yet for them to eat, unless they happened to be in the Garden. It also says that one reason there weren't any plants yet was because there was no one to work the ground. This is stated before the fall actually happened. I don't know what to make of all this, I'm just presenting it as part of the scenario. Also verse 2:15: God put man in the Garden (so he wasn't there when created).

Verse 2:16. “And the Lord God commanded the man, 'You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die'.” If I don't take Genesis, so far, as a myth (an inspired myth), then it isn't easy (to me) to see how Adam would have seen physical death yet. However, I do not think it would have been difficult for God to explain either physical or spiritual death to Adam.

Genesis 3. Satan as serpent. This is very interesting; why was Satan a serpent? As in CS Lewis' Perelandra, Satan and the evil he brought with him weren't really allowed to be where they were. In Perelandra, Satan was able to tempt the first woman there by indwelling a dead human body; in Genesis he either manipulated the snake or indwelled the snake, if you follow this thought. After Eve and Adam accepted his temptation and man fell and was cursed, Satan and his evil were able to stay. In Perelandra, Lewis had it turn out differently.

Genesis 3:14a and 3:17b. “So the Lord God said to the serpent, 'Because you have done this, Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals!'” At least in this translation, the NIV, it says “cursed are you above all” the animals. This implies that the animals were cursed too, but not as much as the serpent. Later it says, “Cursed is the ground because of you.” So the animals and the ground were cursed. We were cursed as well as the animals and the ground; so just about everything is included here.

Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:2b-9). If humans were not eating meat yet, or even milk or cheese, then why was Abel keeping flocks? For wool and sacrifice only? I do not know. Did Cain think, in a legalistic sense (man's legalism), that his offering was better because it was what God gave humans to eat?

The Flood and God's Covenant (Genesis 6). God says that men were wicked, evil, and violent, but he also says he wants to not only destroy them, but all the animals as well. “Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence” (6:11). God then says that man is full of violence and has made the earth full of violence, so He is going to destroy it all. Does this violence include the killing of one another (and humans killing animals for food), since God had given all plants to eat? I don't know. But when God gives Noah the new covenant, it makes you wonder. Now God gives humans animals to eat, and so now they will be afraid of man. “The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything” (9:2-3). Thinking of all this, it reminds me of being a parent and trying to make your kids live by your ideals, but when it doesn't happen, giving in some. (Lol, just thinking — cross.eyed, where's that duct tape?)

So, I actually don't know what to make of some of this in light of logical order and sequence, as well as scientific knowledge. I simply believe it in some sense because it's God's word. I also believe Lewis would have a different take on things if he were alive today — he's been dead for 45 years now. But to give his view on Genesis at the time he died (supposedly), he thought the early chapters of Genesis were like a folk tale and so a literary framework, not six twenty-four days. He thought animals existed long before Man (Vaus, Mere Theology).

After going through all that, I want to relate it to what we can get from the bible of God's future plans and intentions.

[Cross.eyed]

cslewislover,I've been stocking up on the duct tape.
Just let me know what color you want!

[cslewislover]

cslewislover,I've been stocking up on the duct tape.
Just let me know what color you want!

Do you have green to bring out any green in my eyes? Might as well use it as a fashion accessory if it's going to be wrapped around me head. Lol, it wouldn't be very pretty if my head exploded, though. Maybe it should be red. What color do you have on? Or is your brain feeling OK with the posts that are up today?

[Cross.eyed]

Darn, I forgot to get the green. Would a wine burgandy be suitable?

My head is just fine today but, that's subject to change without notice.
oops.... it may be starting.....I forgot to thank you for asking!

Thank you.