Featured Animals pre-fall in the Garden

I've discussed this topic with some friends before. A lot of it depends on your stance of "death entered the world" meaning the world in general or mankind. Seeing as animals do not have souls in need of salvation, would they have been under the same restrictions as humanity during those early times? You can add in another variable by questioning how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden.

On that issue, I've heard some people argue that they were in the garden less than a week. Others I've heard argue for countless years. (Please note, these are friends of mine, not published authors or high-ranking theologians.) Depending on which answer you side with will determine some of your belief on animals. Did animals die prior to man falling from grace? After all, animals never had grace to fall from.

It's a fun topic to discuss, so long as people remain civil about it.

 

It seems odd to me that those who argue most vehemently against evolution, then argue that animals had to change (i.e. evolve) with tremendous rapidity after the fall of man.

Rob

 

What grace was it that the man could fall from? What was it he was cut off from? And thereby being cut of from thereof in dying he would surly die?

Was it the grace of life?

How did that, "life," differ from the, "life," the animals, from the gnat to the elephant had?

I've got a lot more questions about this than I do answers.

 

My Golden Retriever does not look much like a wolf.

Of course, try telling her that...

 

No, why would they? Does anybody actually argue that animals have evolved since the fall from vegetarians to carnivores?

Indeed, what need would there be? Why does a shark have jagged teeth? To filter plankton?

 

The Bible says that death spread to men because of sin. It's possible there was animal death before Adam's sin. Why would a lion need fangs and claws, why would a shark need a set of teeth for tearing flesh?

 

Most (vastly most) species that have inhabited earth are extinct. Yes, fauna that we know today are vastly different.

http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_life4.html

 

Romans 8 says all of creation is waiting for redemption.

 

We tend to read the bible from our own point of view. We want it to answer our scientific curiosities.

The bible was written in a time and culture where science was not a priority.

The phenomena that we now classify as scientific, back then was attributed to ‘the gods’; they had a theological rather than a scientific worldview.

They also could not even imagine the vastness of the universe or time.
God accommodated himself to communicate to the early Hebrews in a language and cultural style that they could accept and that they were familiar with.

Questions like the one you asked are not really addressed in the text because it wouldn’t matter to those to whom the scriptures were originally written for.

That idea carries on into the NT as well. That question wouldn't pertain to the salvation of man and is inconsequencial to the theological application of scripture, the provision of Jesus Christ to deal with the problem of man's separation from God.

Just sayin...

Rob

 

And yet in spite of the times and cultures of the day God can and has communicated His word clearly and without error through man. God is not inhibited by the culture and understanding of science of the day. That is a cop out.

 

Come on, Rev... let's keep things nice and friendly. :love2:

Use nice words to express your meaning and explain it in ways that reason things out for us.

God is not inhibited but he is accommodating.

Rob

 

I think this is a good point. I don't think Paul had animals in mind when he wrote Romans 5:12 because he knew that animals don't have eternal souls. Therefore, animals could have been dying pre-fall and it would get no recognition from Paul.

 

I did not mean for that to sound as it now appears to me it could My apologies. The point stands however.


What do you think God meant when in Job He said He hung the earth on nothing.

 

I guess I'm a softy, you're forgiven of my weakness.

That is an observation even the ancient mind could understand.

It's a better concept than the idea that the Earth rests on the back of a huge turtle.

...to which the follow up question would be, "What holds the turtle up?"

And the answer: "It's no use questioning, it's turtles, turtles, turtles, all the way down"

Rob

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: