Animals pre-fall in the Garden

[quantumfaith]

For a good perspective on Deacon's comments, one might consider the approach that John Walton (OT Professor at Wheaton.....I think) has proposed. He proposes that Genesis 1-3 is a functional rendering rather than a material rendering and supports his premises quite well. If interested, consider his work "The Lost World of Genesis".

 

[Aaron]

My dog uses her mouth for other things besides killing and eating. She finds her fangs a versatile utility.

My cats use their claws to climb.

An elephant's tusks are essentially teeth. Do they use them only to gore?

 

[Aaron]

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.

Everything above stated as fact is mere presumption.

 

[Alcott]

Pre-fall?
Well, they probably had stopped shedding or molting and were beginning to grow a winter coat.

 

[convicted1]

I tend to think along the lines that animals would have died even if the fall of mankind had never taken place. The fall affected the first Adam and his progeny and not animals, imo. But this merely conjecture on my part...

 

[convicted1]

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

posted by Brother Quantumfaith

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Looks like you have the 'thumbsup' brigade out in full force. LOL

Oh and by the way...:thumbsup: LOL

 

[convicted1]

Pre-fall?
Well, they probably had stopped shedding or molting and were beginning to grow a winter coat.

 

[quantumfaith]

Looks like you have the 'thumbsup' brigade out in full force. LOL

Oh and by the way...:thumbsup: LOL

Just my way or agreeing or saying I appreciate what someone posts

 

[quantumfaith]

Everything above stated as fact is mere presumption.

This statement in itself is presumption....so I guess we now have presumption squared.

 

[Deacon]

Everything above stated as fact is mere presumption.

Everyone approaches scripture with their own presumptions. The trick is recognizing what they are and how they influence what we understand about what we are reading.

I'm currently reading John Walton's (and coauthor D. Brent Sandy) book, "The Lost World of Scripture" [LINK] in which he further expounds on the ideas expressed in 'Lost World of Genesis' that Quantum mentioned.

I'm finding it a tough read; my mind's not as flexible as it was when I was younger.

So far I'm only 55 pages into it but it deals a lot with the topic of this thread.

As I read it I'm comparing it to one of the most influential books I read as a young Christian, Bernard Ramm's classic book, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture" (1954). Ramm's book dramatically influenced my hermeneutical methodology (the way scripture is approached) and made me the "liberal" that I am. :smilewinkgrin:

In Walton's book, the chapters are arranged in a series of propositions (presumptions if you will) that build upon each other.

Proposition #3 is "Effective Communication Must Accommodate to the Culture and Nature of the Audience"

And Proposition #4 is "The Bible Contains No New Revelation About the Workings and Understandings of the Material World"
He writes: "…no statements in the Bible offered the original audience new insight into how the material world regularly works or how the naturalistic cause-and-effect system operates. …the perspectives on the material world that we find in the text accommodate the Old World Science of the time and are part of the locution adopted in order to communicate clearly to the target audience." (pp. 51,52)

Rob

 

[Aaron]

Everyone approaches scripture with their own presumptions. The trick is recognizing what they are and how they influence what we understand about what we are reading.

I'm currently reading John Walton's (and coauthor D. Brent Sandy) book, "The Lost World of Scripture" [LINK] in which he further expounds on the ideas expressed in 'Lost World of Genesis' that Quantum mentioned.

I'm finding it a tough read; my mind's not as flexible as it was when I was younger.

So far I'm only 55 pages into it but it deals a lot with the topic of this thread.

As I read it I'm comparing it to one of the most influential books I read as a young Christian, Bernard Ramm's classic book, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture" (1954). Ramm's book dramatically influenced my hermeneutical methodology (the way scripture is approached) and made me the "liberal" that I am. :smilewinkgrin:

In Walton's book, the chapters are arranged in a series of propositions (presumptions if you will) that build upon each other.

Proposition #3 is "Effective Communication Must Accommodate to the Culture and Nature of the Audience"

And Proposition #4 is "The Bible Contains No New Revelation About the Workings and Understandings of the Material World"
He writes: "…no statements in the Bible offered the original audience new insight into how the material world regularly works or how the naturalistic cause-and-effect system operates. …the perspectives on the material world that we find in the text accommodate the Old World Science of the time and are part of the locution adopted in order to communicate clearly to the target audience." (pp. 51,52)

Rob

How about dealing with the presumptions you stated as fact? Let's take them one at a time:

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

Support this statement.

 

[quantumfaith]

How about dealing with the presumptions you stated as fact? Let's take them one at a time:

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

Support this statement.

To highlight this principle of (science as we know it) not being a "priority" I offer:


In North America, the Cherokee said that eclipses were caused when the moon (male) visits his wife, the sun, and the Ojibway believed the sun would be totally extinguished during an eclipse, so they used to shoot flaming arrows to keep it alight. According to the Vikings, the sun and the moon are being chased by two wolves, Skoll and Hati. When either wolf successfully catches their prey, an eclipse occurs. The Nordics made as much noise as they could to scare off the wolves, so they could rescue the victims:

QED

 

[Deacon]

It can be demonstrated that the cultures of the ancient world often developed intricate mythological systems to explain the phenomena they observed. There are exceptions to this observation.

Even the Hebrew scriptures we read how it is the Lord who is responsible for the way the world around them functions. That is not to say that their theology was wrong only that they viewed the world around them differently than we do.

We view the world we live in with a material mindset rather than a functional mindset.
We want to know how things work, they simply want to explain why things happened.

The Genesis 1 creation story specifically counters the theology and deities of the Equptians.

Rob

 

[Van]

Lets see:
1) It is presumption, not fact, that animals physically died pre-fall.
2) It is a presupposition, not fact, that animals did not physically die pre-fall.
3) Speculation is the mother of mistaken doctrine.

 

[PreachTony]

It can be demonstrated that the cultures of the ancient world often developed intricate mythological systems to explain the phenomena they observed. There are exceptions to this observation.

Even the Hebrew scriptures we read how it is the Lord who is responsible for the way the world around them functions. That is not to say that their theology was wrong only that they viewed the world around them differently than we do.

Paul summed it up quite well in Romans 1.

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Man had a way of seeing the things of God as created, but instead of worshiping God, man twisted the truth of God in his own arrogance at understanding.

 

[Aaron]

It can be demonstrated that the cultures of the ancient world often developed intricate mythological systems to explain the phenomena they observed. There are exceptions to this observation.

Even the Hebrew scriptures we read how it is the Lord who is responsible for the way the world around them functions. That is not to say that their theology was wrong only that they viewed the world around them differently than we do.

We view the world we live in with a material mindset rather than a functional mindset.
We want to know how things work, they simply want to explain why things happened.

The Genesis 1 creation story specifically counters the theology and deities of the Equptians.

Rob

More presupposition. I'll cut to the chase. You can't support the statement.

So let's take just one example. Health. There is no science more dependent upon one's world view.

Daniel and his friends. Were they truly healthier than the king's servants because they ate according to the law, or were they not?

Was God being truthful about clean and unclean foods, or was he merely accommodating the unscientific view of the time?

 

[Aaron]

To highlight this principle of (science as we know it) not being a "priority" I offer:


In North America, the Cherokee said that eclipses were caused when the moon (male) visits his wife, the sun, and the Ojibway believed the sun would be totally extinguished during an eclipse, so they used to shoot flaming arrows to keep it alight. According to the Vikings, the sun and the moon are being chased by two wolves, Skoll and Hati. When either wolf successfully catches their prey, an eclipse occurs. The Nordics made as much noise as they could to scare off the wolves, so they could rescue the victims:

QED

Yes, the technological advances and contributions of the Cherokee are world renowned.

 

[quantumfaith]

Yes, the technological advances and contributions of the Cherokee are world renowned.

That was not the point....I suspect you know that. Sure is difficult for you climb out from those small boxes that you construct around yourself isn't it?

 

[quantumfaith]

Lets see:
1) It is presumption, not fact, that animals physically died pre-fall.
2) It is a presupposition, not fact, that animals did not physically die pre-fall.
3) Speculation is the mother of mistaken doctrine.

So what is the mistaken doctrine?

 

[Deacon]

Lets see:
1) It is presumption, not fact, that animals physically died pre-fall.
2) It is a presupposition, not fact, that animals did not physically die pre-fall.
3) Speculation is the mother of mistaken doctrine.

Van, I'm not sure I understand your differentiation between presumption and presuppostion.

Could you explain further?

Rob