Animals pre-fall in the Garden

[Deacon]

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?

Good example let's follow this through and examine the purpose of the text.

Was it to tell us that eating certain kosher foods is healthier than eating the diet offered to them by the ancient Babylonians?
OR
Was it to say that God faithfully took care of his obedient servants?

IMO, the text was not meant to instruct us on the type of diet we are to eat, it was to tell us what kind of God we should follow!

The difference is a functional understanding over a material understanding.

Rob

 

[preachinjesus]

It's always intriguing to see some who hold Scripture to a level of literalism that it doesn't presume upon itself. As a result, they are unable to see their own presuppositions and interpretive horizons within that hermeneutic.

 

[Aaron]

Good example let's follow this through and examine the purpose of the text.

Was it to tell us that eating certain kosher foods is healthier than eating the diet offered to them by the ancient Babylonians?
OR
Was it to say that God faithfully took care of his obedient servants?

IMO, the text was not meant to instruct us on the type of diet we are to eat, it was to tell us what kind of God we should follow!

The difference is a functional understanding over a material understanding.

Rob

The question was, were they truly healthier?

 

[Deacon]

:BangHead: Daniel 1:15

 

[quantumfaith]

:BangHead: Daniel 1:15

Thanks Deacon. I knew there had to be a reason not to eat my vegetables. Now I can hurl a scripture at my wife to support my love of steak and fries.

 

[Deacon]

Thanks Deacon. I knew there had to be a reason not to eat my vegetables. Now I can hurl a scripture at my wife to support my love of steak and fries.

:laugh: Now that's what Walton might call a faulty perlocution - an incorrect response drawn from the illocution (the intention) of the locution (the words, structure, genres, etc).

DID I SAY the book was difficult for me to read!

Rob

 

[Aaron]

:BangHead: Daniel 1:15

Was God accommodating the wisdom of the Egyptians when He gave those laws, or was He being truthful?

 

[Deacon]

Aaron, I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking; please be more specific regarding what mean - it's such a broad subject.

To be accommodating does not necessitate being untruthful.

God accommodated the Hebrews by modifying aspects of Hammurabi’s code that were familiar to them.

Jesus acknowledges that God accommodated the hardness of the hearts of the Hebrew people concerning divorce. Matthew 19:7-9

Rob

 

[Van]

So what is the mistaken doctrine?

To claim we can find the answer in scripture to questions left unaddressed in scripture.

Did sin cause physical death to occur in the forms of life God created, i.e. plants and animals?

When sin entered "into the world" did Paul mean all creation or mankind?

Now I believe plants and animals physically died prefall, but it is presumption, and not derived from the teachings of scripture.

I also believe the sin that entered "into the world" caused the spiritual death, spiritual separation, of Adam, Eve, and all mankind at conception, except Jesus. But again, that is my presumption, and not derived from the teachings of scripture.

 

[quantumfaith]

To claim we can find the answer in scripture to questions left unaddressed in scripture.

Did sin cause physical death to occur in the forms of life God created, i.e. plants and animals?

When sin entered "into the world" did Paul mean all creation or mankind?

Now I believe plants and animals physically died prefall, but it is presumption, and not derived from the teachings of scripture.

I also believe the sin that entered "into the world" caused the spiritual death, spiritual separation, of Adam, Eve, and all mankind at conception, except Jesus. But again, that is my presumption, and not derived from the teachings of scripture.

Yes, I think we are on the "same page", however, I would not think that stating that plant and animal life experienced death prior to the fall is presumption. I think it to be pretty good and well established science.

 

[percho]

Wherefore, as by one man *sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Rom 5:12 *Lit. the sin and through the sin the death

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: Rom 1:20 *Lit. from creation of world (GK Kosmos)


He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth *from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 1 John 3:8 *Lit. from beginning

Is, from beginning, the same as, from creation of Kosmos?

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through *death he might destroy him that had the power of *death, that is, the devil; Heb 2:14 Lit. the death



Was (the) sin of the devil before, after or simultaneous with (the) sin of Adam? Did (the) sin of the devil bring (the) death to anything?

This (the) death spoken of, which the devil has the power thereof. Just what death is this?

Speaking of presuming: Does God leave it to us to presume by context whether death is physical and or spiritual or should we just read it as it is, the death?

Dying thou dost die. Is the baby not born, dead in trespass and sin, with his only hope for life, to be, in Christ and even then he dies and is dead in Christ, until the return of Christ?

Was man, Adam created a spirit being as the angels or was he created subject to death, in order to be born again as the angels, a spiritual being that can die no more?

Scriptures: Luke 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. 1 Cor 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.


Do we really need Bill Clinton to give us a class on, "What the meaning of is, is"?

 

[Van]

Hi Quantumfaith,
I have no comment on your assessment of science, I was addressing anyone's claim that the Bible answers the question, with any degree of certainty.

 

[Van]

Hi Percho, try this to answer your own questions. Each time you see die, death, in scripture, write above the text spiritual or physical or both. And do not dare to let your presumptions influence your choices.
When you see world in the text, write above the text "of mankind" or "plant earth", or the "physical universe"
Ask yourself, can rocks and inanimate objects "know" thinks, or does Paul use world usually to refer to mankind?

 

[Aaron]

Aaron, I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking; please be more specific regarding what mean - it's such a broad subject.

To be accommodating does not necessitate being untruthful.

God accommodated the Hebrews by modifying aspects of Hammurabi’s code that were familiar to them.

Jesus acknowledges that God accommodated the hardness of the hearts of the Hebrew people concerning divorce. Matthew 19:7-9

Rob

It's your premise, not mine. My point is that what was given at Sinai was nothing like Egyptian culture or philosophy. It stands in direct contrast to it. In the case of the children of Israel, God's revelation was nothing like "dealing with them where they were at." In fact, those whose hearts were still in Egypt died in the Wilderness.

It seems your premise is invalid.

 

[Aaron]

Jesus acknowledges that God accommodated the hardness of the hearts of the Hebrew people concerning divorce. Matthew 19:7-9

Wow. And yet Christ went directly to the Creation Account to correct it. It seems understanding devolves further from Genesis rather than closer.

 

[Deacon]

Was God accommodating the wisdom of the Egyptians when He gave those laws, or was He being truthful?

Well then Aaron, if you really interested and want a more complete answer to your question you'll just have to read John Walton's book, The Lost World of Genesis One, Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. That's the topic the book deals with - and his other"Lost" books.

I know, it's a cop out for me but it's a topic developed much better in his books than I can ever express in a paragraph or two in a thread. Sorry.

Rob

 

[quantumfaith]

Well then Aaron, if you really interested and want a more complete answer to your question you'll just have to read John Walton's book, The Lost World of Genesis One, Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. That's the topic the book deals with - and his other"Lost" books.

I know, it's a cop out for me but it's a topic developed much better in his books than I can ever express in a paragraph or two in a thread. Sorry.

Rob

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

I know EXACTLY what you mean.

 

[Aaron]

I know, it's a cop out for me. . .

Yes, it is. And the reason is that your premises are all too easy to refute. They were the same cliched, simplistic sound bytes through which Darwinists attempted to indoctrinate students during my high school/college career over thirty years ago.

"The Greeks made up Zeus because they couldn't explain lightning."

That's B.S., and I'm not talking Bachelor of Science.

 

[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?

Anyway, now that the Darwinists have bailed . . . back to the topic

How says teeth and claws were made to kill?

 

[quantumfaith]

Anyway, now that the Darwinists have bailed . . . back to the topic

How says teeth and claws were made to kill?

I do.....do you? Let me guess, all animal life were vegetarians before the fall.