Originally posted by HankD:
We see that there is no death implied in these verses [Genesis 1:29-31], no shedding of blood.
I agree, animal death isn't implied at all. How does that show that animals didn't die? Did land animals, birds and fish have access to the Tree of Life in Eden as well? The account seems to imply that it was only for humans. How would a fish manage to eat from it? Was the tree planted on a bank so that its fruit dropped into the water?
Also, are you claiming that Genesis 1:29-31 lists the only things that could be eaten? If so, what were the fish to eat? They are left out of the list of creatures that are given food (contrast the lists of creatures in 1:28 and 1:30), and the only vegetation mentioned in Genesis 1 is what covered the dry land, not what would be in the sea or under the sea. This makes perfect sense if these verses are showing the purpose of the vegetation (it was made for food), but it's rather odd if the purpose was instead to enforce a vegetarian diet on every living thing. It would mean that fish couldn't eat anything until humans sinned, or perhaps until after the flood, or maybe even for all time!
Then God proclaims that it is "very good" (tov mod). It seems unlikely that God would say this if predators, scavengers and death reigned over the earth.
No, it isn't talking about animals reigning over the earth. God goes from describing creation as "good" to "very good" after humanity is created and given dominion over the earth.
This is the difference between good and very good, not anything about predators or animal death. As for the existence of predators and scavengers, prey for lions are among what is called
tov in Psalm 104:20-28, just as animals are called
tov when they are created (Genesis 1:21,25). Not only is your reasoning arguing from silence, but it is arguing against what God declared to be good elsewhere.
How did the whole creation of God go from Very Good! to groaning and traveling in pain?
Because the whole creation was given to humanity's dominion, and humanity turned its back on God and became sinful. Creation is suffering as Israel suffered under a corrupt king.
Also, the proof text of the the unique and special creation of man is:
Genesis 2
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Evolution (either theistic or atheistic) is a plain contradiction of this passage in that not only are we distinct and unique from the animal creation being "in His image and likeness" but that we came directly from the "dust of the ground" and cannot possibly have a genetic connection or common ancestory with the animals (of whom they themselves do not have a genetic connection or common ancestory among themselves each species being created "after his kind").
Evolution is only in plain contradiction with the passage if one takes a very literal reading and insists that there can be no intermediate processes. And, if one does that, then Genesis 1:26-28 is also in plain contradiction with the passage, since those verses describe humanity's creation with no mention of dust or ground. It appears that Scripture can describe humanity's creation without itemizing each step of the process. To insist otherwise is to force Scripture into contradiction with itself.
But Charles, If one can say that Genesis 2:7 (see above post) a very simple and straight forward text cannot be trusted as literal and is contradictory to fact in the light of the theories of men (though they be "scientific") that mankind slowly developed from previous lifeforms through mutations, survival of the fittest, adaptation to environment (even if God directed these influences) and not a direct and special creation from the "dust of the ground" how then can we trust for instance John 3:16?
If we can't trust Genesis 1:26-28 when it says humans were created by God's word, with no mention of any source material such as dirt, or any division between the creation of male and female, then how can we trust the rest of the Bible? The answer, of course, is that finding that we may have interpreted one passage incorrectly should not lead us to doubt all the rest of the Bible.
Hank, I'm sure that in your Christian life you've sometimes encountered a verse that you came to read differently. For instance, as a former Catholic, you probably no longer take Jesus' statements in John 6 about his flesh being real food as literally as you used to. Did that change in understanding cause you to doubt that any other Scripture can have a literal meaning? I hope not.
OK I hear you Charles, but if evolution is true why then didn't God give us a simple statement to that effect?
If the earth is round, why didn't God give us a simple statement to that effect? Not an ambiguous statement about the "circle of the earth", which can be made compatible with any view of its shape, but something clear like "the earth is like a ball"? If the earth orbits the sun, why didn't God give us a simple statement to that effect? If there really are single-celled organisms, then why isn't there some mention in Scripture that God made them? If there really is such a thing as DNA, why isn't there any mention of it in Genesis 30?
On the other hand, why do you expect Scripture to reveal scientific information that God has given humanity the ability to someday discover on its own? Why should God ruin all the surprises about his creation? Why shouldn't the Bible instead focus on telling us those things that creation alone can't reveal?
