Just a quick reply...
Why do we persist in assuming that the meaning of the Hebrew word for
"good" maps one-to-one with our understanding of the word? We load a lot
of assumptions into our arguments by such an assumption. Ancient
commentators have translated "good" as "whole"/"ordered whole" which
gives a whole new slant to the issue.
Another point is the ambiguity of references to death...
a) animals are never mentioned as mortal or immortal anywhere in Genesis
or the NT inb the context of the curses. That's an inference from a
small passage in Romans, where Paul might have had a quite different
meaning to "all creation".
b) water based life (and probably "air-based" life) are never included
in the dietary "exclusions" spoken of with respect to land animals and
humans. The Bible says nothing on the issue. It's hard to imagine whales
and sharks [or even lampreys] being vegetarian pre-Fall.
c) humans lose immortality by loss of access to the Tree of Life. If we
read the Text literally then animals aren't so excluded. Whence death?
If we make a non-literal reading, then why take any of it literally?
These problems and more make a simplistic image of "no death before the
Fall" untenable.
Adam
PS
Why suffering? Maybe there's no logically possible way for even God to
know what the result of Creation would be prior to the act?
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com