On Tue, 2 Apr 1996 22:04:11 -0500 you wrote:
>MM>The problems I see with your argument are:
>1) Genesis is very specific about the fact that man was not
>originally designed by God for death...All the over-multiplication
>problems and such you discuss would also have applied to an immortal
>humankind.
SJ>I did not say that "man was...originally designed by God for
>death." I was first addressing the question of whether there was
>*animal* death before the Fall.
MM>You argued that *animals* were designed for death because the
>alternatives are much worse. Please explain how the same
>alternatives do not also apply to man -- if he is allowed to populate
>the earth without death.
Firstly non-human animals multiply much more rapidly and more
numerously than humans. Before man had managed to complete one
generation, the earth would be neck-deep in bacteria and insects,
for starters.
Secondlt, man had *another* "alternative" apart from "death", that are
not available to the other animals:
"Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him
away." (Gn 5:24); "By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that
he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had
taken him away." (Heb 11:5)
MM>Also, read Genesis 1:30. God specifies what is food for the beasts
>of the earth. Predation would not appear to be a reason for animal
>death before The Fall.
This is a difficult verse. But while it allows "every green plant for
food" (Gn 1:30), it contains no prohibition against eating meat.
Even Calvin (who was a YEC) had problems taking it literally:
"Some infer, from this passage, that men were content with herbs and
fruit, until the deluge, and that it was even unlawful for them to eat
flesh. And this seems the more probable, because God confines, in
some way, the food of mankind within certain limits. Then, after the
deluge, he expressly grants them the use of flesh. These reasons,
however, are not sufficiently strong: for it may be adduced on the
opposite side, that the first men offered sacrifices from their
flocks. This, moreover, is the law of sacrificing rightly, not to
offer unto God anything except what he has granted to our use.
Lastly. men were clothed in skins; therefore it was lawful for them
to kill animals. For these reasons, I think it will be better for us
to assert nothing concerning this matter. " (Calvin J., "A Commentary
on Genesis", Banner of Truth: London, 1965 p99)
Kidner also says of it:
"The assigning of every green plant for food (RSV) to all creatures
must not be pressed to mean that all were once herbivorous, any more
than to mean that all plants were equally edible to all. It is a
generalization, that directly or indirectly all life depends on
vegetation, and the concern of the verse is to show that all are fed
from God's hand." (Kidner D., "Genesis: An Introduction and
Commentary", Tyndale Press: London, 1967, p52)
SJ>But Genesis clearly teaches that man had to eat of the tree of life
>before he could "live forever" (Gn 3:22).
MM>So the power of life resided in the fruit. That was one powerful
>fruit. Please elaborate on how 6 billion people would feed from one
>tree. How often would one have to eat the fruit? Would only one
>tree ever exist? Could man cultivate a tree of life grove to feed
>the ever increasing population? This argument becomes absurd, plus
>it trivializes the power of God.
Agreed, but this is your own "argument" not mine. I said nothing
about "the power of life" residing "in the fruit". Kidner sees the
trees as sacramental:
"The trees could be meant as metaphors for the respective means
(such as wisdom, Pr. 3: 18, or unbridled curiosity, Jude 8) of gaining
either life or forbidden knowledge; see the further discussion of the
knowledge of good and evil, below. Yet there is much to commend
the literal sense, naive though it may seem. It does not make the
trees
magical (for the Old Testament has no room for blind forces, only for
the acts of God), but rather sacramental, in the broad sense of the
word, in that they are the physical means of a spiritual transaction.
The fruit, not in its own right, but as appointed to a function and
carrying a word from God, confronts man with God's will, particular
and explicit, and gives man a decisive Yes or No to say with his
whole being." (Kidner D., "Genesis: An Introduction and
Commentary" Tyndale Press: London, 1967, p62)
MM>An all-powerful God doesn't require fruit to sustain an obedient
>mankind. The Tree of Life is a literary device designed to contrast
>with the Tree of Knowledge and thereby illustrate the choice of
>obedience vs. disobedience.
I do not necessarily disagree. But I would see them as real trees, but
symbolising "obedience vs. disobedience".
>MM>In other words, it is no more difficult to believe in an immortal
>animal kingdom than it is to believe in an immortal humankind.
SJ>Disagree. These are two separate issues. There is no evidence that
>animals did not dies before the Fall. Bacteria are in the "animal
>kingdom". They die within hours. If they didn't, they would overrun
>the Earth in a very short space of time.
MM>I do not see separate issues. I do not see any major difference
>between a planet overrun with bacteria, animals, or a planet overrun
>with man. The only difference is the time span (due to relative
>reproduction rates) before the problems would become apparent. The
>premise of your argument is false.
No. See above.
SJ>Besides, the Bible clearly says that "God...alone is immortal"
>(1Tim 6:15-16).
MM>Semantics. Man was "effectively immortal" before the Fall.
No. It nowhere says that. If "Man was `effectively immortal' before
the Fall", why was there a "Tree of Life" at all? It was superfluous.
>MM>2) Revelations hints strongly of a new heaven and new earth where
>animal death no longer occurs -- or at the very least predation no
>longer occurs.
MM>BTW, Revelations (sic) should have been Isaiah 11 and 65. My
>mistake.
Your "mistake" noted. But:
1. "Isaiah 11" does not mention "a new heaven and new earth";
2. "Isaiah... 65" mentions death of humans from old age; and
3. Revelation 21:1-4, there is *no* mention at all of animals in the
"new heaven and a new earth:
"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the
first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw
the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God,
prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard
a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with
men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God
himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear
from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or
pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
SJ>So you admit that in the "new heaven and new earth" animal death
>will occur, even though "predation no longer occurs"? It is
>noteworthy that in Isaiah's vision of "new heavens and a new earth"
>in Isa 65:17-20 that he still envisaged human death: ....
>HE WHO DIES AT A HUNDRED WILL BE THOUGHT A MERE YOUTH;
>he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed."
>(emphasis mine)
MM>Stephen, you are building doctrine with one verse. I have always
>preferred to take the Bible as a whole and distill a view that is in
>the most harmony with the whole.
So in one breath you say: "Isaiah 11 and 65....hints strongly of a
new heaven and new earth where animal death no longer occurs -- or at
the very least predation no longer occurs", yet when I point out to
you that "Isa 65:17-20" actually "envisages human death", you
then retreat to a vague "I have always preferred to take the Bible as
a whole and distill a view that is in the most harmony with the
whole"! What is this mysterious "whole" that is different from the
parts?
MM>How do you justify the verse above with Revelation 21:4?
See above. No non-human animals are mentioned at all in "Revelation
21:4". And even you said that "Revelations (sic) should have been
Isaiah 11 and 65". Which is it?
Besides, it is interesting that you dismiss my quote from Isa
65:17-20, as "building doctrine with one verse" and claim that one
should "take the Bible as a whole and distill a view that is in the
most harmony with the whole", yet you immediately turn to another
*verse* namely "Revelation 21:4"! :-)
MM>The basic sequence of events almost all Christians agree upon is:
>Paradise, The Fall, Christ's Sacrifice, Christ's Return, and back to
>Paradise in the form of the New Heaven and New Earth.
No. The second"Paradise", is different from the first. For starters,
sin and death was possible in the first "Paradise", but impossible in
the second.
MM>I cannot understand your trying to justify death as remaining in
>any form in a New Heaven and New Earth. To try to do so unravels the
>whole of Christian theology for the sake of your own Genesis
>interpretation.
Disagree. See above on Isaiah 65 envisaging human death in his vision
of the "new heavens and a new earth."
>MM>I think your argument is unconvincing, which as I understand it is
>designed to justify an old earth and fossil record of death with a
>literal interpretation of Genesis.
This is interesting. I am accused of trying to "justify an old earth
and fossil record of death with a literal interpretation of Genesis"!
:-) Yet, to support your view you appeal to verses like "Genesis
1:30", and "Revelation 21:4", not to mention "Isaiah 11 and 65".
MM>Lest anyone misunderstand my position, I will briefly state my
>basic beliefs. I think the Genesis creation account is an adaptation
>of Akkadian myths, but distinctive in the theological and not literal
>implications.
I regard the relationship between the Genesis account and
the "Akkadian" (and other ANE) "myths" as cognate:
"The most widely accepted explanation is that the Hebrew borrowed from
the Babylonian account. To the conservative student, this is
incredible. The superlative loftiness of the monotheistic account in
the light of the utter crudity of the Babylonian tradition renders
this view not only extremely unlikely but practically impossible,
especially as the theory cannot be proved. It is also extremely
unlikely that the Babylonians borrowed from the Hebrew, inasmuch as
the earliest known tablets are considerably older than the book of
Genesis, upon any consideration of the date of the latter. It is
possible, however, that the Hebrew account may have been current in
some form or other centuries before it assumed its present form. The
likely explanation is that both the Hebrew and Babylonian accounts go
back to a common source of fact, which originated in an actual
occurrence." (Unger M.F.. "Unger's Bible Dictionary", Moody Press:
Chicago, Third Edition, 1966, p373)
MM>I also am convinced of the fact of evolution and would
>self-identify as a TE with increasing reservations toward Christian
>theology.
I don't think "TE" would be happy to be identified with your
"increasing reservations toward Christian theology". Perhaps you
haven't given "Christian theology" enough of a hearing? :-)
MM>Incidentally, my roots are fundamentalist and charismatic
>sects of Christianity.
Sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater! :-)
Happy Easter!
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------