Monday, August 25, 2014

Debating animals life and death before the fall.

To compare  a traditional debate with debating on a Facebook page is similar to the differences between classic boxing and a street fight!  Many times the nature of these groups will keep things  bogged down by nit-picking, logical fallacies, and smokescreens.  But sometimes points can be brought up by multiple parties and make for an interesting conversation.  So I found this particular thread.


OEC# 1: To those who believe that death to all living things didn't come until Adam and Eve's sin, I ask...why would God have given so many carnivorous animals powerful and sharp claws, jaws, and teeth if they were only meant to consume vegetables and not devour prey? Would God be any less of Who He is if he actually had made created the physical universe and all the living creatures to have life cycles? He gave all living things the ability to reproduce. All life forms have a beginning, is it possible God intended them all (humans included) to have an end? (at least physically where humans are concerned). Thank you in advance for a calm and constructive dialogue.

OEC #2" I came across the following quote by Augustine from his commentary on Genesis. Augustine wrote in the 6th century so was not accommodating either modern geology or Darwinism

"But one might ask why brute beasts inflict injury on one another, for there is no sin in them for which this could be a punishment, and they cannot acquire any virtue by such a trial. The answer, of course, is that one animal is the nourishment of another. To wish that it were otherwise would not be reasonable"



OEC#2 I came across the following quote by Augustine from his commentary on Genesis. Augustine wrote in the 6th century so was not accommodating either modern geology or Darwinism

"But one might ask why brute beasts inflict injury on one another, for there is no sin in them for which this could be a punishment, and they cannot acquire any virtue by such a trial. The answer, of course, is that one animal is the nourishment of another. To wish that it were otherwise would not be reasonable"


 Matt Singleton First of all, hardwood and roots need stronger sharper jaws than flesh. And young earth has no problem with adaptation.

If the penalty of sin is death, and death is natural, then sin has no penalty.
At which point Jesus death on the cross was worthless.
Jesus shed physical blood to pay for sin. But what sacrifice was it seeing that Christ would die anyway. And resurrect at that. If the animals nurture by killing, that would beg the question what's wrong with death? Why was it wrong for Cain? There was no law. If there is no penalty of sin, God endorses murder, not life.



  •  OEC#3  2, I agree, if you observe the food chain you can easily see that animals do in fact need each other for nourishment. Just where we live alone you can see certain examples of this. Bear eat grass, berries and fish but also feed on deer or other small animals. Wolves eat any animals they can kill because they are pack hunters. Deer eat vegetation which makes their meat rich in nutrients for other animals. There are bats which keep the bug population in check. Snakes feed on rodents, also coyotes feed on small mammals as well. I believe its been this way from day one.
  •  OEC#4 Matt,
    The wage of sin that is death is best interpreted as the spiritual death (eternal separation from God) as opposed to spiritual life (eternal communion with God).
  •  OEC#4Physical death for created contingent temporary beings in time was always natural, but spiritual death was not. Spiritual death entered through sin.
  • Matt SIngleton   if spiritual death is the only consequence of sin, then why was Christ physically resurrected? Do you believe that the saints will not be physically resurrected?
  •  OEC#5 Yes, in Christ we are alive now, but unless Jesus returns in our lifetime, we must still pass through death's vale. So where life and death are used to refer to one's physical and spiritual beings.
  •  OEC #5 But doesn't scripture that through Adam's sin death came to all MEN (humanity)? Where does scripture say that animal death was the result of Adam's sin?
  • OEC #2 Matt SIngleton,

    If you look at God's command in the garden there are two things to note. Firstly, there is no mention of death for animals. Secondly, Adam didn't die physically on the day he ate the fruit, he did die spiritually. Physical death came much later. So Jesus' death and resurrection is the remedy for both spiritual and physical death.

    "And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 1but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die." Gen 2:16-17

    By the sweat of your brow
    you will eat your food
    until you return to the ground,
    since from it you were taken;
    for dust you are
    and to dust you will return. Gen 3:19
  • YEC#1 Matt SIngleton, when you use the word adaptation is that what many would term, "microevolution" if so then as a young earth guy I would have to say that I have a problem w/ adaptation -- evolution in any form (e.g. macro or micro) is contrary to God's Word.
  • Matt SIngleton OEC#5 read Romans 5:12 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: 13 (for until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come." Here we see that there was no sin in the world until Adam fell into it, and death was imposed from then on Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." The creature is subject to vanity not willingly. Which brings us back to the death and sin brought in by Adam. If People have to die because of Sin I do not see why the animals were let off the hook. #2 1. You are incorrect. genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them. gen. 4: 2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. 3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. 4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: 5 but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell." here we see animals killed as a consequence to man's sin. This once again illustrates the great necessity of the sin death principle. Bruno can you show me the verse in genesis where Adam died spiritually? because if you can not then you have revealed that you are bias claiming that animals did not die because of Adam and eve's sin while not having the strict verses to apply your own interpretation. In other words if you accept the implications, accept them all.
  • Matt SIngleton YEc1, Actually every major young earth creationist from Henry Morris through Ken Ham to Kent Hovind has accepted micro-evolution. Some do not like the phrase, so they used the term "natural selection" Adaptation is not only a scientific principle it is a biblical process that we see in breeding. Here i an example. Genesis 30:29 And he said unto him, Thou knowest how I have served thee, and how thy cattle was with me. 30 For it was little which thou hadst before I came, and it is now increased unto a multitude; and the Lord hath blessed thee since my coming: and now when shall I provide for mine own house also? 31 And he said, What shall I give thee? And Jacob said, Thou shalt not give me any thing: if thou wilt do this thing for me, I will again feed and keep thy flock. 32 I will pass through all thy flock to day, removing from thence all the speckled and spotted cattle, and all the brown cattle among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats: and of such shall be my hire. 33 So shall my righteousness answer for me in time to come, when it shall come for my hire before thy face: every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and brown among the sheep, that shall be counted stolen with me. 34 And Laban said, Behold, I would it might be according to thy word. 35 And he removed that day the he goats that were ringstraked and spotted, and all the she goats that were speckled and spotted, and every one that had some white in it, and all the brown among the sheep, and gave them into the hand of his sons. 36 And he set three days’ journey betwixt himself and Jacob: and Jacob fed the rest of Laban’s flocks."

  • OEC # 2Matt SIngleton, Adam and Eve went from “naked and unashamed” Gen 2:25 to “…I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.” Gen 3:10. Adam’s relationship with God was broken. This is spiritual death – separation from God.

    God clothed Adam and Eve from animal skins but the verse doesn’t say this was the first time an animal had died. The verse is about covering Adam and Eve’s nakedness and says nothing about the beginning of animal predation or animals dying at the end of their lifespan.

    "And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them". Gen 3:21
  •   YEC#2 Yes, I agree with Matt Singleton in quoting Romans 5:12-23 to address this post. As stated in these verses, the creation has groaned and been subjected to futility until now. Why should we feel surprised that animal diets and biological elements of their bodies have also been affected by sin as well and resulted in what we see today? After all, no humans ever, except for Adam and Eve have ever been eye witnesses to what animals were like before sin, and Adam and Eve are not around with us today to tell their testimonies. Therefore the only eye witness who saw what animals were like before sin who Iis available today is God, whom we cannot see with our eyes physically. So now, it is our turn to decide, with the gift of free will that God graciously gave us, to decide whether we choose to accept God's testimony, which was God-breathed and written down through the Apostle Paul, or not.
  •  OEC2 :YEC#2, The creation groans because it is in bondage to corruption and it's freedom depends on the freedom of the children of God. 1 Tim 4:4 tells us that: "everything created by God is good" so it's not nature that has changed but that nature is for the present stuck with a corrupted humanity.

    For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. Rom 8:20-21

    Genesis 6:11-12 confirms that the creation's bondage to corruption is the corruption of humanity living in it.

    "Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth."

    Romans 5 is specifically and clearly talking about sin bringing death to humanity.
  • YEC#1: Matt SIngleton, how does that text support micro-evolution, natural selection, adaptation? The erroneous idea of micro-evolution/natural selection/adaptation would be a reference to species in the wild while in this text (if you read it literally) is referencing domesticated animals. You can not assume that what occurs in a controlled environment (e.g. farming/herding of domesticated animals) will occur naturally in an uncontrolled environment -- you are NOT reading the text literally.
  • OEC# 5 All creation groaning, ok that proves animal death from Adam's sin? If all creation is groaning, then that must include Heaven and the angels. They are created. I think one must look at the context of such passages and remember what exactly the author is addressing.
  • Matt SIngleton OEC#2 and OEC# 5you need to prove from the scriptures that there was death before the fall. You are both eisegeting the text because that is not in there.
    Your premise is highly irrational, death is not good. God is a God of life.
    If death were "very good" then there would be no point to eternal life.  OEC#2 what at all is the bondage of the creature? If it is not death how is there any difference before and after the fall? Do you really mean to say that the only difference is that animals got there feelings hurt?
  • Matt SIngleton  YEC #1 how at all is there any difference. Jacob was not a geneticist inducing drugs. he was just guiding one bull to mate another. the control is minimal cows can mate in patterns and adapt to things. It is biblical and scientific.
  • YEC 1: Matt SIngleton, before I get to the serious I have to have a little fun at your expense. Jacob was NOT guiding one bull to mate with another -- that would be ENTIRELY wrong.
  •  YEC1: Matt SIngleton, the fact that Jacob was not a geneticist is irrelevant. The fact is that it was he and not some sort of mystic notion of nature that was determining which animals mated. There has always been this difference between domesticated and undomesticated animals regardless of how primitive the herder's method the reality is that the herder makes a choice.
  • OEC #5 It would seem that when Adam and Eve were told that would die if they ate the fruit, they didn't seem to require an explanation on what that was. Also, the scripture does not say anywhere that animal death was brought by Adam's sin...so the proof is on you for that one. As far as creation being free from death because God said it was very good, another assumption on your part. That is reading a meaning into something. I will say straight out that if God made the physical world to be cyclical and temporal, then it is still "very good" because that was his intent.
  •  OEC#5The assumption that "very good" means no death.... I recognize a Ken Ham quote when I see it.
  • Matt SIngleton NO, "very good" comes from Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." It's too bad you can't recognize a bible quote when you see it!
  •  OEC#5Again, saying that meant that everything was eternal when it was made is an assumption. If it was God's plan that all creatures have life cycles, then I have no problem calling it "very good".
  •  OEC #5 So Mr. Singleton, are resorting to the Ken Ham rule of debate? Assuming I don't recognize scripture if I don't agree with your interpretation of it?
  • Matt SIngleton So you say they knew that they would die spiritually? because after all they required no explanation. Then why was there a sacrificial system? are the animals burning in Hell for the people's sins? Romans 8 stands because you still have no explanation
  • Matt SIngleton You don't recognize scripture because you are not exegeting the text
  •  OEC#5 Hmmmm, sounds like you're starting to cross the line of accusing me by saying I don't recognize scripture. Why does it always take this turn with yec's?
  • OEC #2 Matt SIngleton,

    "OEC#2 and OEC#5 you need to prove from the scriptures that there was death before the fall. You are both eisegeting the text because that is not in there."

    Matt, there are no verses that directly say there was or wasn't animal death before the Fall. It has to be inferred from text. You are inferring that "very good" means there was no death. The text doesn't actually say that. My response is that very good does not mean perfect and idyllic. In Genesis 1:28 God commanded Adam and eve to subdue the earth. Why would you have to the earth if it was perfect and idyllic? As I noted before 1 Tim 4:4 tells us that: "everything created by God is good". It's in the present tense which means that even now the creation is good. There is animal death now and since the creation is good now I infer that animal death before the Fall was also good.

    "If death were "very good" then there would be no point to eternal life." Death in humans is not "very good" and only humans can receive eternal life. Jesus died for the sins of humanity, animals can't sin.
    "Bruno what at all is the bondage of the creature? If it is not death how is there any difference before and after the fall?" The Bible does use the phrase "the bondage of the creature". Rom 8:20-21 use the term "bondage to corruption". We can picture it as creation chained to corruption, that corruption is sinful humanity. Humanity was given dominion to exercise with God's wisdom and guidance and to reflect God's glory as his image bearers, instead we exploit and ruin the earth and practice our sinful behaviour upon it.
  • Matt SIngleton OEC#5 You shouldn't persecute YEC's for telling you that you are distorting the text. You should be asking yourself why you don't take the scripture in it's context. Or you could ask yourself why you are incapable of giving satisfying answers to questions about the text. Because the more you fail to exegete scripture the more "Christianity" gets a bad reputation. So why don't you try to answer some question? So you say they knew that they would die spiritually? because after all they required no explanation. Then why was there a sacrificial system? are the animals burning in Hell for the people's sins? romans 8 stands because you still have no explanation
  • Matt SIngleton OEC#2, There are verses that directly say that animals were sacrificed for sin. The Bible directly says the penalty of sin is death. You have argued that the death of humans is only spiritual. but that the death physically is not very good. "Death in humans is not "very good" and only humans can receive eternal life." But according to secular evolutionist humans died hundreds of thousands of years before the Fall. What is worse is that they have neanderthals dying of cancer prior to the fall. If you have cancer you have a flaw in your genetic design. So God failed to create animals and humans correctly. How do we know that this God could ever get it right? especially enough to give eternal life. What is the point of the sacrificial system??? animals die anyway and they don't sin. So is the fundy atheist correct when he tells you that you God is sadistic for slaughtering animals and people without sin? Ecclesiastes 3:18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. 19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. 20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?" Yes people have a greater dignity in the image of God. But animals are just as much living things and making fun of the heathen for caring about the rights of animals does not prove Christianity to be loving. If animal life didn't matter it would not be called a sacrifice. genesis 9:9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; 10 and with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. 11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth" Nottice that the animals ARE INVOLVED WITH THE COVENANT OF NOAH. Nottice that the animals are equated as FLESH. GEN 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. 5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man." WHEN BLOOD IS SHED IT IS LIFE. ANIMAL OR HUMAN FLESH WITH BLOOD HAS LIFE. SO, THE PENALTY OF SIN COST ANIMAL LIFE!! Face it you are not exegeting the text.You are synchronizing your beliefs and eisegeting the text. the taking of animal life for meat is due to the curse. But animals were meant to serve mankind. genesis 2:18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. " after the fall man did not have the animals under his complete authority. So he had to domesticate some and make other people slaves. (children, woman others.) and humanities problems with government and wars and industry have prevailed ever since.
  • OEC #2 Matt SIngleton

    "OEC#2, There are verses that directly say that animals were sacrificed for sin."

    Yes there are but these verses don't address the issue of predation or animals dying at the end of their life cycle. If you think they do then you are reading your theology into the text.

    " But according to secular evolutionist humans died hundreds of thousands of years before the Fall. "

    I'm not a secular evolutionist. I don't see how this is relevant

    "Yes people have a greater dignity in the image of God. But animals are just as much living things and making fun of the heathen for caring about the rights of animals does not prove Christianity to be loving. If animal life didn't matter it would not be called a sacrifice."

    People not only have greater dignity than the image of God but only people are capable of eternal relationship with God or an eternity apart from God in hell. Therefore there is no comparison between human death and animal death. Animal sacrifice, as you rightly say, showed that the sacrifice of life must be given for sin, but it also showed that the life of an animal was not sufficient (it had to be repeated over and over) only the sacrifice of Jesus' life was sufficient.

    God sending Jesus to die for our sins proves that God is loving, there is no greater proof.

    "WHEN BLOOD IS SHED IT IS LIFE. ANIMAL OR HUMAN FLESH WITH BLOOD HAS LIFE. SO, THE PENALTY OF SIN COST ANIMAL LIFE!! "

    Yes it did and all those sacrifices pointed to only sacrifice that could take away our sin Jesus' sacrifice. Again you are not addressing the issue of animals eating other animals - animal sacrifice has nothing to do with predation. You need to demonstrate your theology from the Scripture.
  • Matt SIngleton " these verses don't address the issue of predation or animals dying at the end of their life cycle. If you think they do then you are reading your theology into the text." That's hypocritical. You have been reading spiritual death into the text the whole time. creation was cursed at the fall to adapt itself. genesis 3: 14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: " here the serpent changes to a creature who dwells on his belly. " 18 thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;" Here again we see creation distorting as a result of the curse. The animal kingdom had been corrupted. genesis 6: 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." So now God would have to destroy not only man but animals. Genesis 6:7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." Now why would God need to destroy animals if they were still very good? Because they were corrupted! (6:12) they (all flesh) were living creatures genesis 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. " God had repented changed his mind about the creatures because the creatures became corrupted!!! [DING DING DING!! YOUR PREMISE HAS BEEN DESTROYED!] ......
  • Matt SIngleton genesis 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." hold on what are unclean animals? lev. 7:18 And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity. 19 And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire: and as for the flesh, all that be clean shall eat thereof. 20 But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, that pertain unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, even that soul shall be cut off from his people. 21 Moreover the soul that shall touch any unclean thing, as the uncleanness of man, or any unclean beast, or any abominable unclean thing, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which pertain unto the Lord, even that soul shall be cut off from his people." Is something abominable very good?? No! it is flesh that has been corrupted! The curse of sin is death. death is unholy Leviticus 5:1 And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity. 2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty. 3 Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty. " lev. 10:10 and that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; " So we know that all creation was cursed by the fall. 1 corinthians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
    50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." So if mankind ever had any shot of eternal life before it fell, it must be that God created a very good creation without death until man fell into sin.
  • Matt SIngleton " But according to secular evolutionist humans died hundreds of thousands of years before the Fall. "

    'I'm not a secular evolutionist. I don't see how this is relevant" even if you are an ID old earther you would have to assume evolutionary dating methods. Because geological dates were based upon evolutionary dating of fossils. So since they have neanderthal skeletons with cancer you would then logically assume that God cursed man with death prior to sin or that he did not intelligently make man's DNA.
  • Matt SIngleton "People not only have greater dignity than the image of God but only people are capable of eternal relationship with God or an eternity apart from God in hell. " ecclesiastes 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?" Yep.... Solomon just called you out!
  • Matt SIngleton "God sending Jesus to die for our sins proves that God is loving, there is no greater proof." If death is just a part of a very Good life. then what consequence is the cross? Atonement is at this point compromised. As a rock band once put it, Christ death is nothing more than a "self righteous suicide". Jesus didn't deserve to die because death is bad and Jesus is good. If death is good then a good Jesus is not suffering any crime by dying.
  • Matt SIngleton Isaiah 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
    and the leopard shall lie down with the kid;
    and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;

    and a little child shall lead them.
    7 And the cow and the bear shall feed;
    their young ones shall lie down together:
    and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
    8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp,
    and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den.
    9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain:
    for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord,
    as the waters cover the sea." Why is the future heaven and earth going to have nature change? Because it was distorted during the fall. Christ will come and reverse the curse.
  • OEC#2 Matt SIngleton

    "creation was cursed at the fall to adapt itself. "


    The serpent was used by Satan, the serpent had no choice in the matter. The curse upon the serpent "your belly you shall go and dust you shall" is referring to the humiliation and ultimate defeat of Satan. We know this because animals can't sin and serpents don't literally eat dust so we tell that the curse is meant for Satan.

    Thorns and thistles are blessing to animals that eat them. The text does not say thorns and thistles never existed before but that now they would become a problem for mankind as they are expelled from the garden. Remember Gen 1:28
    the earth needs to be subdued

    "Now why would God need to destroy animals if they were still very good?"

    1 Tim 4:4 is clear everything God created is good, the one exception of course is mankind who rebelled against him.

    God had given the animals to mankind to rule over them. He destroyed the animals in order to judge mankind by taking away what was originally meant to be a blessing. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

    If you read the verses in context God brought the Flood because of human sin.

    "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Gen 6:5

    "genesis 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." hold on what are unclean animals?"

    These verse don't help your case it all. Unclean in this case means ceremonially unclean i.e. not suitable for sacrifice. Jesus declared all foods clean Mark 7:19 as the ceremonial laws would no longer apply. These verses say nothing against the goodness of creation which 1 Tim 4:4 affirms.

    " Yep.... Solomon just called you out! "

    Read the verses in context. All die - man and animals return to the dust. From the New Testament we can answer Solomon's question, all those in Christ will be with God after they die i.e. eternal life is available for people.

    For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth? Ecc. 3:19-21

    " If death is just a part of a very Good life. then what consequence is the cross?"

    You keep missing the point. Death for humans was never God's intention that's what Christ died for. Death through sin is only possible for people, animals don't sin.

    "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned" Rom 5:12.

    "Why is the future heaven and earth going to have nature change?"

    Because there will not even be the possibility of sin in the future heaven and earth. God knew that Adam would Fall and this creation is good for God purposes i.e. to limit the effects of sin and to be the place where Jesus would come and die.
  • Matt SIngleton if Satan were cursed on his belly, why is the prince and power of the air?

    The mark 7:19 does not say anything against ceremonial laws. It is talking about Manichean views of an evil substance. You would have to assume that the law taught that matte
    r was evil as opposed to cursed.
    Yes Ecclesiastes declares that you have no right to claim you know the destination of animals after death.

    Death is the same for animals and people. The destination could be different, but it is not good no matter how you spin it.
    You claim that we are cursed by God over possibilities?
    So then who gave us possibilities?
    So now again you have failed to account for why God put evil on the earth. If God is good and his creation is very good then there should be no reconciliation.

    You have yet to even attempt to Biblically prove that death is a natural part of existence. You have forced an interpretation in order to give Christianity contradictions in hermeneutics, systematic theology, Old Testament theology and philosophy.
    The price is way to high to even be considered a rational explanation."



    So as can be shown,  The Old earth opponents would distract from the main point.  Early on I stated that if death were natural, then why would the resurrection be needed and why would the death of Christ be wrong.  The OEC would claim that  I was inferring a "very good" earth was stating that there was no death before the fall.  How ever I did not infer anything.  I asked  the implication of a very good creation.
    Death came from man. 1corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."  
    Is this verse talking about spiritual death only or physical death?
    " 12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:"
     obviously the raising of the dead and the resurrection imply that death is physical in this chapter.

    "54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."      For God to make all life corruptible with a sting of death is just not "very good" otherwise the annihilation of death would not be a great victory either.

    Here we see that physical death came from man's sin.  Death was introduced in Genesis as conditional and not unconditional.

    Genesis 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."  Notice how that Death is not only introduced as a condition, it is introduced as a negative condition.  It assume that death is natural and unconditional is to impose a meaning onto the Bible.
      One OEC rebuttal is the idea that death for man is spiritual because man can sin. I refuted that on 2 levels.  First, I should that death is death in ecclesiastes 3.  then I showed that according to evolutionary science  neaderthal man died before their was sin.
    The OEC assumed to not get the point in both cases.
    In Christ 
    Matt