In his book “Two books on Genesis against the Manichees” (R. J. Teske (trans),
“Saint Augustine on Genesis”, Catholic University of America Press, Washington
D.C., p79) Augustine recognised the possibility that animals were potentially
carnivorous before the fall. In his comments on Genesis 1:28 on page 79 he noted
that this verse should not be interpreted with naive literalism, for
“We should also be warned not to understand these matters carnally from the fact
that in Genesis the green plants and fruit bearing trees were given to every kind
of animal and to the birds and to all the birds and to all the reptiles as food.
Yet we see that lions, hawks, kites, and eagles feed only on meat and the killing
of other animals.”
Thus extra-Biblical data suggested to Augustine that this passage should not be
taken literally in saying that carnivorous animals were originally vegetarian. He
was careful in his Retractions not to rule out the literal interpretation,
however. Augustine was able to say that physical death among animals was not
necessarily the result of the fall, but part of God’s good creation. He wrote
this without any knowledge of the evidence of a long prehuman history of life.
Respectfully
Jon
"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
> Jeff wrote,
>
> > I got a call from my father, a Nazarene minister, the other night. One of
> > the flock (a quiet agronimist) got pulled into a c/e discussion at work, got
> > leveled by a stumper, and came to Dad wondering how to resolve the question.
> >
> > So, I am trying to pull together some resources for him on the topic of
> > "original sin" and its effects on creation. Specifically these are in
> > answer to Sure-Fire Evolutionist Stumper #371: Evolution can't possibly be
> > true because the Bible teaches that no death existed before the Fall.
>
> I'll just say the obvious.
>
> 1. The "no death before the Fall" problem arises only in the wake of the
> unwarranted _assumption_ that Genesis 1-3 is a chronicle of historical
> particulars. It is not. And those persons who believe that it is are not
> likely to respond favorably to any argument that would give credibility to
> the concept of biotic evolution.
>
> 2. The "no death before the Fall" problem places old-earth episodic
> creationists in the same position as persons favoring the idea of a Creation
> sufficiently gifted by its Creator with formational capabilities as to make
> possible something as remarkable as biotic evolution. It's not an evolution
> problem, but a chronology problem.
>
> 3. The age of the Earth and the age of the universe as a whole are now, I
> would say, sufficiently well determined by the natural sciences as to
> discredit any young earth belief. Once again, however, persons who choose to
> interpret the biblical text in such a way as to require the recent creation
> chronology are not likely to give any credibility to the chronology
> determined scientifically--even when consistent results are achieved by
> numerous independent means and by several of the natural sciences.
>
> 4. Although I have been immersed in the "creation/evolution debate" for
> decades, I am still amazed at what some people (good & sincere people, for
> the most part) choose to believe. The "folk-science" phenomenon is
> astoundingly powerful!
>
> Note: Folk-science is a set of beliefs about the world, beliefs whose
> primary function is to provide comfort and reassurance that another set of
> worldview beliefs, already in place, may be maintained in spite of
> criticism. The "comfort and reassurance" function is so powerful that nearly
> any amount of criticism from professional scientists will be shrugged off as
> nothing more than the "rantings of the deluded."
>
> Life is good, but some moments are exceedingly frustrating.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 17 2001 - 01:47:28 EST