> 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.
>
> 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.
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.
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.
> But Genesis clearly teaches that man had to eat of the tree of life
> before he could "live forever" (Gn 3:22).
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. 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.
> 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.
>
> 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.
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.
> Besides, the Bible clearly says that "God...alone is immortal" (1Tim
> 6:15-16).
Semantics. Man was "effectively immortal" before the Fall.
> 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.
BTW, Revelations (sic) should have been Isaiah 11 and 65. My mistake.
> 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)
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. How do you justify the verse above with Revelation 21:4?
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.
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.
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. 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 also am convinced of the fact of evolution and
would self-identify as a TE with increasing reservations toward Christian
theology. Incidentally, my roots are fundamentalist and charismatic sects
of Christianity.
---Michael McCullochmmccullo@usit.net