Mon, 28 Sep 1998 20:41:07 -0500 you wrote:
>Hi Karen,
>
>At 02:33 PM 9/28/98 -0600, Karen G. Jensen wrote:
>>
>>Mon, 28 Sep 1998 06:02:51 -0500 Glenn Morton wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>To me the actual Hebrew undermines the claim made by Henry et al that there
>>>was no death in the universe prior to the fall. Mankind was offered
>>>immortality; the animals weren't. Notice that in Romans 5:12 that death
>>>passed unto all MEN, it doesn't say 'men and animals'.
>>
>>
>>Romans 5 focuses on man's sin, death, and peace with God. It is Romans 8
>>that broadens the perspective to include the whole creation:
>>
>> For the earnest expectation of the creature waits for
>> the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature
>> was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by
>> reason of Him who hath subjected the same in hope,
>> because the creature itself also shall be delivered
>> from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty
>> of the children of God. Romans 8:19-21
>>
>>And verses 22-23 make that even more clear:
>>
>> For we know that the whole creation groans and
>> travails in pain together until now. And not only they,
>> but we 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.
>
>Let me point out that the creation can groan under our mismanagement of the
>environment even if death was NOT the additional problem added to creation
>at the fall that most young-earthers believe it was. This verse does not
>clearly say that death was added to animals when we fell.
The present world certainly does bear witness of effects of thorns,
predation, parasitism, pathogenicity, etc. This is apparent even apart
from man's mismanagement of things, tho much increased by man's actions
now. What do you believe was the origin of this? When was it that "the
creature was made subject to vanity"?
There are lots
>of other implications of the fall that affected animals. Thorns affect
>animals and the Bible says that thorns were added to the earth at that time
>(according to young-earth theology).
>
Yes. It is interesting to me as a botanist that Genesis 3:18 specifically
notes that thorns would come. I looked up how they form in plants, and
they are clearly results of degeneration -- branch buds which have aborted
and sclerified, leaf veins that have sclerified with loss of surrounding
leaf mesophyll, non-productive growths on stem epidermis, etc.
Parasites also are understood to be degenerate from previously free-living
or symbiotic forms. Pathogens also.
>>
>>
>>>creation of reproductive abilities for the animals argues against a
>>>deathless world. Why would animals need to reproduce if they weren't going
>>>to die?
>>
>>I think He knows why.
>
>Why do you think that?
Because I believe He knows all things!
reproduction, leads to overpopulation or to a
>population that must die. Plants are a limited resource and 100
>quadrillion cattle would eat everything on earth.
>
The first animals were invited to multiply and fill the earth. Apparently
it was not filled from the beginning. If they had filled it peacefully,
perhaps there was a planned place where they could go and continue to grow.
But it became filled, with violence (Gen.6:13). That took care of the
population growth, but it was reason to groan.
>And when a cow chomped on grass, he would pick up insects like ants,
>grasshoppers, aphids etc and chew them up. Are you asserting that insects
>could withstand the several thousand pounds per square inch pressure
>exerted by bovine teeth, could be swallowed, dipped in the gastric juices
>of 4 stomachs and then excreted in dung and live to tell about it? This is
>what you must believe if you hold that animals didn't die before the fall.
>
I don't know how many ants, grasshoppers, and aphids were in the original
earth, whether they would be plentiful enough to be around on the grass
that the herbivores ate. I don't know how careful the herbivores were when
they ate. I believe they did not have to eat as much as they do now,
because their metabolism was very good, and the food was fully nutritious.
>Could an elephant step on an ant which was walking across a stone surface
>and not squash the ant?
I don't know if there were any stone surfaces.
Chitin only has so much strength and an elephant's
>weight would exceed that strength. So, how do you account for this? Was
>chitin stronger before the fall? Were ants really superants( kinda like
>fire ants) before the fall?
>
I don't know.
>>
>> It is as easy for God to create 10 billion cattle as two and if
>>>they weren't going to die, He easily could have produced 10 billion sexless
>>>cows and been done with it.
>>
>>But He didn't!
>
>I contend that He didn't because cattle were dying of old age and needed to
>be replaced.
>
I believe He had something to show us about generation and regeneration,
apart from death. But when death came, multiplication served to replace
those lost, still teaching us about generation and regeneration.
Bless you.
Karen