You have not given me a positive reason to believe that light and darkness were for predators and prey. You have said it as if it were so, read into the text as if it were so, but that is not the same as seeing it spelled out from with a specific date-time where it was so from that point on. All you have is strickly something you suggest is there because it isn't mentioned specifically, not something I would build a doctrine on. There is more support for a large time gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 than what you suggest with predator and prey. I at least cannot give a definitive response to those that believe there is then not.
Evolution is not the real problem creationists have with evolution
Sort:
It's not really my suggestion, but what the Bible seems to be saying. And to clarify, it's not so much 'for' as if that's the sole reason for the sun and moon marking days and nights--it's not. It's about God's provision. God has provided darkness/night & prey animals for nocturnal predators. Psalm 104 teaches that the seven day creation week included acts by God that provided for the needs of His creature creations (including nocturnal predators):
Psalm 104:19-28
He made the moon for the seasons; the sun knows the place of its setting. 20 You appoint darkness and it becomes night, in which all the beasts of the forest prowl about. 21 The young lions roar after their prey and seek their food from God. 22 When the sun rises they withdraw and lie down in their dens. 23 Man goes forth to his work and to his labor until evening. 24 O LORD, how many are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all; the earth is full of Your possessions … 27 They all wait for You to give them their food in due season. 28 You give to them, they gather it up; You open Your hand, they are satisfied with good.
You're not saying that this passage instead teaches that predation is an aberration, degeneracy, distortion or corruption of God's original creation, are you? (I assume you're not, but maybe I've misunderstood)
As far as 'not giving you a positive reason' to believe...well, I wasn't trying to convince you (nor do I expect I could even if I wanted to), and imho the issue of whether or not there was predation before the fall is not an essential faith issue. Certainly not one that should cause division. So, this is more an explanation for why I'm not convinced there was no predation for the fall. It may ultimately prove unconvincing to you, but at least we will have a better appreciation for where we are each coming from.
Apr 5, 2021
0
#84
tbwp10 wrote:
It's not really my suggestion, but what the Bible seems to be saying. And to clarify, it's not so much 'for' as if that's the sole reason for the sun and moon marking days and nights--it's not. It's about God's provision. God has provided darkness/night & prey animals for nocturnal predators. Psalm 104 teaches that the seven day creation week included acts by God that provided for the needs of His creature creations (including nocturnal predators):
Psalm 104:19-28
He made the moon for the seasons; the sun knows the place of its setting. 20 You appoint darkness and it becomes night, in which all the beasts of the forest prowl about. 21 The young lions roar after their prey and seek their food from God. 22 When the sun rises they withdraw and lie down in their dens. 23 Man goes forth to his work and to his labor until evening. 24 O LORD, how many are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all; the earth is full of Your possessions … 27 They all wait for You to give them their food in due season. 28 You give to them, they gather it up; You open Your hand, they are satisfied with good.
You're not saying that this passage instead teaches that predation is an aberration, degeneracy, distortion or corruption of God's original creation, are you? (I assume you're not, but maybe I've misunderstood)
As far as 'not giving you a positive reason' to believe...well, I wasn't trying to convince you (nor do I expect I could even if I wanted to), and imho the issue of whether or not there was predation before the fall is not an essential faith issue. Certainly not one that should cause division. So, this is more an explanation for why I'm not convinced there was no predation for the fall. It may ultimately prove unconvincing to you, but at least we will have a better appreciation for where we are each coming from.
I think you may have missed one of my objections; it isn't that God hasn't done that, but when? You are implying it was always so since the beginning, and I'm saying there is no reason to believe that. I believe there were many changes when the fall occurred, including even having both predators and prey, but it wasn't always so. Having them at the beginning is something you have no demonstrated yet.
To me, it's the other way around. I see no reason to believe that predation is an aberration, degeneracy, distortion or corruption of God's original creation that is the result of the fall. No one has demonstrated from the Bible that predation was not part of God's original creation and only came about as a result of the fall. Therefore, I see no reason to adopt such a belief. And the fact that Psalm 104 teaches that the seven day creation week included acts by God that provided for the needs of His created creatures (including nocturnal predators) would seem to weigh against such a belief. But if Psalm 104 is ultimately found to be unconvincing, then that doesn't automatically mean predation was not part of God's original creation and only came about as a result of the fall (which has yet to be demonstrated). It merely takes us back to my original statement that the Bible doesn't conclusively say one way or the other.
Apr 5, 2021
0
#86
Like I said, without a positive text declaring such a thing, you are building a doctrine from Biblical silence, which isn't a sound place to be. I can point to where death entered the world, where the creation was cursed, where when all things are restored, there isn't any creature attacking and eating others. You have nothing other than silence, and with that are building quite the worldview with it.
TruthMuse wrote:
Like I said, without a positive text declaring such a thing, Psalm 104 is a positive text you are building a doctrine from Biblical silence, I am not building anything at all much less a 'doctrine' (that's a pretty extreme accusation) which isn't a sound place to be. But thank you for your concern I can point to where death entered the world, God told Adam & Eve they would die in the day they disobeyed (and they did not physically die in the day they disobeyed, indicating more than biological death was meant). Nothing more is said. Trying to make the Bible say anything more beyond this is adding to and going beyond the text where the creation was cursed, Nowhere in the Bible does it say the whole of creation was cursed due to Adam's sin. Genesis records only two things under God's curse: the serpent and agricultural productivity of the ground where when all things are restored, there isn't any creature attacking and eating others. As already noted that is also an assumption not supported by the text. Neither Isaiah 11 or 65 teaches that future peaceful coexistence of lion and lamb is a 'return' to or 'restoration' of God's original creation, and Isaiah 65:17 makes it clear that this is not a 'renewed' or 'restored' creation, but a 'new creation' entirely--a 'new heaven and new earth'. Furthermore, the fact that no clear statement exists in the Bible that predation is the result of the fall such that one has to assume that the future lion-lamb state described in Isaiah is a 'restoration' of God's original creation (which Isaiah does not say, but calls it a new creation) and that therefore God's original creation must have not included predation conveniently assumes what needs to be proved and is therefore not a good argument at all but a very weak one and shaky grounds on which to base a belief
You have nothing other than silence, Psalm 104 suppports it and with that are building quite the worldview with it. Like the 'doctrine' statement, that is extreme rhetoric to say the least. No one's 'building a worldview'. Whether or not someone believes predation resulted from the fall or existed from the beginning is not a 'worldview'. It's not even an essential faith issue.
We obviously disagree but that's OK. This is not a 'worldview' or essential faith issue.
Apr 5, 2021
0
#88
tbwp10 wrote:
TruthMuse wrote:
Like I said, without a positive text declaring such a thing, Psalm 104 is a positive text you are building a doctrine from Biblical silence, I am not building anything at all much less a 'doctrine' (that's a pretty extreme accusation) which isn't a sound place to be. But thank you for your concern I can point to where death entered the world, God told Adam & Eve they would die in the day they disobeyed (and they did not physically die in the day they disobeyed, indicating more than biological death was meant). Nothing more is said. Trying to make the Bible say anything more beyond this is adding to and going beyond the text where the creation was cursed, Nowhere in the Bible does it say the whole of creation was cursed due to Adam's sin. Genesis records only two things under God's curse: the serpent and agricultural productivity of the ground where when all things are restored, there isn't any creature attacking and eating others. As already noted that is also an assumption not supported by the text. Neither Isaiah 11 or 65 teaches that future peaceful coexistence of lion and lamb is a 'return' to or 'restoration' of God's original creation, and Isaiah 65:17 makes it clear that this is not a 'renewed' or 'restored' creation, but a 'new creation' entirely--a 'new heaven and new earth'. Furthermore, the fact that no clear statement exists in the Bible that predation is the result of the fall such that one has to assume that the future lion-lamb state described in Isaiah is a 'restoration' of God's original creation (which Isaiah does not say, but calls it a new creation) and that therefore God's original creation must have not included predation conveniently assumes what needs to be proved and is therefore not a good argument at all but a very weak one and shaky grounds on which to base a belief
You have nothing other than silence, Psalm 104 suppports it and with that are building quite the worldview with it. Like the 'doctrine' statement, that is extreme rhetoric to say the least. No one's 'building a worldview'. Whether or not someone believes predation resulted from the fall or existed from the beginning is not a 'worldview'. It's not even an essential faith issue.
Death before sin is a doctrine and adds to a worldview that demands death as part of the natural course of life, a requirement. While what I'm telling you is God is about life, not about the struggle for life but life.
Physical & spiritual death of humans resulting in separation from God due to Adam & Eve's sin is a doctrine. The absence of biological death of any non-humans before the fall is an assumption that the Bible doesn't clearly teach. It's also an assumption contradicted by Psalm 104 and Genesis itself that can only be maintained by a selective definition of 'death' that conveniently ignores the death of plants, insects (and a host of other invertebrate animals), fungi, and microbes, and that requires us to believe that such death is not really death or is not 'important' death. When a belief/doctrine that there was no death until the fall put the whole of creation under the curse of death doesn't actually mean that there was no death of any kind before the fall and doesn't actually mean that the whole of creation was put under a death curse, but only some of it---humans and certain kinds of animals---that is not a coherent belief/doctrine.
And it's not just the issue of predation and animals eating other animals. Because if 'death' in any form (as opposed to 'life') is intrinsically bad/evil, then that requires that all living things--from humans to animals to plants to fungi to microbes to insects and invertebrate animals of all kinds (gnats, flies, bugs, you name it)--all of life was created with immortality. Genesis doesn't even teach that Adam & Eve were created immortal, but mortal beings formed from dust who could only live forever if they had access to the tree of life.
Apr 5, 2021
0
#90
Can you point to death in scripture before the fall that actually specifically speaks to it before the sin of Adam and Eve?
Plants, grass, vegetation created as food for animals (Genesis 1). Adam & Eve eating from trees of garden (Genesis 2-3). Also, prey animals provided by God that are killed and eaten by predators (Psalm 104).
Can you point to anything in scripture that actually specifically states that God created every living thing with immortality such that nothing would ever die (or that nothing was ever supposed to die)?
If all life was created immortal to begin with such that no creature was ever meant to die (and death is not a normal part of nature, but only a consequence of sin/moral failure), then why would they need to eat or require nutritional sustenance of any kind in order to remain alive (since death is supposed to be the result of sin, not starvation or lack of sustenance)? If they're immortal, then they don't need sustenance (anymore than a glorified resurrection body does). If they require food/nutritional sustenance to stay alive (and not starve to death), then they're not immortal to begin with, but susceptible to death from the very beginning.
If God provided food for all living things so they wouldn't die but still created them with the potential or ability to die by starvation from lack of food, then how can death be said to be exclusively the result of sin if it could occur by other independent means that are not morally dependent?
Apr 6, 2021
0
#92
tbwp10 wrote:
Plants, grass, vegetation created as food for animals (Genesis 1). Adam & Eve eating from trees of garden (Genesis 2-3). Also, prey animals provided by God that are killed and eaten by predators (Psalm 104).
Can you point to anything in scripture that actually specifically states that God created every living thing with immortality such that nothing would ever die (or that nothing was ever supposed to die)?
If all life was created immortal to begin with such that no creature was ever meant to die (and death is not a normal part of nature, but only a consequence of sin/moral failure), then why would they need to eat or require nutritional sustenance of any kind in order to remain alive (since death is supposed to be the result of sin, not starvation or lack of sustenance)? If they're immortal, then they don't need sustenance (anymore than a glorified resurrection body does). If they require food/nutritional sustenance to stay alive (and not starve to death), then they're not immortal to begin with, but susceptible to death from the very beginning.
If God provided food for all living things so they wouldn't die but still created them with the potential or ability to die by starvation from lack of food, then how can death be said to be exclusively the result of sin if it could occur by other independent means that are not morally dependent?
You acknowledge Adam and Eve had to eat prior to the fall, that answers your question God designed it that way. I have already addressed your points and you are ignoring the answers so I'm not going to repeat myself.
I haven't ignored your 'answers', I've rebutted each of your points. And the fact Adam & Eve had to eat, and we're created from dust to which they would return, and had to be in God's presence and eat of the tree of life to continue to live all speak to Adam & Eve's mortality from the beginning.
Apr 6, 2021
0
#94
I guess I missed them I didn't see anything I thought rebutted my points, which more than like takes us both back to our agreement on the other board. 
LOL
Yeah at least we found one thing to agree on lol
One of the many problems with the view that wants to say there was no death of any kind before 'the fall' and that everything in the fossil record came after 'the fall' and is primarily a result of Noah's flood is that it requires the original garden of Eden to be before the Paleozoic era. This is a problem because the Bible locates the garden of Eden near the Tigris & Euphrates rivers which sit on top of the fossil record instead of five miles underground if the garden of Eden came before the Paleozoic.
Apr 20, 2021
0
#97
tbwp10 wrote:
One of the many problems with the view that wants to say there was no death of any kind before 'the fall' and that everything in the fossil record came after 'the fall' and is primarily a result of Noah's flood is that it requires the original garden of Eden to be before the Paleozoic era. This is a problem because the Bible locates the garden of Eden near the Tigris & Euphrates rivers which sit on top of the fossil record instead of five miles underground if the garden of Eden came before the Paleozoic.
As you know or I believe you do, I'm not convinced that everything we believe about the fossil record is as factual as some assume.
But here I'm talking about what YECs & YEC flood geologists believe about the fossil record; not what I believe about the fossil record. They believe the fossil record was primarily the result of Noah's flood and that the garden of Eden came before this (most YECs put the pre-flood/flood boundary at the Precambrian/Cambrian). This contradicts the Bible, which locates the garden of Eden on top of the fossil record instead of five miles underground at the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary.
Apr 20, 2021
0
#99
I don't spend any time reading what a young earth creationist thinks about the fossil record.
Well for starters, the entire Psalm 104 has long been recognized by both Jews & Christians as a hymn about creation that follows and is patterned after the seven day creation week.
The fact that Psalm 104:19-20 indicates God's creation of the moon and sun on the fourth day to mark times and to separate light from darkness included God's appointment of darkness to become night for nocturnal predators to seek prey, which is their appointed 'food from God' makes it pretty clear that David writing this psalm under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit understood predation to be a normal part of God's creation that goes back to the seven day creation week.