Is this a common Christian belief?

[Pretty in Pink]

We are using Apologia Zoology 3 this year. In the first chapter the book states (paraphrasing), "There were no carnivorous relationships in the Garden on Eden. All of the animals were herbivores. Predator/prey relationships were not part of God's original plan for His creations; rather, they are a result of sin having entered the world."

 

Is this a common Christian belief? I am a Christian and have never heard this before.

[Aunty Social]

I've heard it before, but am not sure of the scriptural references backing it up. I always mean to look them up, but.....

 

Anyway, I don't know how widespread or mainstream the belief is, but it does have at least a small following.

[Carol in Cal.]

It stems, IIRC, from the idea that until the time of Noah there was no mention of meat eating. OTOH, Abel was a shepherd, but then again, maybe they needed sheep for wool or milk. I have never thought that the case for this was so strong in the Bible than anyone would state it as fact, though. It's more of an inference, I think, and not necessarily clearly true, even if you're a young earth creationist.

[Corraleno]

I had never heard of this either until a few weeks ago. The kids and I were visiting my sister, who is an evangelical Christian, and her daughter spent a great deal of time trying to convince my son that Tyrannosaurus rex ate apples and watermelon in the Garden of Eden before Adam sinned. She even had a video of a preacher explaining it that she kept trying to force him to watch. My son has wanted to be a paleontologist since he was 4, and has already taken adult-level paleo courses and participated in professional digs, so this was really awkward to say the least!

 

Jackie

[Unicorn.]

 

Is this a common Christian belief? I am a Christian and have never heard this before.

 

I think you just answered your own question- :D (Not common)

 

Christianity is so diverse in it's beliefs, I'm sure that there are plenty of people who have been taught this, but not everyone.

[mrsrevmeg]

That is what I have heard all my life.

Genesis 1:28-30:28And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." 29And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food."

 

Then, after the flood

Genesis 9:1-3 1And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. 2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

[Pamela H in Texas]

One reasoning....The Garden of Eden was a paradise. The earth is to return to a paradise. The scriptures about the latter talk about animals living in peace with one another. It is unlikely that animals at peace with one another could be eating one another. If that is God's purpose for the future and he doesn't change, it was his purpose originally.

 

I have heard the "after the flood" reasoning also. However, I personally can't totally "feel" the connection on that one. Maybe I just haven't heard it explained well enough? It makes enough sense to me (reasonable jump?) but I couldn't possibly explain it.

[JVA]

The reason for this doctrinal stand was that there was no death in the Garden until Cain murdered Abel. People and animals were vegetarians. After the fall, carnivorous eating became the norm.

[Spring Pea]

I've heard this too, usually as an argument for vegetarianism. According to some, it was God's intention for man to be a vegetarian and then sin lead to death and violence.

 

I guess it hasn't caused a conflict of faith for me yet to delve into it. My opinion, read for yourself and ask God. He'll usually tell you what you need to know--maybe not the exact answer to your question, but what you need to know to live in Him. And so far, I'm still eating meat. Though sometimes I wonder. . .

[FO4UR]

idk how common it is...but it does derive from the belief that there was no death before the first sin.

 

Personally, I leave a lot of the debated topics somewhat open-ended - we don't KNOW a lot of things. My ds is really into Dino's - and I teach him sift fact from opinion at this point. It's not important that he make a decision as to if there ever was a T Rex who ate apples...it IS important that he learn to question the assumption that there was or wasn't.

[Quiver0f10]

That is what I have heard all my life.

 

Then, after the flood

 

 

I was going to post these verses. It's MY belief that in the garden man was to eat herbs, seeds, nuts, fruit etc. After the flood is when man began to eat meat.

[Pamela H in Texas]

I think it's a good argument for vegetarianism except that God allows for the eating of meat for now. To me, it's similar to arguments about divorce. It wasn't in God's original purpose. He allowed for it for certain things. That was altered when he determined it was appropriate. It will probably be altered again when his purpose for the earth is realized. I eat meat with no conscience issue at all since he allows it (just as I might have taken advantage of a divorce if it seemed necessary before). I think he'll tell us whe we can't eat meat (or it's more limited) just like he told us when he decided we could handle having fewer scriptural reasons to divorce :)

[Kathleen in VA]

As others have said, it is not spelled out explicitly, but there was no death in the Garden of Eden until man sinned. Adam and Eve tried to make coverings for themselves with leaves, but God made clothing out of animal skins, necessarily having to kill whatever animals he used in order to make them. This is a picture of the blood sacrifice needed to atone for sin.

 

Btw, Cain did not murder Abel in the Garden. Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden after they sinned and it was after their explusion that the first murder occurred.

 

Once outside the Garden in the fallen world, some animals became carnivorous. It was man who was told by God after the flood that he could now eat meat and not just plants. Animals were eating each other and men before that.

[Corraleno]

The reason for this doctrinal stand was that there was no death in the Garden until Cain murdered Abel.

 

Then, after the flood...."Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything."

 

But Adam & Eve were clothed in animal skins after they sinned and Abel's sacrifice was a lamb, so clearly there was death before Cain killed Abel, and well before the flood.

 

This website argues that scripture in fact supports the idea that there were carnivorous animals in the Garden, because Adam named the animals and gave some of them names that refer to violence, prey, tearing, etc. He contends that the absence of death in the Garden refers only to human death, pointing out that the large animals of the sea, created on the 5th day, would have starved to death if they couldn't eat other animals, and that there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that God transformed a large % of the animals into carnivores after Adam's sin:

 

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html

 

Jackie

[katemary63]

nevermind.

[Plucky]

It sounds vaguely familiar. I think I heard it from some 7th Day Adventist friends. They try very hard to be vegetarians, too.

[phathui5]

You do hear about the "lion laying down with the lamb," which wouldn't be very likely if the lamb was about to get eaten.

[Ginevra]

This website argues that scripture in fact supports the idea that there were carnivorous animals in the Garden, because Adam named the animals and gave some of them names that refer to violence, prey, tearing, etc. He contends that the absence of death in the Garden refers only to human death, pointing out that the large animals of the sea, created on the 5th day, would have starved to death if they couldn't eat other animals, and that there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that God transformed a large % of the animals into carnivores after Adam's sin:

 

To me, the most unworkable part of the belief that no animal was carnivorous before the Fall is that animals (even humans) are completely constructed in accordance with the food they eat. If a lion ate grass, it would not need the tooth structure it has, the digestive system it has, the musculature it has, the social structure it has and so on. Likewise, if rabbits were not prey they would not need camaflaged coats, speed, sensitivity to the presence of danger, prolifice procreation, large eyes positioned on the sides of the head and so on. It seems utterly ridiculous to me that God did a major overhaul of the inter-relationships of all animals and also had to rework their entire physical structure to fill their new role. That would be very silly.

[Orthodox6]

It is [Orthodox] Church tradition that there were no carnivores before the Fall. Holy Tradition includes, of course, the Bible and all of its teachings. Although this belief is not in the Bible explicitly, it remains part of our understanding of life before the Fall. As death did not yet exist, neither did the eating of flesh.

 

I remember hearing before that some Christians reject the eating of meat on this basis. As the Fall did occur, however, and the world exists in the fallen state, I don't understand the position. Perhaps someone from these groups might comment. (Thanks !)

 

Cain, btw, did not commit the murder of his brother in the Garden. This happened after the Expulsion from Paradise.

[Pretty in Pink]

To me, the most unworkable part of the belief that no animal was carnivorous before the Fall is that animals (even humans) are completely constructed in accordance with the food they eat. If a lion ate grass, it would not need the tooth structure it has, the digestive system it has, the musculature it has, the social structure it has and so on. Likewise, if rabbits were not prey they would not need camaflaged coats, speed, sensitivity to the presence of danger, prolifice procreation, large eyes positioned on the sides of the head and so on. It seems utterly ridiculous to me that God did a major overhaul of the inter-relationships of all animals and also had to rework their entire physical structure to fill their new role. That would be very silly.

 

Yes, these were my thoughts as well. I told my ds that we would discuss this before the week was up so that I could gather my thoughts and information. We will, as always, examine both sides of the question. Thanks for the input and the helpful link.

[Denise in Florida]

No. I have been mainstream Christian my entire life, I never heard this before a few years ago.

 

This has struck me as one of those denominational differences that pop up.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I agree. I think that there are a lot of assumptions made from a couple of passages. The assumptions are not necessarily true, but those assumptions are necessary to carry forward certain doctrines, which would fall apart otherwise.

 

Sometimes, as a Christian, I find it easier to use secular science books than Christian ones because of the questionable interpretations of some scriptures.

[Peek a Boo]

To me, the most unworkable part of the belief that no animal was carnivorous before the Fall is that animals (even humans) are completely constructed in accordance with the food they eat. If a lion ate grass, it would not need the tooth structure it has, the digestive system it has, the musculature it has, the social structure it has and so on. Likewise, if rabbits were not prey they would not need camaflaged coats, speed, sensitivity to the presence of danger, prolifice procreation, large eyes positioned on the sides of the head and so on. It seems utterly ridiculous to me that God did a major overhaul of the inter-relationships of all animals and also had to rework their entire physical structure to fill their new role. That would be very silly.

 

I don't think i'd go so far as to include silly, but this is generally how I look at it too.

 

There WAS death in the garden before the Fall: those living green plants were, well, alive.

 

But other than that, yeah, it actually is pretty common, and I'm happy just knowing that God created. I'm fine if i find out that the Apologia text is indeed correct. ;)

[NancyNellen]

Through my study I have come to the conclusion that there was no death before the Lord slayed the animals to cover Adam and Eve after they sinned. Blood was required to "cover" their sin. Death, in essence, entered the world with the first sin. Abel was the first human death.

[Corraleno]

What did Killer Whales eat? :confused:

Jackie

[Lovedtodeath]

I agree. I think that there are a lot of assumptions made from a couple of passages. The assumptions are not necessarily true, but those assumptions are necessary to carry forward certain doctrines, which would fall apart otherwise.

 

Sometimes, as a Christian, I find it easier to use secular science books than Christian ones because of the questionable interpretations of some scriptures.

What doctrines are you thinking of?

 

I think it's a good argument for vegetarianism except that God allows for the eating of meat for now. To me, it's similar to arguments about divorce. It wasn't in God's original purpose. He allowed for it for certain things. That was altered when he determined it was appropriate. It will probably be altered again when his purpose for the earth is realized. I eat meat with no conscience issue at all since he allows it (just as I might have taken advantage of a divorce if it seemed necessary before). I think he'll tell us whe we can't eat meat (or it's more limited) just like he told us when he decided we could handle having fewer scriptural reasons to divorce :)

:iagree:I assume that God knows our needs more than anyone else so there must be a reason that God gave us meat and didn't take it back.

 

DH is always teasing me that I won't be eating steak every day in paradise, so it might be quite different than what I try to picture as paradise. :lol:

[Peek a Boo]

Through my study I have come to the conclusion that there was no death before the Lord slayed the animals ...

 

not particularly directed at you, but....

 

so did the living green plants not die when they were consumed??:confused:

[Peek a Boo]

What did Killer Whales eat? :confused:

Jackie

 

seaweed!!

 

and other microscopic plants in the sea......

 

right?

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Through my study I have come to the conclusion that there was no death before the Lord slayed the animals

This doesn't make sense to me. I see nothing in the Bible about animals not dying in the future, so I see no reason that they wouldn't have died in the past, not to mention fossil evidence.

[Jugglin'5]

not particularly directed at you, but....

 

so did the living green plants not die when they were consumed??:confused:

 

 

I think the Bible differentiates between living, animated things versus plants - the spilling of blood is very important. I am not prepared at this time to make an intensive argument that way, but it is just my general understanding. The Bible tends to classify things differently than we do, so this has never troubled me.

 

As far as the structural arguments against carnivores being herbivores before the fall, I see two possible solutions, maybe there are others:

1) God made them the way they are now knowing what would happen with Adam and Eve, or 2) God changed them to deal with the new reality. No big deal. If He created them in the first place I don't see why that would be a big deal.

[Peek a Boo]

not to mention fossil evidence.

**evolution debate alert**

 

;)

[Peek a Boo]

I think the Bible differentiates between living' date=' animated things versus plants - the spilling of blood is very important. I am not prepared at this time to make an intensive argument that way, but it is just my general understanding. The Bible tends to classify things differently than we do, so this has never troubled me.[/quote']

 

ok, so it's not that there was no *death* --because obviously there was-- but the blood thing makes sense. Not sure I agree 100%, because so much of what happens includes an intent of the heart, not just the act [including the spilling of blood].

 

i'll go google now that i have better idea of what I'm looking for....thanks :)

As far as the structural arguments against carnivores being herbivores before the fall' date=' I see two possible solutions, maybe there are others:

1) God made them the way they are now knowing what would happen with Adam and Eve, or 2) God changed them to deal with the new reality. No big deal. If He created them in the first place I don't see why that would be a big deal.[/quote']

 

#1 i find kinda troubling, but that's just my gut ;). If anything, i'd say that as we learn more about His creation we'll find that under certain vegetarian diets the 'usual' carnivorous body types will show to be just as efficient as the "typical" vegetarian body type.

 

2. yeah --If He created them in the first place I don't see why that would be a big deal. Lord knows it's His creation :D

[Tami]

I don't take a real dogmatic postition. The Bible appears to teach a young earth, and Creation seems to be old. We are either interpreting the Bible or the geology wrong, because the Bible and Creation are not in conflict with each other. It does not rock my faith in God as Creator whether the earth is young or old.

 

I don't believe that eating meat is a sin. I base this in a couple of things.

 

First, we are to avoid legalism and being overly concerned with food. Being overly concerned with food is a sign of false teachers:

 

1 Tim 4:1-2: “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, V:3-4 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving.â€

 

Heb.13:9: “Do not be lead away by diverse and strange teachings; for it is well that the heart be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited their adherentsâ€

 

If eating meat was a sin, God would not have commanded Peter to "Rise, kill and eat."

 

Acts 10:9-13 'On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:

 

And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.'

 

Food is a non-issue in the New Testament, and there are so many express warnings against falling into false teachings and legalism.

 

Young Earth/Old Earth is a non-issue for me.

 

Romans 14:17

[Gretchen in NJ]

To me, the most unworkable part of the belief that no animal was carnivorous before the Fall is that animals (even humans) are completely constructed in accordance with the food they eat. If a lion ate grass, it would not need the tooth structure it has, the digestive system it has, the musculature it has, the social structure it has and so on. Likewise, if rabbits were not prey they would not need camaflaged coats, speed, sensitivity to the presence of danger, prolifice procreation, large eyes positioned on the sides of the head and so on. It seems utterly ridiculous to me that God did a major overhaul of the inter-relationships of all animals and also had to rework their entire physical structure to fill their new role. That would be very silly.

I was thinking along these lines as well. Look at the T-rex's teeth. How could he eat an apple with them?:001_huh:

[Lovedtodeath]

I think the Bible differentiates between living' date=' animated things versus plants - the spilling of blood is very important. I am not prepared at this time to make an intensive argument that way, but it is just my general understanding. The Bible tends to classify things differently than we do, so this has never troubled me.

 

As far as the structural arguments against carnivores being herbivores before the fall, I see two possible solutions, maybe there are others:

1) God made them the way they are now knowing what would happen with Adam and Eve, or 2) God changed them to deal with the new reality. No big deal. If He created them in the first place I don't see why that would be a big deal.[/quote'] What about the idea that they were scavengers? And yes... there are some animals that seem like they are designed to eat meat, but they are actually using those tools for other food. A rare lizard closely related to the komodo dragons uses its incredibly powerful jaws for prying berries off of trees, and its deadly looking claws for scaling them.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Just a thought some might have about that.

 

If there had been no death at all, then when God told Adam that he would die if he disobeyed, was that really fair? Adam had no idea that death was, according to the scriptures, "not existing any longer," "being conscious of nothing," "having no thought or work or devising," "returning to dust," etc.

 

So if there had been no death prior, how did Adam understand what an enemy, as the Bible says, it was? The Father is greater than we are, right? Except a few people who threaten to hit 4 month olds, how many of us threaten a dire consequence that our kids can't possibly grasp? Does "I will spank you" mean anything to a 4 month old before you actually do it? Would God have warned of something Adam couldn't possibly understand?

 

And there are plenty of people who believe otherwise today. Most religions teach differently, making death sound as a reward or opportunity, rather than an enemy as the scriptures say. But we have information from the Creator available to us. Adam HAD to have had some idea of the gravity of the warning God gave. A loving God, a loving Father, would most certainly have provided that.

Edited August 12, 2009 by 2J5M9K

[NancyNellen]

Yes, I am talking about the spilled-blood, heart ceasing to beat kind of death. The death of creatures. Obviously, the plants did indeed die when they were eaten :-)

[BikeBookBread]

Just to throw this one out there on behalf of the old earth creationists, here is a quote from the Reasons to Believe website (Dr. Hugh Ross):

 

7. Does RTB's view that plants and animals died before the Fall of Adam contradict what Romans 5:12 teaches?

 

It does not.

A careful examination of Romans 5:12* shows that Adam's sin introduced death to all humans, not to all life forms on Earth. Plant and animal death in no way ascribes evil or cruelty to the Creator. Furthermore, a biblical and scientific case can be made that the observed laws of physics have been in operation since the creation of the universe. LEARN MORE...

Web Articles

Creature Mortality: From Creation Or The Fall?

Animal Death Before the Fall: What Does the Bible Say?

Books and Other Resources

Life and Death in Eden CD Set

Why the Universe is the Way it Is by Hugh Ross

 

 

*Romans 5:12: 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--

[NancyNellen]

Well, I will give you the Reader's Digest version of how I came to believe what I do.

 

First, Genesis 1:29-30 say the following:

 

"Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;

 

and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so. "

 

Clearly, according to God's Word, Adam and Eve AND all the Lord's created beings were vegetarian. Otherwise, if he made the point of saying they could eat from "every green plant" wouldn't he also have mentioned the animals that were on the menu?

 

Next, the Lord told them they would surely die if they ate of the forbidden fruit. The Lord was intimate with his creation in those days. They were used to Him "walking in the garden in the cool of the day." (Gen 1:8) How can we guess what their conversations may have been like? I am sure the Lord would not have threatened death if they ate of the tree if they didn't know what death was.

 

Adam and Eve should have been the ones to die, but the Lord, in His mercy, sacrifices the animals and uses their skin to "cover" their sin and shame. This is a theme which runs throughout Scripture, culminating of course in the death of Christ to cover the sins of those who would believe on Him. A look at the Old Testament law reveals very quickly that the Lord required blood to cover sins. Adam and Eve had been naked and unashamed before they disobeyed. Genesis 1 and 2 mention nowhere the death of anything (of course excepting the plants :-)

 

Last, in Genesis 3:22-24, we see the Lord driving Adam and Eve out of the garden lest they eat of the Tree of Life and live forever. There is an assumption there that all things had eaten from the Tree of Life before and, therefore, had been able to live forever. Now that this fruit was being withheld, man would surely NOT live forever.

 

Romans 5:12 also backs this up:

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

 

I interpret that to mean that before sin there was no death.

 

I will agree with others to say, this isn't a hill to die on, for sure. But I do believe that Scripture is fairly clear in this area. I have found no Scripture that would indicate death being around before the fall of man.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Adam and Eve should have been the ones to die

 

Adam and Eve DID die. They had perfection in paradise forever to look forward but passed on sin and death to us instead. BLECH. Thankfully, because of the merits of Jesus' ransom sacrifice (Jesus' perfect life in place of Adam's perfection lost), there will be, when the time is right, people living forever in paradise. But it stinks our first parents messed everything up. Anyway, this post just to say that they should have been and WERE the ones to die for their error (of course, animals died too because of the sacrifices necessary until Jesus' sacrifice).

[NancyNellen]

Well, of course you are right. I think I made it clear that they had to die because of sin...I never said they didn't die. But I meant they should have died immediately, right where they were standing. It was God's mercy that allowed them to live, and humanity to go on, at all.

[Quiver0f10]

Well, I will give you the Reader's Digest version of how I came to believe what I do.

 

First, Genesis 1:29-30 say the following:

 

"Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;

 

and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so. "

 

Clearly, according to God's Word, Adam and Eve AND all the Lord's created beings were vegetarian. Otherwise, if he made the point of saying they could eat from "every green plant" wouldn't he also have mentioned the animals that were on the menu?

 

Next, the Lord told them they would surely die if they ate of the forbidden fruit. The Lord was intimate with his creation in those days. They were used to Him "walking in the garden in the cool of the day." (Gen 1:8) How can we guess what their conversations may have been like? I am sure the Lord would not have threatened death if they ate of the tree if they didn't know what death was.

 

Adam and Eve should have been the ones to die, but the Lord, in His mercy, sacrifices the animals and uses their skin to "cover" their sin and shame. This is a theme which runs throughout Scripture, culminating of course in the death of Christ to cover the sins of those who would believe on Him. A look at the Old Testament law reveals very quickly that the Lord required blood to cover sins. Adam and Eve had been naked and unashamed before they disobeyed. Genesis 1 and 2 mention nowhere the death of anything (of course excepting the plants :-)

 

Last, in Genesis 3:22-24, we see the Lord driving Adam and Eve out of the garden lest they eat of the Tree of Life and live forever. There is an assumption there that all things had eaten from the Tree of Life before and, therefore, had been able to live forever. Now that this fruit was being withheld, man would surely NOT live forever.

 

Romans 5:12 also backs this up:

 

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

 

I interpret that to mean that before sin there was no death.

 

I will agree with others to say, this isn't a hill to die on, for sure. But I do believe that Scripture is fairly clear in this area. I have found no Scripture that would indicate death being around before the fall of man.

 

:iagree: 100%. And while I do believe we were created to be vegetarians I do not feel it is a sin to eat meat. Also I believe God told them to eat meat after the flood. I think not eating meat is healthier, but that's a whole 'nother thread :lol:

Edited August 13, 2009 by Quiver0f10

[Dirtroad]

No death before SIN came into the garden. So, no carnivores.

 

Ever wonder why dogs love broccoli?;)

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Ever wonder why dogs love broccoli?;)

Dogs are actually omnivores. Cats are true carnivores. You will make them sick if you try to feed them an omnivorous diet.

[Garga]

1) God made them the way they are now knowing what would happen with Adam and Eve' date=' [/quote']

 

He did know. The bible says that Jesus is the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. The plan for Jesus to pay for our sins was in place before the world was even made. It was no great shock to God when it happened.

 

Adam and Eve DID die. They had perfection in paradise forever to look forward but passed on sin and death to us instead. BLECH.

 

Death means separation. The death we usually think about is when our soul separates from our body. But the other death that God warned Adam and Eve of was when our spirits separate from God. Think of phrases like, "Dead in your sins." Your body isn't dead--but you're dead. What's dead? Your spirit is dead--it's apart from God.

 

When Adam and Eve disobeyed God and chose to go against him, on that day they separated from God--they died.

 

We are all born dead to God. That's why Jesus said you must be born again, this time of the spirit.

 

Hope I'm making sense. It's waaaay past bedtime.

[Denisemomof4]

only read original post.....

 

yes, common. Just as common to me as Adam and Eve not noticing their own nudity, or being embarrassed by it, until after the first sin.

 

Wouldn't it be awesome to truly see a lion lying with a lamb?

[sunshine]

That is what I have heard all my life.

 

Then, after the flood

 

If you are a Christian, which defines itself as believing in Jesus Christ, then you believe in the Bible, and Genesis is the first book of the Bible, then you believe that everything that ate, ate plants.:D

[Jugglin'5]

He did know. The bible says that Jesus is the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. The plan for Jesus to pay for our sins was in place before the world was even made. It was no great shock to God when it happened.

 

 

 

No argument from me...I'm a Calvinist Dark-sider...:lol:

[Ibbygirl]

I think that this teaching stems from these verses in Isaiah as well as the verses from Genesis that chronicle the creation.

Isaiah 11:6-9 (New King James Version)

 

6 “ The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,

The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,

The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;

And a little child shall lead them.

7 The cow and the bear shall graze;

Their young ones shall lie down together;

And the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

8 The nursing child shall play by the cobra’s hole,

And the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper’s 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.

 

My thoughts...I can see how these verses can be interpreted to say, "If this is the way things will be after Christ is ruling and reigning and all things have been restored then it must have been the way it was before the fall." That would make sense to me, but the Bible does not come out and tell us these specific details about the animals in the beginning in such plain language as the Isaiah verses. It would seem logical to me if God did have all animals eating plants in the beginning because that is what they will be doing in the end, and I don't see the build and jaw structure as an obstacle since God can do all things, but I wasn't there in the beginning so I cannot say either way whether they did or didn't, but I know that they will in the end. :) ".... and a little child shall lead them." :)

Edited August 13, 2009 by Ibbygirl

[tdeveson]

The kids and I were visiting my sister, who is an evangelical Christian, and her daughter spent a great deal of time trying to convince my son that Tyrannosaurus rex ate apples and watermelon in the Garden of Eden before Adam sinned.

 

Oy! :lol: