Is animal death inherently evil?

Gup, here's two passages:

Genesis 1:24-25: And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds -- livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Psalm 104:21,24: The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God. [...] O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom have you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures.

I treat both of these passages about the same. I don't ignore the second as non-literal and just focus on the first. The second sheds more light on the first by illustrating some of the specific creatures God created. God made the lion that roars for prey. God made the food for the lion too. That's what it says. You can't just write this off as poetic. While it is poetic, it doesn't use symbolism. When it describes young lions, it is talking about young lions.

Genesis 1 is not a "literal straight forward text". But, that's a topic for another thread.

That's because back in biblical times lions could devour them. You claimed that in paradise the lions would be changed. Why, then, is it pointed out that there's no lions along the "Way of Holiness" that only the ransomed can travel along? It only makes sense if "lions" here is speaking of dangerous animals, not domesticated pets that play with lambs. If they were tame, their presense would not be cause for concern. So, in spite of your explanation, it still appears that the lions are being used as a symbol.

But Genesis 1 does not mention the creation of algae. It only mentions the creation of plants on earth, and earth is defined as "dry ground" (Genesis 1:10-12). It also does not say that fish can eat algae. It doesn't say they can eat anything, for that matter. Do you accept that there were more food sources available than are mentioned in Genesis 1:29-30?

For the same reason one would argue that homosexuality is wrong - because God made Adam and Eve, and not Adam and Steve. The reason is - because God made them that way. He is the designer, he knows the specs better than anyone. You wouldn't question the kind of oil to put in your car... or the recommended octane level of the fuel would you? Those engineers recommened that for a reason - because that is what gives optimal performance while maximizing engine life.</font>[/QUOTE]What does Steve have to do with animal death? You seem to be evading the issue here. God does not say that animals are only to eat the land plants in Genesis 1:29-30 any more than he says humans are only to eat fruit from trees in Genesis 2:16. We've already established that there were more permitted foods than are listed in Genesis 1 because otherwise the fish would have nothing to eat.

And, even if your argument were correct, does that mean that eating meat today is just as unnatural and against our "specs" as homosexuality? Do you eat meat, Gup? If so, I doubt you really view it as analogus to homosexuality. It's worth noting that the "doctrine" of no animal death before the Fall was popularized by Seventh-day Adventists. At least they follow it to its logical conclusion and think that animal death and eating meat is something they should avoid if at all possible. If it is truly an accommodation of God as a result of sin, then we should be about as eager to eat meat as we are to get a divorce. Modern non-SDA YECs try to have their cake and eat it too -- or more precisely, claim animal death is evil while chomping down on a steak.

Yes, and I've shown repeatedly that when you apply Romans 5 to animals as well as humans it causes serious problems to your theology.

Romans 5:14: But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.

If the "many" who die because of Adam's sin includes animals (which is the result of your interpretation of Romans 5:12), then the "many" who can receive the free gift of Jesus Christ also includes animals. Do you really want to go there?

That sure sounds a lot different than the verse you're describing:

Psalm 104:24: O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom have you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures.

Why doesn't the psalmist give us any hint that these creatures are really the result of evil and not God's wisdom?

Isn't that a bit subjective? You've raised no objection to the fact that God calls prey for a lion one of the "good things" from his hand in Psalm 104, so now you're in the precarious position of trying to draw a line between what God can call "good" and what he can call "very good".

 

My last post was made quickly before leaving to go somewhere. Allow me to add some more:

While I think there's still problems with your explanation (as I outlined in my last post), I appreciate you taking the time to deal with that issue. That was the second of three problems I outlined with your Isaiah interpretations. You can find the other two problems in the middle of [this post]. Based on how you've argued around the second problem, I think you've backed yourself into a corner with the first problem.

Gup, please realize that I'm not dismissing your alternate reading of Isaiah 25:6-8 out of hand. I do think it's a possibility. But, no translation that I've checked has chosen to use it. Why is that? Based on this, how can you claim it is "abundantly clear"? Isn't it just possible that all those Hebrew scholars on all the translating committees know something you don't?

Now, I am sympathetic to the idea that translations can be wrong on things. For instance, check out my [alternate reading on the behemoth tail]. But even this reading has something more than your theory because it explains why translators would not use it: based on any doubt between this reading and a more innocuous reading, they're going to favour the one that won't cause people to blush when reading the verses from the pulpit. Even so, I wouldn't go so far as to say my reading is "abundantly clear". I think the fact that you do make such a claim about your reading damages your credibility. It shows an unwillingness to even consider the possibility that your own interpretation could be wrong, even when virtually all Bible translators are against you.

I've numbered the points of your summary for easy reference.

1. No, you've shown that God gave vegetation to the land animals and humans for food. We both make assumptions that aren't in the text. You assume that Genesis 1:24-25 lists all permitted food sources (aside from whatever the fish ate) and that in Psalm 104 the things God calls "good" are only good in the context of an evil world contaminated by sin. I assume that Genesis 1:24-25 is describing the purpose of the vegetation created on day 3 rather than telling the creatures what to eat, and that what God calls "good" in Psalm 104 is always good because the Fall didn't change God's morality.

2. We saw how the earth became corrupted and violent prior to the flood (Genesis 6:11-12). It is unclear from these verses alone whether the corruption refers to people (as the NIV renders it) or people and animals. Most translations aside from the NIV leave the text ambiguous. The parallel text of Genesis 6:5-6, however, unambiguously centres this corruption on human beings.

3. Yes, God destroyed the perpetrators of violence in the flood. However, the sea creatures were not destroyed (Genesis 7:21-23). This mitigates the idea that animals were part of the reason for the flood (unless, of course, you want to argue that only land animals were violent while sea creatures like sharks at this point were even better behaved than Finding Nemo's Bruce).

4. Yes, death entered the world because of Adam's sin. The nature of this death is debatable. Was it just spiritual death? Was it physical death for humans? Was it physical death for humans and animals? Was it physical death for all living things, including plants? The first two possibilities seem to make the most sense based on what Paul says about death and life in Romans 5. In fact, based on that passage alone I'd lean to the first possibility (spiritual death), although based on other passages I prefer the second possibility (spiritual and physical death for humans).

5. No, we don't see that. Lions and other predators are used descriptively many times in the Bible. Lions are described as eating straw like an ox in a time before death is exterminated (Isaiah 65:20,25), so it appears that this type of usage does not indicate a future change in the nature of the animals. Rather, these passages use the animals symbolically to vividly describe times of peace.

6. It would be just as valid to say we see the first indication of plant death when Eve sinned by eating of the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:6), because before that time nothing is described as being eaten. But, this interpretation would be as spurious as the one you advanced. Both make too big of a deal out of the first mention of something.

Anyway, I'm enjoying this discussion Gup. The only points of your summary I disagree with are 1-6. Aside from that, we're in perfect agreement on this topic.

 

Oh, you made another post responding to me that I missed. Sorry for three posts in a row. I'll make this one short(er).

Genesis 2:16-17: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

When this verse talks about "the man" and "you" it is referring to Adam. The "you"s may also include any person who ate of the tree, but they most certainly do not refer to some animal that was skinned to provide clothing.

Yes, some of them are quite beautiful, especially early in the morning when the sun illuminates drops of dew on them. Were spider webs originally sticky? In your opinion, what would happen to an insect that became tangled in a spider web (whether it was a web used for transportation, cocooning, etc.) before the Fall?

As for iguanas, I really don't know much about them. I generally don't get involved in the science side of these discussions. Can you point me to a source that discusses how their teeth change based on their diet? That's quite interesting.

Have a good Sunday, Gup!