RE: The Curse - Upon All Creation or Just Mankind?

From: Mike Tharp <mtharp@exammaster.com>
Date: Sat Sep 18 2004 - 12:13:04 EDT

I believe there is a possibility that carnivores were originally herbivores.
Today, the diet of some bears consists primarily of berries and other
vegetable matter. I don't see a huge problem with this. Plant life, which
does not have "nephesh" life, would have died prior to the Fall as is
obvious since it was a source of food. So fungi and bacteria could have
decomposed dead vegetation.

Yes, I do believe the pre-Fall Earth was significantly different in the way
it functioned. Perhaps there are detectable hints to this in the record God
left behind but we are sometimes blind to or misinterpret them. Or perhaps
I'm the one who is wrong. I'm open to that possibility. But if there was
disease and bloodshed prior to the Fall, I don't see how God could call that
"very good". Then again, if there was death and suffering before the fall
and God called it "very good", who am I to argue with him?

In Christ,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Roger G. Olson
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 11:35 AM
To: 'AmericanScientificAffiliation'
Subject: Re: The Curse - Upon All Creation or Just Mankind?

I disagree strongly with your statement between the **. You assertion
makes *no* sense to me. How do you explain carnivores? Are they cursed
herbivores? What about decomposers, like fungi and bacteria? They are
essential to the functioning of an ecosystem, in the recycling of
nutrients. So, the pre-Fall Earth was completely different in the way it
functioned, and this discontinuity of reality is not detectable in record
God left behind for us and future generations to study?

R

> In Genesis 3:17, God tells Adam, "cursed is the ground for thy sake". The
> ground would be the earth, so the entire earth is cursed, no? Verse 18
> goes
> on to say, "Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth." This seems to
> indicate that there was some change in at least plant life after the Fall.
>
> In Romans 8:22, Paul writes, "For we know that the whole creation groaneth
> and travaileth in pain together until now." This verse seems to indicate
> that the entire creation was cursed, not mankind alone.
>
> I would have to agree, though, that "nowhere in scripture does it say that
> death, came to all of creation after the fall, only death to man."
> However,
> I also agree with the argument that, if there were death and suffering
> before the fall, it seems strange that God would call such a creation
> "very
> good." ** That death and suffering, both of man and animals, are a
result of
> the Fall seems to make sense to me. **
>
> In Christ,
> Mike
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of jack syme
> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 4:12 PM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad; George Murphy; Dawsonzhu@aol.com; Sheila Wilson;
> AmericanScientificAffiliation
> Subject: Re: flying saucer
>
> CS Lewis, as much as I like him, does not have the authority of scripture.
>
> If you look carefully at Old Testament, and New Testament passages of the
> effects of the fall on creation, it is limited to its effects on mankind,
> with the exception that the serpent was made to crawl on its belly.
> Otherwise the effects are, pain in childbirth, and mankind having to work
> the soil to get it to produce. Which I guess is some effect on creation
> other than mankind. And death to man.
>
> But, nowhere in scripture does it say that death, came to all of creation
> after the fall, only death to man. And Christ's death and resurrection
> was
> to save man, not sub human creation; to reverse the death brought by
> Adam.
>
> My belief, is that the fall caused death to come to mankind. And by that
> I
> mean spiritual death, a seperation from God, banishment from the garden,
> away from the tree of life. And that creation now is, with a few notable
> exceptions, not essentially different than it was prior to the fall.
> Other
> than the blemishes our behaviors have given it.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> To: <drsyme@cablespeed.com>; "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>;
> <Dawsonzhu@aol.com>; "Sheila Wilson" <sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net>;
> "AmericanScientificAffiliation" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 12:24 PM
> Subject: RE: flying saucer
>
>
>> C.S. Lewis wrote: "Man is to be understood only in his relation to God.
> The beasts are to be understood only in their relation to man and, through
> man, to God." It is safe to say that man's redemption allows for the
> restoration of the animal kingdom to its original form--whatever that was.
>>
>> Moorad
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: drsyme@cablespeed.com [mailto:drsyme@cablespeed.com]
>> Sent: Fri 9/17/2004 11:33 AM
>> To: Alexanian, Moorad; drsyme@cablespeed.com; George Murphy;
> Dawsonzhu@aol.com; Sheila Wilson; AmericanScientificAffiliation
>> Subject: Re: flying saucer
>>
>>
>>
>> Christ? Are you claiming that he came to save animals
>> too?
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:03:47 -0400
>> "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
>> >Christ.
>> >
>> >Moorad
>> >
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: drsyme@cablespeed.com
>> >[mailto:drsyme@cablespeed.com]
>> >Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 9:55 AM
>> >To: Alexanian, Moorad; George Murphy; Dawsonzhu@aol.com;
>> >Sheila Wilson;
>> >AmericanScientificAffiliation
>> >Subject: Re: flying saucer
>> >
>> >On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:46:02 -0400
>> > " My statement meant
>> >>that man cannot
>> >>by himself reverse the consequences of the Fall, which I
>> >>believe also
>> >>affect the animals.
>> >>
>> >>Moorad
>> >>
>> >
>> >What biblical evidence do you have to support this
>> >belief?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Received on Sat Sep 18 12:39:12 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Sep 18 2004 - 12:39:14 EDT