Or they’re intended as synonyms and it’s repeated for poetic / literary effect.
not if you read the whole bible, Acts 10 makes clear all animals are ok to eat.
Isaiah 11 is about the second coming of Christ…and New Jerusalem, not Eden. Please explain any part of this that is a reference to Genesis.
Isaiah 11:1-5 - There shall come forth a [a]Rod from the [b]stem of Jesse,
And a Branch shall [c]grow out of his roots.
2 The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him,
The Spirit of wisdom and understanding,
The Spirit of counsel and might,
The Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord.
3 His delight is in the fear of the Lord,
And He shall not judge by the sight of His eyes,
Nor decide by the hearing of His ears;
4 But with righteousness He shall judge the poor,
And decide with equity for the meek of the earth;
He shall strike the earth with the rod of His mouth,
And with the breath of His lips He shall slay the wicked.
5 Righteousness shall be the belt of His loins,
And faithfulness the belt of His waist.
Don’t suppose you have any evidence to support those claims, yes?
I’ve never said animals and humans didn’t evolve. Humans evolved from other humans. Animals from other animals in the same family. Plants from other plants. It’s crazy if you look at picture of some ancient plants even a few millennia ago. They look completely different, especially if humans were involved in their evolution to produce more tasty and productive crops
Of course, he doesn’t abolish death for everyone. BUT he does for his children! This is the victory over sin and death.
The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
The wrath of God being on those who are disobedient means they REMAIN in the wrath of God and they do not see life. That doesn’t make sense unless death is the result of sin. It doesn’t say the wrath of God WILL BE on him, because he will go to hell. The wrath of God REMAINS on him as the physical death he is dying right then will continue to the second death.
Notice Genesis 2:17 - I’ve read elsewhere our translations don’t do a good job. It means “dying you shall die” Genesis 2:17 Interlinear: and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'
Notice it’s repetitive.
This word means physical death. Strong's Hebrew: 4191. מוּת (muth) -- to die
And the next one has the same root.
This statement is either that the tree of life as a symbol or seal would only bring judgment on a man who took of it (like an unbelieving person eating communion).
Or it means that literally he would exist in an eternal fallen state making redemption impossible. I’m not the only one who thinks that the latter could be the meaning. What does Genesis 3:24 mean?
@swamidass was possibly claiming that the history of the church is such that they did not believe Genesis 2:17 meant spiritual death and that the pronouncements were not physical death. So I started with the church fathers. They’re not all on the same page (you can see the rest of the quotes on the links), but these support my view.
CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA. We must inquire how it is that our first father Adam transmitted to us the punishment laid on him for his transgression. He heard the words, “Earth thou art, and into earth shalt, thou return” (Gn 3:19), and the incorruptible became corruptible and bound with the chains of death. But because he begot children after falling to death’s estate, we his progeny have become corruptible, since we are born of a corruptible father. So it is that we too are heirs of the curse in Adam; for surely we have not been visited with punishment as though we dis obeyed with him the divine command which he received, but because . . . be come mortal he transmitted the curse to the seed he fathered. We are mortal because mortal-sprung. [Cyril of Alexandria, De dogmatum solutione 6]
JOHN CHRYSOSTOM OF CONSTANTINOPLE. Since Adam also died on the day that he ate of the tree; for so ran the decree, “In the day that you eat of the tree, you shall die”; yet he lived. How then “died” he? By the decree; by the very nature of the thing; for he who has rendered himself liable to punishment, is under its penalty, and if for a while not actually so, yet he is by the sentence. [John Chrysostom, Homily 28 on the Gospel of John NPNF s.1 v.14]
God is good, so man already has knowledge of good. The fall was man setting his knowledge of good as equal to God’s rather than trusting Him.
See this church father:
Even then I’d go farther and say that under that sentence, they would begin to feel the effects of it, such as losing the glory that their bodies once had and noticing the weariness that leads to death.
I’m willing to look at it this way too - that God had already given Adam grace but did not want him to take hold of eternal life through the tree but instead recognize it would be through death, perhaps symbolizing the necessary death of Christ first before eating of the tree in the new heavens and earth @Mark10.45
THEODORET OF CYRUS. What is the meaning of the verse “ Lo, Adam has become like one of us?” Though the devil had declared, “You will be like gods, knowing good and evil,” Adam incurred the sentence of death for breaking the commandment. So the God of the universe said this ironically to bring out the lie in the devil’s promise. Now, God had forbidden Adam to partake of the fruit of the tree of life, not because he begrudged him eternal life, but to check the course of sin. Indeed, death is healing, not punishment, for it checks the onset of sin: “He who has died has been acquitted of sin.” He ordered him to live directly opposite the garden so that he would remember his trouble-free existence and hate sin for causing his life of hardship. [Theodoret of Cyrus, Question 40 on Genesis]
Genesis 3 | Patristic Bible Commentaries
OK - I’ll grant you that it’s 1500 instead of 2000. I haven’t done the math for myself. I was rounding.
Let’s just agree that you can make up any story you like without regard to the actual words in the text.
So cannibalism is okay?
I don’t understand how you got there, no, of course not. If that is a reference to Acts 10, read it.
@PDPrice, I was hoping you would answer the original post of this thread…what is/are the scripture(s) you would point to that would make the assertion that evolution is “unbiblical”…it’s an honest question because I want to know if I am not reading something correctly.
Refer to post #1.
Irenaeus is super clear:
In direct contact with a generation of believers who had still known the Apostles, he unambiguously teaches that animals were not carnivorous in the original creation. He also brings creation and eschatology together when he writes in his books Against the Heresies (Adversus Haereses, book 5, chapter 33):24:
“Predicting these times, Isaiah says: ‘And the wolf shall feed with the lamb, and the leopard shall rest with the kid; the calf, the bull, and the lion shall feed together, and a little boy shall lead them. The ox and the bear shall feed together, and their young shall live together; the lion and the ox shall eat straw. An infant boy shall thrust his hand into the asp’s den and into the nest of young asps, and they shall do no harm nor hurt to anyone upon my holy mountain’ (Isa 11:6–9). Again, recapitulating, he says, ‘Then wolves and lambs shall feed together; the lion like the ox shall eat straw; the serpent shall eat earth as bread; and they shall do no
harm or hurt upon my holy mountain, says the Lord’ (Isa 65:25). I am aware that some try to refer these texts metaphorically to savage men who out of various nations and various occupations come to believe, and when they have believed live in harmony with the just.
But though this now takes place for men who come from various nations into the one doctrine of the faith, nevertheless it will take place for these animals at the resurrection of the just, as we have said; for God is rich in all things, and when the world is re-established in its primeval state all the animals must obey and be subject to man and return to the first food given by God, as before the disobedience they were subject to Adam (Gen 1:28–30) and ate the fruit of the earth. This is not the time to show that the lion will eat straw, but this indicates the size and opulence of the fruits. For if an animal like the lion eats straw, what will be the quality of the wheat whose straw is food for lions?”
What was the first food given by God? What did mosquitoes and sperm whales eat?
You could not be more incorrect here. The Paradise of Eden and the future Regeneration have always been linked theologically.
Here the reference is made that the Curse of Genesis is Reversed
“The nursing child will play near a cobra’s hole, and the weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den” (v. 8). Humans have seen the serpent as an enemy from the beginning. A serpent contributed to the downfall of Adam and Eve that led to their expulsion from the garden (Genesis 3). When the shoot of Jesse establishes the peaceable kingdom, however, even this enmity will be set aside. The curse of Genesis 3:14-15 will be reversed. Neither the asp nor the adder, both poisonous snakes, will pose a threat to humans—even to small children.
Here the reference is made that Paradise [of Genesis] is Regained
We pass from the picture of the character and rule of the King over men to that fair vision of Paradise regained, which celebrates the universal restoration of peace between man and the animals.
Will they pose a threat to non-humans? Rodents, for example? What will adders and asps eat in the Peaceable Kingdom?
An excerpt from the diary of one of the world’s original scientists:
“17. One day I noticed that William McKinley was not looking well. He is the original first lion, and has been a pet of mine from the beginning. I examined him, to see what was the matter with him, and found that a cabbage which he had not chewed, had stuck in his throat. I was unable to pull it out, so I took the broomstick and rammed it home. This relieved him. In the course of my labors I had made him spread his jaws, so that I could look in, and I noticed that there was something peculiar about his teeth. I now subjected the teeth to careful and scientific examination, and the result was a consuming surprise: the lion is not a vegetarian, he is carnivorous, a flesh-eater! Intended for one, anyway.”
@John_Harshman…there is fossil record of carnivorous activity prior to 4000 BC, correct? I think if the church fathers had that information they would not claim that verse to be about Genesis. Genesis 1:30 does not mean that all animals ate plants for food, it means that God provides the basis nutrients for all living creatures…which to me is a reference to God being light and He provided photosynthesis for the beginning of nutrients required for all life. God provides for the greenery, which provides for all life…I know there is science that backs that up, but I am not the expert for that.
That depends on whether you think the fossil record is a result of the Flood. If you’re a YEC, there is no fossil record of anything prior to 4004 BC. And you really shouldn’t overthink the bible’s connection to science.
And it is at this juncture that you demonstrate you have made your choice that Scripture must give way to the weight of science and that Bible revision is justified whenever deemed appropriate to suit your evolutionary paradigm.