Did animals die before Adam sinned?

[@noranawman9869]

I'm so grateful for all the work you do and your way of teaching is such a blessing to so many.

[@coloredearth276]

Good stuff guys, thanks for always putting this in 'layman's terms'.

[@CMIVideo]

Our pleasure!

[@The-DO]

Question: 1. Was the wale created to swim with it's mouth closed?

[@reverentalexanderchezeley-6367]

Brilliant dudes, praise God. Keep up the good work. Reverend Alexander.

[@beutelm1]

Right from the start you have made an assumption about who believes what in relation to the subject. No objectivity.

[@tonyt5213]

Guys, love your work. Two questions: 1. Gen.1:29-30 the fish of the sea are not mentioned. What do you think? 2. it seems only man had the choice of eating from the tree of life, and so, live forever - not the animals. Gen.3:22 - ideas? For many reasons I read Genesis as literal Hebrew narrative, by the way. (I have so many questions for God...)

[@micahbucy6855]

I'm glad at least one other person in this comment section sees the inconsistency with their position in this video. These are just 2 of the huge problems with their logic here.

[@mangotanianmovies2538]

I don’t think fish eat plants. Or at least in the sense of land plants. Hebrew people prolly didn’t consider algae a plant

[@mosesgarcia9443]

You Guys are Awesome. Great video

[@jonathandixon209]

I turned this off the second you guys said people believe that animals died before Adam because it is what we have been taught and conditioned in school. I'd love to hear the idea you guys have, but I won't trust it from someone who obviously have an attitude of contempt for other ideas and can't imagine that people could have arrived at those ideas by similar means that you did yours.

[@njabulomasina4180]

Beautiful

[@Happycamper10170]

This is great I love how you guys are taking this into consideration despite ppls worldview. It makes sense...evolution says created from chaos...the word says things in order and chaos ensued. Of course we are born into sin and chaos....this was not the design...

[@ITPalGame]

According to CMI no bugs were ever stepped on prior to the disobedience by Adam and Eve.

[@shipwright6122]

Probably weren’t any bugs. 🤦🏼‍♂️ I’ll bet there was no road kill either. 😁

[@commentfreely5443]

bugs are non nephesh so they are not alive according to hebrew.

[@ITPalGame]

The very first time "nephesh" or "nepes" (living being) is used it is speaking of masses of life in the waters. It is used of Adam later. It is used of creatures with wings that fly in the air.

[@rubytuby6369]

Min . 20 to 23 explains more about bugs They’re not considered alive in the same way that humans are.

[@CMIVideo]

Fixed it for ya: According to CMI bugs could have been stepped on prior to the disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Had you watched the video you would know this.)

[@AidenRKrone]

I'm glad there are still evangelical/Protestant organizations that still teach from a Young Earth creationist perspective. A lot of denominations and churches have abandoned Young Earth creationism (or at least don't consider it important at all).

[@CMIVideo]

Thanks. That's what we do. And we have speakers who can visit your church. See: creation.com/events/

[@rubytuby6369]

When God describes what mankind should eat in the older versions of Genesis The word ,,,Plants,,, that bear seed would be more accurately interpreted as ,,,Grasses that bear seed,,,Grasses are a specific type of plant family. Oats, wheat, barley, rice, corn, millet, and many many more are in the grass family. And in my opinion I think this would be the correct interpretation of the word. It makes much more sense since these have been the staple crops for mankind all over the world.

[@jamese9283]

There are many edible, seed-bearing plants besides grasses. Why do you want to limit the word to grasses?

[@rubytuby6369]

@@jamese9283 I am not saying to limit anything, only that grasses are a family of plants none of which are toxic and are the staple food crops around the world. On the other hand many plants and their seeds are edible and delicious ,,,,but some are poisonous. I’ve run into some arguments in the past where some said to me you see God doesn’t know what he’s doing he told you to eat poisonous plants seeds, doesn’t God know that some seeds are poisonous. And I refer them to the old Hebrew and how it was the grass is bearing seed that were to be food along with the fruit bearing seed within itself. After Noah and the flood they began to eat meat maybe even before that. And then in the new testament all foods are clean and good to eat unless they’re poisonous of course. And they’re in there’s also a reference not to eat blood, things with their life still in them also in the New Testament.

[@jamese9283]

@@rubytuby6369 Perhaps there were no poisons before the fall in Genesis.

[@rubytuby6369]

@@jamese9283 yes, I agree that is most likely. It is interesting though that even today there are no poisonous plants in the grass family.

[@jamese9283]

@@rubytuby6369 That is an interesting fact. You may be on to something with your understanding. However, I am cautious about applying the modern classifications of plants and animals to the Bible, as taxonomy is man-made and changes over the centuries. What verses in Genesis 1 do you think should be translated as "grass" instead of plant or herb?

[@TheNewYorker7899]

I had a bible study with two of my high school friends and one of them insisted to start at Genesis and HE found it weird that God calling the creation "very good" odd when sharks were present, devouring other fish and lurking among the waters causing fear to people and he's not much invested in the bible which goes to show you God's original intent for animals was not to eat each other.

[@funtobedone]

or that the claims of the bible that are in conflict with settled scientific facts, are wrong...

[@TheNewYorker7899]

@@funtobedone you have been conformed with patterns of the modern world so that's why you say that.

[@funtobedone]

@@TheNewYorker7899 True! Please join the modern world!

[@jamese9283]

@@funtobedone Your confidence in science is a faith, just as believing in God is a faith.

[@funtobedone]

@@jamese9283 Please define faith

[@Terrylb285]

Psalm 104:27-30

[@Terrylb285]

@chriscuomo9334don’t forget the rest of the verse , and then you REPLENISH the ground.

[@dannydiaz8543]

The truth is were incapable of even trying to imagine how life was like or anything of that sort of stuff.

[@dwvanarsdale]

So before Adam sinned, rattlesnakes were vegetarian? How did they chew their food... swallowed it whole I suppose? But what about those long poison squirting fangs? What were those for? What a lot of baloney!

[@cklester]

Jesus called death a "sleep." The entirety of the Bible also refers to death as a sleep. Those who have fallen asleep will live again at one of the coming resurrection events! Hallelujah!

[@tiptupjr.9073]

I appreciate this video but I have to disagree with the conclusion. I believe it is theologically acceptable to believe animals physically died (of age or accidental injury, not from eating each other) before Adam and Eve's transgression. Humans were made in God's image. Animals weren't. Not even angels are stated to be made in his image; only humans. And since God lives forever (Deuteronomy 32:40) humans were supposed to live forever as well, until we screwed it up. But notice what God says in Genesis 3:22. Humans' eternal life in the garden was contingent on physically eating the fruit of the tree of life! If Adam and Eve were supernaturally prevented from physical death before the fall, why would this have been necessary? The answer? It wouldn't. It's a contentious topic, but it seems as though Adam and Eve *may* have experienced a physical (not spiritual) death before the fall if they did not actually eat the fruit from the tree of life. Otherwise, why was it there and why did God want to bar them from accessing it? Also, take another look at Romans 5:12. "Death passed upon all MEN, for that all have sinned." It mentions nothing about animals. Animals cannot sin, so their deaths are therefore irrelevant to God's plan of salvation and redemption - which only humans (not animals or even angels) are a part of. There's also the problem that animal populations would've quickly spiralled out of control without their natural deaths. So, while earth is indeed young and animals only ate plants in their original state, the idea of animals physically dying before Adam's sin is, in my opinion, compatible with a young earth and Christian doctrine.

[@tiptupjr.9073]

Also, it's possible Lucifer's fall may have occured prior to God's declaration that creation was very good. I doubt anyone would say Satan was very good. At the very least, we know he existed by then. It seems as though "very good" may have meant something different to God than it would to our modern ears. It doesn't necessarily preclude the idea of animals naturally dying.

[@justifiedFaith209]

But what about the evidence of disease and carnivory that is present in the fossil record? It wasn't just a die of natural causes situation. Clearly this is a problem for God's "very good" finished creation. It just seems contrary to God's nature to setup a creation like that and call it " very good." Plus you have human fossils that predate (secular science dates) any date for Adam's Creation. What do you do with those? As for Adam, Genesis 3:19 says, ‘In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.’ This is the judgment for Adam's sin. Clearly it is talking about physical death. This only makes sense if there was no physical death prior to Adam. Adam would be shrugging his shoulders at God on that one if death was already part of the world.

[@tiptupjr.9073]

@@justifiedFaith209 Adam and Eve didn't have to work to survive or feed themselves in the garden. Genesis 3:19 is cursing Adam to a life of work and servitude which we are still under now. It wasn't just talking about death. You have to explain why the Tree of Life existed and what was the significance of eating its fruit. Clearly it was eternal life. Which therefore would not have existed without eating the fruit. And the fossil record comes from the flood. Simple as.

[@justifiedFaith209]

@@tiptupjr.9073 My apologies. I read your original comment in haste on my way out of the house. I automatically assumed an old earther when I saw someone defending animal death before the fall. I've not encountered a YEC who holds your view before.

[@justifiedFaith209]

I think we have to keep God’s character in mind when we consider what the phrase means when God finished all that He created and declared it “very good.” I can’t square animal death with the morally pure God we know. It seems much more consistent with scripture and God’s attributes to infer that animals died after the fall given the passages that refer to the corrupting of the creation as consequence of Adams sin (Romans 8:22,23). As far as I can find, there is no passage of scripture where an animal died before Adams fall. So the argument for animal death before sin is really an argument from silence. You’re reading it into scripture. “Adam and Eve may have experienced a physical (not spiritual) death before the fall if they did not actually eat the fruit from the tree of life.” “Humans' eternal life in the garden was contingent on physically eating the fruit of the tree of life?” This seems a bit of a rabbit trail. CMI is arguing no human death prior to the Fall as an argument against old earth creationism. Old earth theology automatically inherits the ancient geological record (according to the secular view) and it’s fossil record which dates prior to Adam. Plus, your position assumes that Adam and Eve were already dying. There is no reason to assume that because death was the punishment for sin. Plus, keep in mind, there’s no hint from scriptures that they had to eat of this tree until after they sinned. Let’s assume they did eat of it to maintain natural life in the pre-fall state. This still doesn’t at all justify a case for animal death prior to Adams Fall. There is still no scriptural evidence of death prior to Adams sin.

[@beutelm1]

Love his you go straight to Gen 1 v 3 onwards to justify the argument. But you deliberately overlook v 1-2 and it’s possibilities.

[@TickedOffPriest]

Of love looking at foreshadowing in Scripture.

[@garyjaensch7143]

And as there wil be no more death , people need to consider this verse carefully , Revelation 20:14 “And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.” And then these 2 verses leave no doubt, all will be reconciled, not some eternally punished, death and hell are dead! Ephesians 1:10 “That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:” Colossians 1:20 “And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.” I guess most today have changed the meaning of reconcile, and wont talk about these verse’s in which the NASB and NIV change creature to creation, Romans 8:20 “For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,” Romans 8:21 “Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” It also becomes very apparent why most say John was the Disciple whom Jesus loved, the Nasb and Niv both lead you away from the disciple whom Jesus loved, it is impossible it is John or his brother James, they were sons of Zebedee, a Fisherman , not a carpenter!! Read below carefully to understand, KJV. John 19:26 “When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!” “Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! Some people who organised the NASB AND NIV made a little change to the KJV, they say Judas son of James, the KJV says Judas Brother of James, Does truth matter? It’s only a little lie!

[@jesusisdead]

Death is supposedly a result of inherited sin so if animals die its not. Its just a mechanism to allow room for new life

[@smitty121981]

I wonder if either one of these guys is a traveling man...

[@asphalthedgehog6580]

Adam did NOT sin. Sin did not exist before he ate from the apple. So the story is quite ridiculous: "you shall not sin" . Huh, what's sin?

[@asgvalentinokabir]

That's a very pure fantasy. Young Earth Creationists aren't different from Flat Earths. Young Earth Creationism is full of myths.

[@micahbucy6855]

1. This teaching totally ignores the theology of eating of the tree of life as the source of immortality. 2. The Bible never records when God allows animals to eat other animals, but it is clearly observed in nature today. 3. The Bible never records when God recreated the animal kingdom with a food chain. As Hebrews claims God is still resting from His creation in the seventh day, this is problematic. 4. Man alone was made in the image of God. That is why man's life has extra value, and man's death has a penalty for murder. 5. Most importantly, this teaching assumes what God sees as good. God clearly created animals with both protections from hunters and the instinct to hunt. If God created something to happen in a certain way, it is good. 6. Mimicry or camouflage in creatures such as chameleons show God created certain animals to survive being hunted. Once again, Genesis does not record a second creation event of animals after the Fall. Your theology has to match observable reality. 7. Literally every Bible verse referring to death as an outcome of sin is referring only to mankind's death. It is eisegetical to extrapolate that to animal death. 8. If your defense of a young earth rests on this argument of no animal death prior to sin, you have no biblical defense.

[@Terrylb285]

Psalm 104:27-30 .

[@Terrylb285]

The problem is they approach genesis with a pre determined view that each day is 24 hours , so now everything else has to revolve around that,instead of letting the text speak for itself.

[@Wstjopp46272]

Yes, animal death before sin is not really a strict belief in YEC, because it can't be proven from scripture. But the absence of carnivory among land dwelling creatures is from Genesis 1:30. Its just one verse, you may ignore it if you want, lots of Christians do that nowadays, they seem to be doing just fine. But the fossil record is full of carnivorous examples all the way to the first land animals. Note, the bible doesn't talk about sea creatures eating plants. This implies that violence and hunting is a part of the very good creation, within certain limits which are delineated. You seem to base many arguments on the 7th day eternal rest, but then I would like to know how do you deal with God's activities in flooding the world, with the patriarchs, in egypt, or the miracles done through Elijah. I mean its one pillar of fire, but that's cearly intervening in His creation, that fire should not be there. Also God would not need to recreate the food chain. It could have been through rapid evolution over a few thousand years, as built in genes would activate in a way modern science has not yet discovered. Perhaps the original creature generic code would look quite alien to modern geneticists.

[@Wstjopp46272]

@terrylb285 I mean most scripture readers have always believed day long days before the enlightenment, they wrote about it, if anything the temptation was to say Genesis was instantaneous because of other popular philosophies. And yes, many Christians play fast and loose with the text. But if you read more, you discover YECs really have a lot more to say around Noah's flood, nearly all of the geologic column and every land feature you see, including perhaps the features of the moon, date from that miraculous event. Without the deluge recorded in the Bible, I think we would be forced to accept some variant of the old earth view, or some sort of pre-Genesis world, due to the metaphoric weight of the rocks on the planet. That's where everything revolves around imho.

[@workinprogress9613]

For "reproduction" you really should have said "conception of a baby".

[@armandobishop1683]

ρяσмσѕм ?