Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No Backdated Punishment in Eden by James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Th.D.
Institute for Creation Research ^ | Jan. 2013 | James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Th.D.

Posted on 01/22/2013 8:51:08 AM PST by fishtank

No Backdated Punishment in Eden

by James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Th.D. *

At the end of Day Six, God said all was “very good” (Genesis 1:31), which means no death existed on earth because death is not good (Romans 8:20-22, 1 Corinthians 15). No animals died or were eaten before Adam sinned (Genesis 1:29-30, 9:1-4). Likewise, the Bible doesn’t mention the existence, much less the death, of any pre-Adamite subhuman primates before Adam sinned.1

Adam’s sin triggered the curse of death, fulfilling God’s warning (Romans 5:12-21). Only then did Adam experience the death that God had warned about. But dying was not limited to Adam! The animals under his authority (Genesis 1:26-31, Psalm 8) also became cursed with death (Genesis 3:17-19, Romans 8:20-22).

Theistic evolutionists argue that animal death existed before Adam sinned, alleging that because God foreknew Adam’s sin, He justly imposed death on creation before Adam actually sinned (retroactive punishment).1 Yet the Bible never says that God punished Adam or animals before Adam sinned—to do so would be unjust. To punish a bad choice in advance would negate the decision as a true test of faith and loyalty.

Consider how people are tested by their choices.2 Joseph tested his brothers (Genesis 42-44), not revealing himself until after they made character-revealing choices. Daniel’s three friends were also tested (Daniel 3), yet they could not foreknow whether their godly choices would be rewarded with miraculous deliverance or agonizing martyrdom.

So why do theistic evolutionists teach death before Adam’s sin? They reject the authoritative truth of Genesis and Romans in order to accommodate evolutionary teachings (e.g., eons of death before Adam sinned).3

But the Lord Jesus Christ did not accommodate false teachings when He physically walked this earth. Rather, He healed the blind on the Sabbath (see John 9) to prove that the Pharisees taught bad theology.

Why does it matter? The New Testament directly links sin’s cause and its cure by tying the gospel of salvation to Adam’s sin (Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15). Paul’s definition of the gospel of Christ contextualizes the gospel as being “according to the [Old Testament] scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). The gospel depends on the Old Testament being true!

Indeed, the Old Testament is authoritatively relevant, true, and perfect—every “jot and tittle” (Matthew 5:18) of it. Christ Himself said that Moses would judge people after they die according to whether they believed the words of Moses (John 5:45-47).

If the books of Moses, which include Genesis, were authoritatively good enough for the Lord Jesus (Matthew 24:35, John 17:17)—and they were—they are authoritatively good enough for us. What we believe about death being the consequence of Adam’s sin in Eden is a test of our own loyalty to God.

References

Some theistic evolutionists imagine eons of time, with animals and pre-Adamite subhumans dying, before Adam sinned. All of these are imaginary concepts accommodating secularists’ evolutionary dogmas that clash with Genesis. See Dembski, W. 2009. The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Academic, 77, 154-155; Dembski, W. 2011. Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science. In Ham, K. and G. Hall, eds. Already Compromised. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 173-174, 202.

Consider the amazing testing of Job’s faith in God. Job praised God throughout his undeserved suffering (James 5:11, 1 Peter 4:19), yet he did not foreknow how his suffering would end. Likewise, because God wanted to truly test Adam’s character (as He later tested Job), God did not reveal the consequence of Adam’s sin visibly until Adam actually made his historic choice. Only then did the horrible reality called “death” arrive on earth. Johnson, J. J. S. 2011. Biblical Devastation in the Wake of a “Tranquil Flood.” Acts & Facts. 40 (9): 8-10; Johnson, J. J. S. 2011. Culpable Passivity: The Failure of Going with the Flow. Acts & Facts. 40 (7): 8-10. This controversy challenges Genesis’s perfect authenticity, accuracy, authority, understandability, and authoritative relevance. See also Cooper, W. R. 2011. The Authenticity of Genesis. Portsmouth, UK: Creation Science Movement, 7-27, 33-99, 109-130, 162-359, 369-405.

* Dr. Johnson is Associate Professor of Apologetics and Chief Academic Officer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Cite this article: Johnson, J. J. S. 2013. No Backdated Punishment in Eden. Acts & Facts. 42 (1): 10.


TOPICS: Religion & Culture; Religion & Science
KEYWORDS: creation
This article is in opposition to the common teaching we often hear from Hugh Ross and Hank Hannegraaf, etc.
1 posted on 01/22/2013 8:51:13 AM PST by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Image from article.

2 posted on 01/22/2013 8:52:00 AM PST by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Last week, I heard Hank Hanegraaf on the radio where he literally raped the book of Genesis.

He said that God punished the earth with sickness and death AHEAD of Adam’s sin, in anticipation of the Fall.


3 posted on 01/22/2013 8:53:59 AM PST by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

I don’t see that animals didn’t die before Adam sinned in Genesis 1:29-30, 9:1-4.


4 posted on 01/22/2013 9:02:16 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

he literally raped the book of Genesis.

Think about what you just said. People who misuse the word literally figuratively make my head explode.


5 posted on 01/22/2013 9:04:27 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

The only thing I can’t figure out is if this author has any graduate degrees.


6 posted on 01/22/2013 9:25:38 AM PST by Flightdeck (My four children have been robbed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flightdeck

Name: Dr. James J. S. Johnson
Title: Chief Academic Officer
Specialty: Education, History, Biblical Studies
Dr. James Johnson serves ICR’s legal needs and oversees special projects in Christian education and apologetics. He has taught for three Christian colleges in Texas: LeTourneau University, Dallas Christian College, and Concordia University Texas. Beyond legal topics, he specializes in U.S. and world political history, ethics, ecology, and family history, and is credentialed by ACSI. He received his J.D. in 1984 from the University of North Carolina, which included studies at Duke University Law School, and in 1996 obtained his Th.D. His educational background includes earned degrees in religion and the natural sciences. For his scholarship in biblical languages and their cognates—mostly Hebrew, Aramaic, and Moabite—at Wake Forest University, Dr. Johnson was awarded the American Bible Society Award in 1982.


7 posted on 01/22/2013 9:35:55 AM PST by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Yes, I wrote this phrase:

“Last week, I heard Hank Hanegraaf on the radio where he literally raped the book of Genesis.”

Maybe I should have said that he did a full-term abortion on the book of Genesis, in dis-honor of the Roe-v-Wade day.

Hanegraaf might not personally know he is a deceiver, but his teachings and his books are deceptive when it comes to creationism.

That goes for Hugh Ross as well.


8 posted on 01/22/2013 9:48:00 AM PST by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Flightdeck; raygunfan

Hi F.D.,

You might want to read a selection of articles by Johnson on the ICR website.

The ICR doesn’t have a single person who is an expert on every single aspect of science, which is why they have aggressively hired scholars in the fields of biology, astrophysics, and biblical languuges.


9 posted on 01/22/2013 9:55:37 AM PST by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DManA

‘Pre-fall’, the ‘ADAM’ may have lived a very long life (compared to today), but they were not immortal.

There would be no reason for God to be concerned that Adam would ALSO eat of the TREE OF LIFE (become as GOD’s or IMMORTAL) if Adam were already immortal.

Pre-fall, Adam had no REASON or NEED to KILL any other creature, as ADAM was in a state of ‘innocence’. Once Adam chose NOT to ‘listen’ to ‘God’, he was no longer in a state of innocence, and the results of that are listed in the Bible. Adam and Eve chose not to listen to God and procreated whenever they wanted to, and not ‘in season’. This is why women experience pain in childbirth.

All of this ‘fall’ didn’t occur in one day, it happened over a long, long period of time. Writing that into Genesis would have made the story MUCH MUCH longer and more complicated, and the POINT might have been missed (and is still missed by some).

As far as the animals (and even ADAM), if you fall off a cliff, unless you are immortal, you die.


10 posted on 01/22/2013 10:01:08 AM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Gen. 3:21, God provided coats of fur for Adam and Eve, 1st Blood Sacrifice because of sin.

bobo


11 posted on 01/22/2013 10:02:35 AM PST by bobo1 (the KDE plasma desktop is awesome!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

“At the end of Day Six, God said all was “very good” (Genesis 1:31), which means no death existed on earth because death is not good “

An extremely illogical conclusion. No where in the Bible does it say ‘death is not good’. Death is ‘good’. Death is completely necessary for ‘life’. Death was the first thing on this planet. Viruses are ‘death’. Viruses are ‘dead’ until they find ‘food’ and they make ‘life’ possible. Without them, life would have ceased on Earth a LONG time ago.

The ‘fall’ of man had to do with mankind NOT following the will of GOD. God gave us ‘free will’, and Lucifer told GOD it was a mistake, because they would choose POORLY. Lucifer was correct. That was proven when Eve and Adam ‘ate the apple’ (which is another figurative simple explanation for something that was a long drawn out process, but no one at the time Genesis was written would have understood it).


12 posted on 01/22/2013 10:11:17 AM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
Viruses are ‘death’. Viruses are ‘dead’ until they find ‘food’ and they make ‘life’ possible. Without them, life would have ceased on Earth a LONG time ago.

I think you meant to write "bacteria" instead of "viruses."

But I agree with your basic objection, and would like to add my assertion that the death of animals (accidental or otherwise - e.g., by other animals, or by men, for nourishment) is non-moral, insofar as animals are without souls.

Regards,

13 posted on 01/22/2013 10:23:40 AM PST by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

So, tigers ate grass with carnassial teeth (oops, that kills grass) so maybe tigers were green in colour prior to the “fall” for photosynthesis. I wonder how they evolved to their present form...

LOL.


14 posted on 01/22/2013 10:44:07 AM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
Adam and Eve chose not to listen to God and procreated whenever they wanted to, and not ‘in season’. This is why women experience pain in childbirth.

LOL, and cows don't experience pain when they give birth to calves? Some women experience intense orgasms when giving birth naturally. In fact, this has been cited as an evolved mechanism to promote bonding between mother and child, something that modern anaesthesia robs them of, to an extent. I recall a chart comparing the extent of a new mother's unwillingness to breast feed her newborn increasing with anaesthesia usage during the delivery.

15 posted on 01/22/2013 10:52:37 AM PST by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

Without death there can be no birth. A world like that would be totally static, which is not good.


16 posted on 01/22/2013 10:53:16 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek

Thanks for your response.

I meant viruses. Viruses can only ‘live’ by destroying LIVE cells. Bacteria can grow on non-living surfaces, and live BETWEEN cells. Many bacteria are beneficial. There are no ‘beneficial’ viruses.

Here is a pretty good comparison, and explanation of their functions.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Bacteria_vs_Virus


17 posted on 01/22/2013 10:55:10 AM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

death WAS NOT NECESSARY for life before the fall, that is the point of God declaring his creation good.

there is nothing illogical about that at all.


18 posted on 01/22/2013 11:06:06 AM PST by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

death WAS NOT NECESSARY for life before the fall, that is the point of God declaring his creation good.

there is nothing illogical about that at all.


19 posted on 01/22/2013 11:06:12 AM PST by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

death WAS NOT NECESSARY for life before the fall, that is the point of God declaring his creation good.

there is nothing illogical about that at all.

death was not supposed to happen, if it was, then god would not have declared his creation good.

Death is called the enemy, how can you say ‘nowhere is death called not good’.....calling it the enemy is more than enough.


20 posted on 01/22/2013 11:07:25 AM PST by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
LOL, and cows don't experience pain when they give birth to calves?

(1) Even if they do, they don't bitch about it.

(2) Not all cows do, or do not, give birth 'in season'. Cows have , for a long time, been 'helped' to achieve pregnancy by MAN, as have many other animals. Have you ever been to a cattle farm ? Ever been a farmhand who had to 'encourage' a bull to mount a cow, and then helped masturbate the bull ? Ever seen the 'machines' that masturbate various farm animals so that their semen can be used to 'unnaturally' inseminate the female of the species ?

I recall a chart comparing the extent of a new mother's unwillingness to breast feed her newborn increasing with anaesthesia usage during the delivery.

There may be a mental 'link' between pain in childbirth and desire to breast feed. However, it is possible that the use of anaesthesia (alt. anesthesia) may contribute more to a reduced 'concern' for providing breast feeding. I.E. Someone on anesthetics doesn't really give a crap about much of anything, for a while. It is very 'sedative'. It produces a LACK OF AWARENESS.

What would be more 'logical' and 'scientific' is that pain in the breasts from swelling with lactic acid prior to birth encourages the mother to breast feed to reduce the pain.

21 posted on 01/22/2013 11:18:34 AM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: raygunfan
Thank you for your response.

death WAS NOT NECESSARY for life before the fall, that is the point of God declaring his creation good.

death was not supposed to happen, if it was, then god would not have declared his creation good.

You are repeating yourself. I can understand what you 'mean', and that 'this' is your 'belief'. However, your premise is unsupportable and does not verify your conclusion. If there was no 'death', then why was GOD concerned that ADAM would next eat of the TREE OF LIFE (immortality-no death) ???

Are we to believe that since the 'fall', that all of God's creation is now 'evil' ? Does GOD now consider the whole of the Universe to be NOT GOOD ?

Perhaps a more 'logical' question would be, what did ADAM eat before the fall ? IF there were various 'crops' that ADAM ate, what 'replenished' the soil they were grown in?

Death is called the enemy,

Where? I've looked, it doesn't say that.

how can you say ‘nowhere is death called not good’.....

Again, I've looked and nowhere in the Bible is death called 'not good'.

calling it the enemy is more than enough.

The only reference in the Bible to calling 'it' the enemy is in Corinthians. It says, "The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

AFAIK, this refers to the human spirit ascending unto heaven upon 'death'. That is the way we 'beat' death, by physically dying. Another 'interpretation' of this is that you can destroy 'death' by no longer fearing it. A 'spiritual rebirth', if you will.

None of these 'interpretations nor the quote in Corinthians have any thing to do with whether or not there was 'no death' before the 'fall of Adam'.

Just remember, logic and faith are two different things. If your 'beliefs' give you 'faith', then it doesn't really matter whether it seems logical or not.

Again, the whole point is that ADAM used his free will to decide NOT TO LISTEN TO GOD ANYMORE. Exactly how that occurred is 'logically debatable', but I don't believe anyone can prove exactly WHAT happened, and HOW it happened, and it doesn't really matter.

It doesn't matter if it was an APPLE or an ORANGE. It was the DECISION that was the whole point of that story in Genesis.

And that is my 'belief' and what my 'faith' rests on.

22 posted on 01/22/2013 12:17:36 PM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DManA
A world like that would be totally static, which is not good.

Yet necessary. Even in our own solar system, there are worlds where there appears to be no death, no life.

We regard our Moon as 'dead', yet without it, it is very possible life on Earth could not exist.

23 posted on 01/22/2013 12:22:19 PM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

oh i give up, you are obviously way to smart and logical for a mere believer like me.

</sarcasm>


24 posted on 01/22/2013 12:49:11 PM PST by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: raygunfan

That’s OK. I enjoy sarcasm.

Let’s simplify.

Explain why God was concerned that ADAM might eat of the TREE OF LIFE, if ADAM was not subject to death ?

I am not trying to shake your faith, I only question why this contradiction, and seek an explanation for it. Maybe it’s because I’m not so smart, and you have the answer.

Never give up.


25 posted on 01/22/2013 1:26:24 PM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
That’s OK. I enjoy sarcasm.

Let’s simplify.

Explain why God was concerned that ADAM might eat of the TREE OF LIFE, if ADAM was not subject to death ?

I am not trying to shake your faith, I only question why this contradiction, and seek an explanation for it. Maybe it’s because I’m not so smart, and you have the answer.

Never give up.


Keep in mind the Bible says in Romans 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.”

Clearly there is a direct link between sin and death, and the effects were felt by more than Man

Genesis 3:17 “And unto Adam he said, Because thou has hearkened unto the voice of they wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of they life:”

Did animals eat other animals? Genesis 1”29-30” and God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.”

So the animals didn't eat each other before man's sin. At some point the same God that created the world changed the rules of his world.

I have a theory regarding the tree of life part of your question, that I plan on answering more directly, but I won't bore you with that speculation this early.

26 posted on 01/23/2013 6:21:09 AM PST by Idaho_Cowboy (Ride for the Brand. Joshua 24:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
Without them, life would have ceased on Earth a LONG time ago.

Thanks for the hyperlink.

It's been many years since I took Microbiology in college, so I don't understand why you are claiming that, without viruses, life would have ceased on Earth a long time ago.

In what way are viruses a necessary precondition for the continued existence of life on Earth?

Forgive my denseness!

Regards,

27 posted on 01/23/2013 8:09:28 AM PST by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek

Thank you for the response, and question.

Speaking of dense, I am going to give this my best shot, but I’m not sure it will be that good of an explanation. If I knew exactly why and how , I’d probably be a famous scientist.

Here goes. Maybe saying life would cease to exist would be going too far. So let’s say that life would stagnate. That life forms would not ‘improve’ themselves, i.e. evolve since they were not subject to attacks from viruses. It is possible that viruses perform evolution.

Another effect would be overpopulation of species, destroying the food resources. Viruses help keep ‘populations’ down, ensuring propagation of the species in effect by helping to achieve a balance with the available land and food.

To summarize, I think that viruses are a major part of the ‘balance’ and ‘evolution’ of life forms on Earth, and ergo a necessary part. Without them, the balance would be gone, and that would probably have negative effects, including extinction.

Of course, 99% of all life forms that have ever lived on the Earth have gone extinct, but that may be a component of the ‘balance’ of life on this tiny planet as well.


28 posted on 01/23/2013 5:00:26 PM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

Thank you for your measured and thoughtful explanation!

Regards,


29 posted on 01/24/2013 9:31:59 AM PST by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek
And here's a new thread which supports the case that it may be the BACTERIA, not the VIRUS, which will be KING of the WORLD.

Antibiotic 'apocalypse' warning

30 posted on 01/24/2013 8:48:34 PM PST by UCANSEE2 (What difference does it make (if they eat cake)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson