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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.