TGC Takes A Dig at Darwin

[nobodyyouknow]

@Paul_Allen1

Your example, of the eating and killing of fish, flows from that permissions under that covenant.

When God gave this covenant to Noah, was God giving them permission to do something that was bad? i.e, not “good”?

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Paul_Allen1

So the first death was not good. One animal suffered because of the actions of Adam and Eve

@Paul_Allen1

This was God’s choice. Adam and Eve were doing just fine with vegetative fashion.

Then God kills an animal. Doesn’t this rather establish that the Adam/Eve narrative really has nothing to do with animal death? Animals that couldn’t eat from the Tree of Life were going to die. And that’s really the only implication we can make from the facts of the story …

[dscottjorgenson (Scott Jorgenson)]

@gbrooks9

@Paul_Allen1

So the first death was not good. One animal suffered because of the actions of Adam and Eve

@Paul_Allen1

This was God’s choice. Adam and Eve were doing just fine with vegetative fashion.

Then God kills an animal…

@Paul_Allen1 - And would that not then mean that God himself had done an evil thing?

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@dscottjorgenson

@Paul_Allen1 - And would that not then mean that God himself had done an evil thing

Thank you for making that point, @dscottjorgenson.

This is one of the reasons, @Paul_Allen1, that fixating on “death before the expulsion” vs. “death after the expulsion” doesn’t seem to sort out in credible form or fashion.

God kills when He kills.

Animals die if they don’t eat of the Tree of Life.

Humans who sin, if they were allowed to reach the Tree of Life, would not die.

The age old themes of supernatural animal immortality don’t really bear out when we look at the details closely.