[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Bill,

From scripture, it seems like the distinction is more of having the breath of life than it is in the blood. Is there a connection between the breath of life and blood or am I just reading too much into those verses?

Maybe. However, in the pentateuch as a whole, and in Genesis especially, there is a special significance to blood. Several times it is stated that the Jews can't eat blood because the life is in it. (Interestingly, not eating blood goes from pre-law through new testament commands and seems to be significant regardless of the Mosaic law) (verses that say Life is in the blood: Gen 9:4, Lev 17:11-14, Deut 12:23) (verses in Genesis which indicate a specific significance of blood: Gen 4:10-11, 9:4-6)

Also, has anyone given thought to how God made the clothes of skins? I suspect that God killed animals for this purpose and showed Adam and Eve how to make them. What do ya'll think. Did God kill for this?

Not sure, the same basic root is used for when God says, "let us make man in our own image."

Maybe. It would be after man brought death into the world, but that can only be speculation.

[Ted Logan]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Bill,

From scripture, it seems like the distinction is more of having the breath of life than it is in the blood. Is there a connection between the breath of life and blood or am I just reading too much into those verses?

I think it's both. If you look at how creation occurs in Gen 1, it seems that a definite distinction is made between plants and animals, in that inanimate celestial objects are created between plants and fish. Gen 1:30 also implies a great difference - that which is without breath is given to that which has breath for food. There may not be a terribly significant difference between the breath of of life and life in the blood. Note that the word connoting a breathing creature in Gen 1:30 is used of fish in Gen 1:21 and animals in 1:24. The point is that there is a clear distinction made between what is obviously plant matter and what is obviously animal. It doesn't matter how to classify bacteria and viruses (the latter of which may not even be living by scientific standards), because they are not in view here. Prior to the Fall, death did not occur, and that means plant death is not the same type of thing as animal death.

Also, the prohibition against eating "flesh with its life, that is, its blood" (Gen 9:4) seems to have the force of protecting the sanctity of life - the focus is on life, not blood. While a predatory animal might take down an antelope and start eating it while it is still alive, men and women are not to do so. This is in harmony with the sanctity of life and with the wider concept in Scripture of treating animals well (Deut 25:4, Exod 20:10 and parallels, Exod 23:5, Deut 22:6-7, Prov 12:10). And considering the references to "the breath of life," the proper killing of an animal assures that the breath of life has passed - it is hard to imagine an animal breathing who has been properly bled.

On the other hand, the command also prohibits eating fully dead animals whose blood has not been drained, and this seems to point toward the importance of the treatment of blood in sacrifice, and the fact that it is the shedding of blood which marks the nature of the sacrifice. Gen 9:5-6 seem to point in this direction.

So, "breath of life" and "life in the blood" serve two different purposes, but both point to the fragility of life, the providence of the Creator, the intimacy of the act of creation, etc.

Also, has anyone given thought to how God made the clothes of skins? I suspect that God killed animals for this purpose and showed Adam and Eve how to make them. What do ya'll think. Did God kill for this?

Traditionally, when people have read Gen 3:21 they have seen here the origin of animal sacrifice. Death enters the world because of man's sin, and man deserves death because of sin. The unnamed animal that provided the skins is therefore often seen as the prototypical act of sacrifice - without such sacrifice, the harsh, cursed world will surely kill Adam and Eve, and that death would come as a consequence and punishment for sin. Therefore, so that Adam and Eve might live, God took an animal and killed it. The idea of God himself making the sacrifice points forward to Christ on this interpretation.

I find this interpretation problematic, but I don't discount it altogether. On the one hand, the skin had to come from somewhere. Plus, in the next chapter, Abel offers an animal sacrifice; where did he get the idea? And lest we forget, all death is a sentence passed by God in the Garden; thus, this particular instance of God killing animals is only the first enactment of that judgment.

On the other hand, nowhere is this passage called a sacrifice. Neither is there mention of atonement. Probably most important, the use of the animals for their skins has no parallel in the actual practice of OT sacrifice. Sacrificial animals were to be used for food, not for clothing.

I think, on balance, just as Genesis so often seems to point toward things that later become clear (the genius of Moses and the Holy Spirit through him are obvious in the Pentateuch), this points toward the fact that animals must die because Adam and Eve sinned. The actual act of animal sacrifice, however, just sort of appears in the next chapter, and this is a problem for those who would say that nothing sacrificial is going on in Gen 3.

By the way, I agree with BSPE regarding pre-Fall carnivores. Lion+Lamb seals the deal for me, especially since Apocalyptic in the Bible almost always has a recapitulation/restoration aspect to it - the idea is that the world is SO far gone that only an act that in many ways is a re-creation will solve it all.

Also, very important, is BSPE's comments on death entering the world because of one man's sin. Remove an historical Adam, and you're on precarious soil. Introduce death before Adam's sin, and you have a similar problem.

Note, however, something pointed out by E.L. Mascall. He responds to the idealist view of Gen 1-3 (the idea that Adam and Eve are mythical figures, that "Adam is every man") by pointing out that if Adam is every man and Eve every woman, then the first man was the first Adam, and the first woman was the first Eve, which means that even here, you have a historical Adam and Eve.

[tlj009]

Maybe. However, in the pentateuch as a whole, and in Genesis especially, there is a special significance to blood. Several times it is stated that the Jews can't eat blood because the life is in it. (Interestingly, not eating blood goes from pre-law through new testament commands and seems to be significant regardless of the Mosaic law) (verses that say Life is in the blood: Gen 9:4, Lev 17:11-14, Deut 12:23) (verses in Genesis which indicate a specific significance of blood: Gen 4:10-11, 9:4-6)

The only question in my mind that indicates a difference in the two is this

Genesis 7[20] Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
[21] And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
[22] All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
[23] And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
There seems to be a repetition here that mitigates the language a little. Everything died.....Everything with the breath of life died........Everything with the breath of life that lived on dry land died. Is it possible that there are animals of some kind that don't have the breath of life?

[Ted Logan]

If I understand Hebrew prose, the repetition emphasizes the totality of the destruction. It's everything that's emphasized.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Ted Logan

If I understand Hebrew prose, the repetition emphasizes the totality of the destruction. It's everything that's emphasized.

Thats pretty much what I get too.

[nolidad]

It's not slander if it's true. And it is a fact that Kent Hovind is in a Federal Correctional Institution serving a 10 year sentance for being guilty of 58 counts of some kind of tax evasion, either outright tax fraud or cash transaction restructuring. I'm not attempting to hijack anything, simply stating facts.

Sorry but it was written by you to subtly and intentionally distort the creation side. It was a totally uneccessary comment to write. Very poor form on your part.

Originally Posted by slap_j

Eating anything would be impossible if there were literally no death. Just to put that out there. I'm sure it's crossed someone's mind already.

Yeah except that death referred to teh animal kingdom and not the plant kingdom. God gave teh plants and fruit for food. We really do not know if any death within the animal kingdom occurred before the fall. It seems highly unlikely. All animals (including bugs) were commanded by God to be herbivorous. It wasn't untill after the fall sometime that the animal world became carnivorous and omnivorous. Man wasn't allowed to eat meat until after the flood. Whether he did before or not is not recorded and pure speculation.

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

'Good' doesn't mean the laws of physics don't apply. Can you answer my question, please?

first off God can suspend the laws of nature anytime He chooses to- many say that is how miracles occur- like a totally dead man rising from the dead. Or a human walking on water. Or a sea standing in a heap to allow a populace to pass through. Supernatural events cannot be defined by the natural laws.

Originally Posted by slap_j

Yes. That's why I asked. I don't read Hebrew.



I was just browsing a literal creationist site and their theory was that there was a miraculous change in behavior and dentition following the fall. Also that harmful radiation was suddenly "turned on."

Well dentition does not necessariuly have to be altered. it has been proven that a carnovore can be turned to a herbivore and the canines still efeectively used for eating. As for the harmful radiation that would have come after the flood when the water in the heavens came down. When you look at the life spans- you see a rapid decline in years after the flood. This would be expected if a protective barrier is removed and thus allows the earth to be exposed to vastlyu increased amounts of UV and other harmful rasiations.

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Maybe. However, in the pentateuch as a whole, and in Genesis especially, there is a special significance to blood. Several times it is stated that the Jews can't eat blood because the life is in it. (Interestingly, not eating blood goes from pre-law through new testament commands and seems to be significant regardless of the Mosaic law) (verses that say Life is in the blood: Gen 9:4, Lev 17:11-14, Deut 12:23) (verses in Genesis which indicate a specific significance of blood: Gen 4:10-11, 9:4-6)



Not sure, the same basic root is used for when God says, "let us make man in our own image."

Maybe. It would be after man brought death into the world, but that can only be speculation.

Well it does say that teh life of the flesh is in the blood. We know that blood nourishes the body so that is why. Also it goes to blood being neccessary for sacrifiece.

Adam and Eve were clothed by an animal sacrifice. As it says in Hebrews that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. So the first recorded deaths were by God to cover the sins of Adam and Eve! A great picture of Gods love and Mercy.

Sorry for all the posts. Coming back to the real world after being on vascation fro over two weeks is difficult.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well dentition does not necessariuly have to be altered. it has been proven that a carnovore can be turned to a herbivore and the canines still efeectively used for eating. As for the harmful radiation that would have come after the flood when the water in the heavens came down. When you look at the life spans- you see a rapid decline in years after the flood. This would be expected if a protective barrier is removed and thus allows the earth to be exposed to vastlyu increased amounts of UV and other harmful rasiations.

No, no, my purpose in pointing that out is to show that there really is no value in talking about such things. Maybe their teeth were miraculously altered. Maybe they weren't. There is absolutely no way of knowing either from scientific inquiry or from biblical study.

[Skeeter]

Nolidad, there is a multi-quote button which will allow you to incorporate quotes from multiple posts into one response. Please use this option in the future.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Just to point out, separation of water from waters could just refer to clouds. I am not saying for sure that is what it is, but it is easily an explanation that could fit the worldview and require nothing weird.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by Skeeter

Nolidad, there is a multi-quote button which will allow you to incorporate quotes from multiple posts into one response. Please use this option in the future.

Is it just using the qoute button over and over? I will love to do so. Thanks

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Is it just using the qoute button over and over? I will love to do so. Thanks

the button with the + sign next to quote.