beastmaster

Hi Albert, no offense taken.

I find the references in the DRV to Eden as "paradise" to be intriguing support for your theory. [Edit: Actually, I am having some doubts on second thought -- see my next post.]

Yet, even using the DRV translation, God appears to be speaking of all terrestrial and avian life when he issues his vegetarian manifesto -- not just life in the garden.

Moreover, I can't help but feel a tension between Genesis 1:31's description of *all* of god's creation being "very good" with (what I understand to be) your position that Eden was "perfect" and the rest of the world was "corrupted" from the start. Could you explain how you reconcile this apparent paradox?

I'll take a look at the DRV. FYI, so far, I've read a solid third (or so) of the Bible, using the KJV and NIV only.

beastmaster

Another thought Albert. I think you might be making a bit too much of the word "paradise." Describing Eden as "paradise," as the DRV does, could be taken to mean that Eden was lush, beautiful, and befitting of all the material needs and comforts of A&E. In other words, Eden was a perfect *garden*. But that doesn't mean that any other part of god's pre-Fall creation was less than perfect at being a "non-garden."

Moreover, "paradise" does not necessarily carry the implication that Eden was *morally* superior to the rest of god's creation -- there's no reason to assume that the rest of the world was dog-eat-dog and Eden was a small oasis of pacifism. Eden could have been "paradise" for A&E in the sense that it was a perfect place to live, even if it was on the same moral plane as the rest of god's creation.

I think the better understanding is that all of god's creations was morally equal and good before the Fall. After the Fall, the world became corrupted by sin, as your citation to Gen. 3:17-18 indicates.

To relate this back to the OP, my take is that all of terrestrial and avian life of the world was vegetarian pre-Fall both inside and outside the garden of Eden -- marine life was not necessarily vegetarian at any time.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Beastmaster,
You argue: Then what of the Bible’s other references to the word “paradise”? Speaking to the Good Thief, "Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.”

Unless you wish to argue that Jesus did not go to heaven after His death, you need to withdraw your assertion that “paradise” only referred to a perfect garden and not a state of perfection on earth or in heaven. Even Strong’s, the Protestant concordance of the Protestant King James bible refers to paradise exclusively in terms of the perfection of heaven.

As in analyzing literature or even a political document such as our constitution, we do not have the right to interpret words as we think they should be interpreted. We must submit to the interpretation meant by the author. For that, we must rely upon word usage. Ergo, I submit to you, the Bible’s usage of “paradise” is a state of perfection equivalent to heaven, not just a really neat garden. – Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

beastmaster

But the OT and NT were written by different authors, in different centuries, in different languages, using different words (even if they are translated into English the same), in different contexts, and -- inevitably -- signifying different meanings.

I'd like to call your attention back to Genesis 2:8 of the DRV translation which refers to Eden as a "paradise of pleasure." This suggests to me that Eden was a material paradise -- a land of milk and honey, a garden of opulence and abundance. When Christ refers to Heaven as a paradise, he means something different -- not a material paradise, but a moral paradise -- a moral state transcending the gulf between man and god.

I think you may be too hasty to equate the two "paradises."

And, significantly, none of the English-language *Protestant* Bibles uses the English word "paradise" to describe Eden in the context of Genesis. I think this supports my position that Eden is not a "paradise" in the same sense as Heaven.

VonEvilstein

Albert and Beast (can I call you "Beast"?), this is interesting stuff. Do keep it up - you have an audience of at least me for this debate.

Von E.

beastmaster

You may indeed call me beast, von evilstein, but I gotta go to bed. I got work tomorrow. Hopefully, Albert and I can take this up again tomorrow afternoon. But maybe we should be in a different forum ... ? I just realized that this thread is in E/C, not Bib Crit. Sorry mods.

Non-praying Mantis

Well, to keep this thread in Evo/Cre, let me interject a little science:

Technically, not every animal in the deep ocean aphotic (no light) zones eats other animals. The "base" of the food web (more complex and interrelated than a food chain, but similar) comes from the rain of organic material from above. This dead matter consists of plant and animal material, resulting mostly from dead phytoplankton (plant-like plankton) and part of it is dead animal material. Most animals in the aphotic zones then are detritivores, which eat this dead material. Larger animals eat the smaller detritivores, and so on.

NPM

johngalt

That show was pretty cool, but it just made me more confused. I believe in evolution, but i am by no means an expert on it.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Beastmaster,
You say: No. It supports the Protestant’s wobbly position on Original Sin.

It goes like this: if Adam and Eve were not perfect beings living in a perfect place, then their fall was not really a fall from a perfect state to our own imperfect state and can be seen more as a mistake rather than as a metaphysical rupture. Mistakes are made by the intellect and performed by the will. Ergo, their mistake act can be rectified with a simple countervailing act of our intellect and will known as a profession of faith. And the metaphysical necessity of sacramental baptism to undo Adam and Eve’s real fall from grace is seen as but a formality. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

GunnerJ

Given that we already have a discussion going on this, I'm merging the threads.