92 replies to this topic

[Juliashmoolia]

Hi boys and girls

I have a question.

When Eve sinned, why did God punish the whole animal kingdom for her sin? In Gen 3, God said that because of her actions she would have a painful childbirth, but nature shows that humans are not the only ones that have a painful childbirth… as most animals suffer giving birth.

So why did God punish the animal kingdom for her sin as well as humans? Or did animals already have a painful childbirth? Or am I just missing something glaringly obvious...


Julia

[Fortigurn]

I don't see any evidence in Genesis 3 to indicate that the painful childbirth of any animals is the result of Eve's sin.

[Hyperion]

I don't think that many animals (if any) have painful childbirth. That seems to be a human condition alone, physically caused by our relatively large heads.

[R2D2]

Animals conceive a lot more easily than we do too! I've done a lot of personal study into fertility and it's amazing that we humans reproduce since as many as 60-70% of conceptions never make it to be babies because the human body is extremely fussy at allowing embryos to implant. Evolutionary scientists also believe that this is why man is so intellectually superior to animals because of this high rejection rate!

We are quite different to animals.

R2D2

[Hyperion]

R2D2, on Oct 21 2005, 08:08 AM, said:

Animals conceive a lot more easily than we do too!  I've done a lot of personal study into fertility and it's amazing that we humans reproduce since as many as 60-70% of conceptions never make it to be babies because the human body is extremely fussy at allowing embryos to implant. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is interesting since part of the punishment on the woman was to "multiply her conception", i.e. to make her more fertile and likely to have children. But despite that, we still are a lot less fertile than most animals.

[Sarah S]

Yeah - what is that about? NASB, ESV, NIV seem to interpret it as pregnancy/delivery rather than conception and give a completely different sense.

[scitsofreaky]

Hyperion, on Oct 21 2005, 05:16 AM, said:

I don't think that many animals (if any) have painful childbirth. That seems to be a human condition alone, physically caused by our relatively large heads.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How can you know that animals don't have painful childbirth? Have you asked a cow if it hurts? What humans look for as signs of pain, like facial expressions and screaming, aren't usually present in animals. Very few animals have faces at all. And crying out in pain would do more harm then good because the noise would attract the attention of any nearby predators. So, in regards to natural selection, it is in the animals interest to not make noise.

[Hyperion]

scitsofreaky, on Oct 21 2005, 12:11 PM, said:

Hyperion, on Oct 21 2005, 05:16 AM, said:

I don't think that many animals (if any) have painful childbirth. That seems to be a human condition alone, physically caused by our relatively large heads.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How can you know that animals don't have painful childbirth? Have you asked a cow if it hurts? What humans look for as signs of pain, like facial expressions and screaming, aren't usually present in animals. Very few animals have faces at all. And crying out in pain would do more harm then good because the noise would attract the attention of any nearby predators. So, in regards to natural selection, it is in the animals interest to not make noise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you suggesting that they do have painful childbirth?

Most animals don't even give birth.

Having witnessed enough farm animals and pets giving birth, as well as nature films it is obviously a much quicker, easier and less hazardous process than human birth. Most of these animals are also quite capable of demonstrating that they are in pain. I am surprised that you are questioning my statment above. In fact the high pain level and mortality of human birth is often cited as an evidence for evolution, as it is interpreted as poor design where the birth process has not yet caught up to the size of our heads.

[Suzie]

When it says 'in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children', do you think this is talking about only giving birth or the whole process of bringing up children?

[Hyperion]

Suzie, on Oct 21 2005, 03:14 PM, said:

When it says 'in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children', do you think this is talking about only giving birth or the whole process of bringing up children?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Both.

There is a great verse at the end of 1Tim 3 (I think it is v15?) where Paul takes the punishment on the woman and reverses it into a blessing. In that context the word "childbearing" seems to have the meaning of "child-rearing" and is used as an abbreviation for all aspects of the sisters role (it does not even require that a sister has children of her own to fulfil it).

[Dawn]

I think animals generally have an easier time than humans in birth - but not always(you only have to read vetinerary books for that or watch vetinary programmes - animals can have birth problems - breach births, and problems with after birth etc)

I've always thought of it that the animals did suffer as a result of BOTH Adam and Eve's sin because God cursed the ground, and the animals were created from the ground - so they came under that curse, which is why it says in Romans "The whole of creation groans for the sons of God to be revealed".

When the Sons of God are revealed the curse will be lifted/reversed.

[ksalzar]

The earth was not subject willingly though.

[Grace]

One obvious difference between humans and animals is that humans have a unique pelvis due to standing upright, which means a baby must twist and turn during the labour. On the other hand, virtually all animals have a straight birth canal, which contributes to a much easier birthing process.

That said (on a purely anecdotal level) I remember watching a few sheep lambing, and feeling sorry for them because they were obviously in pain. Groaning, unable to stand in one place, and looking pretty uncomfortable.

[scitsofreaky]

Hyperion, on Oct 21 2005, 01:08 PM, said:

Are you suggesting that they do have painful childbirth?

No, I'm suggesting that it is not easy to figure out if it is painful or not. Nothing more.

Quote

I am surprised that you are questioning my statment above.

I question everything.

Quote

In fact the high pain level and mortality of human birth is often cited as an evidence for evolution, as it is interpreted as poor design where the birth process has not yet caught up to the size of our heads.

I'm not trying to make an arguement for or against evolution. I was suggesting that perhaps animals have evolved to not make their pain obvious during childbirth so they don't attract attention. Just a possibility.

[Juliashmoolia]

scitsofreaky, on Oct 22 2005, 02:41 AM, said:

Hyperion, on Oct 21 2005, 05:16 AM, said:

I don't think that many animals (if any) have painful childbirth. That seems to be a human condition alone, physically caused by our relatively large heads.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How can you know that animals don't have painful childbirth? Have you asked a cow if it hurts? What humans look for as signs of pain, like facial expressions and screaming, aren't usually present in animals. Very few animals have faces at all. And crying out in pain would do more harm then good because the noise would attract the attention of any nearby predators. So, in regards to natural selection, it is in the animals interest to not make noise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well I only know what I’ve seen and that’s this: I once saw a cow break it’s leg and not blink an eyelid, it just kept eating grass and limping about with it's foot dangling behind it, but months earlier when the same cow was giving birth, it mooooed and moaned in agony and looked to be suffering quite a bit.

Plus there's all the david rabbitburrow doco's I've seen of animals in pain and distress whilst giving birth... It's pretty obvious in most of them that it's not exactly a pain free process.

Sarah S, on Oct 22 2005, 02:28 AM, said:

Yeah - what is that about? NASB, ESV, NIV seem to interpret it as pregnancy/delivery rather than conception and give a completely different sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, that's why I'm a little confused... after reading the different translations I'm not sure what the punishment was supposed to be.

Also, so Eve get's punished for her disobedience... why do we have to suffer becuase of that? Isn't that a bit unfair - punishing the whole human race becuase of one person's mistake?

[Tarkus]

Juliashmoolia, on Oct 24 2005, 12:35 PM, said:

Isn't that a bit unfair - punishing the whole human race becuase of one person's mistake?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At the time there were only two humans and they both made the mistake. Natural consequences follow as night follows day.

BTW how would you answer this question: isn't it a bit unfair to reward large numbers of humans because of one single person's righteousness?

T

[Tarkus]

Sarah S, on Oct 22 2005, 03:58 AM, said:

Yeah - what is that about? NASB, ESV, NIV seem to interpret it as pregnancy/delivery rather than conception and give a completely different sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To Eve

Quote

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;

Sorrow (pangs,pain hurt,effort) and conception. That these are related (and not two separate consequences) is shown by the next phrase:

Quote

in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children

The same word "sorrow" is also used to Adam

Quote

cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Ergo, the consequence of the curse is a painful travail, which is to be experienced by both man and woman in their respective roles.

T

[Adanac]

Juliashmoolia, on Oct 23 2005, 04:35 PM, said:

Also, so Eve get's punished for her disobedience... why do we have to suffer becuase of that?  Isn't that a bit unfair - punishing the whole human race becuase of one person's mistake?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The human race wasn't punished for Eve's disobedience. The human race suffers the effects of Eve's disobedience... and here's the $6,000,000 question: if any of us had been in Eve's position on that day would we have done anything different? Therein lies the answer to the conundrum.

[Juliashmoolia]

Tarkus, on Oct 24 2005, 01:38 PM, said:

Juliashmoolia, on Oct 24 2005, 12:35 PM, said:

Isn't that a bit unfair - punishing the whole human race becuase of one person's mistake?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At the time there were only two humans and they both made the mistake. Natural consequences follow as night follows day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm. I just think it’s unfair to tell them what the punishment is AFTER they’ve disobeyed… it seems to me the fair thing to do would have been to let them know what the punishment was going to be before they disobeyed beforehand, rather than just say ‘don’t touch the tree or else’.

It’s like me putting a lolly on the table and telling my 4 year old nephew that he’s not to touch the lolly. Then when I’m not in the room he eats it and it’s not until then I tell him ‘oh, and the punishment if you eat the lolly is YOU DIE’.

I knew that he’d probably eat it. Not only that, I also know that if I told him the consequences before I went out of the room, he wouldn’t have dared touch it.

Tarkus, on Oct 24 2005, 01:38 PM, said:

BTW how would you answer this question: isn't it a bit unfair to reward large numbers of humans because of one single person's righteousness?

T

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess you could say it’s ‘unfair’… but then, the ‘reward’ might not have been needed if the human race wasn’t punishment for someone else’s mistake in the first place.

I just don’t understand how the whole process is supposed to be fair. It’s seems the opposit to me.

If I buy a dog, do I expect and it to act like a cat? Do I want it to act like a cat? No! I know it’s a dog and I like it for it’s dog-like qualities. It would be unfair and silly of me to expect it to meow and catch rats and sit on top of fences.

I think that’s kind of how I feel about God. He made us like we are, he know’s what we’re like, and yet he expects us to act differently and will only reward us if we try to be different. And that just seems really unfair.


-J

[Flappie]

Erm, God said that the punishment was death before they ate of it.

[Adanac]

Juliashmoolia, on Oct 23 2005, 11:45 PM, said:

I think that’s kind of how I feel about God.  He made us like we are, he know’s what we’re like, and yet he expects us to act differently and will only reward us if we try to be different.  And that just seems really unfair.

There are a lot of things that seem unfair and wrong. I understand totally where you are coming from.

But if it's worth anything I have learned over the years the truth of the statement - "let God be true and every man a liar". Things seem one way to our fleshly minds, but experience tells us that what seems right is often very wrong...

[Fortigurn]

Juliashmoolia, on Oct 24 2005, 03:45 PM, said:

If I buy a dog, do I expect and it to act like a cat?  Do I want it to act like a cat?  No! I know it’s a dog and I like it for it’s dog-like qualities.  It would be unfair and silly of me to expect it to meow and catch rats and sit on top of fences.

I think that’s kind of how I feel about God.  He made us like we are, he know’s what we’re like, and yet he expects us to act differently and will only reward us if we try to be different.  And that just seems really unfair.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He doesn't ask for more than we are capable of. By the way, have you taken this to Him in prayer and searching of the Word?

[Dawn]

Juliashmoolia, on Oct 24 2005, 07:45 AM, said:

I think that’s kind of how I feel about God.  He made us like we are, he know’s what we’re like, and yet he expects us to act differently and will only reward us if we try to be different.  And that just seems really unfair.

-J

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I understand what you mean, but the Good News is that in Christ we are a new creation.

God knows that we are but dust (we are weak), and He knows that the human heart is wicked. I don't think it's so much a case of us TRYING to be different - because in one sense all the trying in the world will never earn us salvation.

Salvation is a free gift. But what new life in Christ means is self-sacrifice and self-denial: the Lord Jesus said "No-one who puts their hand to the plough, and looks back, is fit for the Kingdom of God". We can't keep looking back to the world. The Christian life IS demanding - very demanding, but God can give us strength in our weakness.

Another thing to remember - if you are Christ's THEN YOU ARE ALREADY HOLY: I started a thread a little while back on this subject. The fact that we accept Christ as our personal Saviour and are baptised into His Name means that God HAS IMPUTED HOLINESS TO US. Therefore, holiness is something which we already have, rather than something we have to struggle to get.

HOWEVER, we are of course called to holiness and live holy lives also. Again, it is balancing the Scriptures, and testing the tensions in Scripture. 1 John 3:9 says

"Whoever is born of God DOTH NOT COMMIT SIN; for his seed remins in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."

Now we all know that after we are baptised we all carry on sinning. I sinned badly after I was baptised because I lied about breaking bread with a non-CDN to two brethren and a sister. I sinned. But I reprented and I hope I wouldn't do it again.

It's as if we have TWO SEEDS (or two natures) in us: (1) the corruptible (fleshly) seed we inherit from our earthly parents, and (2) the incorruptible (holy) seed we are bestowed with when we become the Lord's.

The thing we have to do is to choose which nature we are going to build up: the fleshly nature or the spritual nature.

It is a question therefore rather of CHOICE, rather than trying.

I hope this helps!

[scitsofreaky]

Flappie, on Oct 24 2005, 01:54 AM, said:

Erm, God said that the punishment was death before they ate of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point, God never said anything about childbirth before they ate the fruit.

[Adanac]

Why are we calling these things "punishments"?

[scitsofreaky]

Adanac, on Oct 24 2005, 10:34 AM, said:

Why are we calling these things "punishments"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So pain isn't a punishment?

[Adanac]

No, it's a disciplinary measure to teach a principle that we can learn from.

[InChristAlways]

There is a woman mentioned in revelation as being in pain in labor to bring forth a child. I view this as a "new creation" being born, as Christ represented.

Quote

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone [is] in Christ, [he is] a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

Eve is also shown as the mother of ALL living. [an "fleash" antitype of the Jeruasalem above} Any thoughtas on the relation between Eve and the Woman in revlation 12? Thanks.

Quote

Revelation 12:1 Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars.    2  Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth.

Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

Gala 4:25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children -- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written: "Rejoice, O barren, [You] who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband." 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac [was,] are children of promise.

Edited by InChristAlways, 24 October 2005 - 08:21 PM.

[Adanac]

The pregnant woman in Revelation 12 could equally be that which should have been the chaste virgin (2 Cor 11) but has been up to no good.

Here's how I see Revelation 12 in relation to Genesis 3-4:

Woman - dragon (serpent) - birth of man child
Eve - serpent - birth of Cain

Cain was, spiritually, the son of the serpent. I believe the man child of Revelation 12 is too.

Eve declared of Cain "I gotten the man Yahweh" - the promised seed of the woman to bruise the serpent's head.

But he was a false deliverer.

So in Revelation 12 the man child promises to be a deliverer, appears to be Christ, but... turns into the blasphemous beast of Revelation 13 and there is a false delivery.

[InChristAlways]

Quote

There is a woman mentioned in revelation as being in pain in labor to bring forth a child. I view this as a "new creation" being born, as Christ represented.

Quote

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone [is] in Christ, [he is] a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

Eve is also shown as the mother of ALL living. [an "fleash" antitype of the Jeruasalem above} Any thoughtas on the relation between Eve and the Woman in revlation 12? Thanks.

Quote

Revelation 12:1 Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars.    2  Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth.

Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

Gala 4:25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children -- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written: "Rejoice, O barren, [You] who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband." 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac [was,] are children of promise.

Quote

But he was a false deliverer.

So in Revelation 12 the man child promises to be a deliverer, appears to be Christ, but... turns into the blasphemous beast of Revelation 13 and there is a false delivery.

Huh??? How is he caught up to God if he is a deceiver? The woman may symbolically be the "desolate woman" OC Jerusalem in Zion/aspiritual Egypt"?

Quote

Revelation 14:1 Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred [and] forty-four thousand, having His Father's name written on their foreheads. 

I viewed it more as "Michael", the deliverer of Daniel'as people [Daniel 12]l. Your view is one I never heard of until I came here but then, you could be right but doesn't quite sound right "biblically".

Reve 12:5 She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne.

Edited by InChristAlways, 24 October 2005 - 08:30 PM.