Here's the article:
Depends on who you ask — and both sides have legit arguments from Scripture. This is one of those questions where faithful, Bible-believing Christians have been going back and forth for centuries, so buckle up. The short version: young-earth creationists say zero existed before ate the fruit — not animals, not plants, nothing. Old-earth creationists say that's reading too much into it, and that point in Romans 5 is specifically about human spiritual death. The fossil record showing hundreds of millions of years of animal death is what makes this more than just a theological theory battle.
The Key Text {v:Romans 5:12}
Paul drops the foundational verse right here:
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned...
Young-earth readers say "death came through Adam's sin" = no death before Adam. Period. Full stop. The whole creation was in this perfect, deathless state, and the Fall broke everything.
Old-earth readers point out that Paul says "death spread to all men" — the context is human death, specifically the death-and-resurrection arc that Christ reverses. They argue Paul isn't making a statement about whether a lion ever ate a gazelle in Eden.
Both interpretations are grammatically defensible. That's why this has been a live debate, fr.
What Genesis Actually Says {v:Genesis 2:17}
God tells Adam:
...but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
The young-earth position: this implies death was new — something that hadn't existed before. Adam and Eve had never seen death, so the warning carried real weight.
The old-earth response: the death being threatened here is primarily spiritual separation from God — which is exactly what happened that day. Adam and Eve didn't drop dead physically the moment they ate; they were cut off from the presence of God and eventually expelled from Eden. Physical death followed later, yes, but the immediate consequence was relational/spiritual.
The "Very Good" Problem {v:Genesis 1:31}
Young-earth folks have a strong point here. After six days of creation, God looks at everything and calls it "very good." The argument goes: would a world full of predators, suffering, and death really be very good? That seems like a stretch.
Old-earth folks fire back: "very good" means perfectly fitted for its purpose, not "free from all animal death." A lion eating a zebra isn't evil — it's just how lions work. Romans 8 talks about creation groaning and being subject to futility, but that groaning might refer to humans dragging the natural order into chaos, not necessarily that animals were all herbivores before Adam sinned.
What's Actually at Stake
This isn't just an abstract debate. Here's why it matters:
- The nature of the Fall — Did Adam's sin break a perfect physical world, or did it break humanity's relationship with God (and through that, our role as stewards of creation)?
- The scope of redemption — If death is the enemy that entered through Adam, then Christ's resurrection defeating death is cosmically huge. That's not diminished by either view — both see the resurrection as the answer.
- Theodicy (why suffering exists) — Young-earth gives a cleaner answer: suffering is a consequence of sin. Old-earth has to explain why a good God would build a creation with billions of years of predation before humans even showed up.
The Bottom Line
No cap, this question doesn't have a clean resolution that'll satisfy everyone. What both sides agree on: Adam's sin was real, the Fall was real, death as humanity's ultimate enemy is something only Christ can fix, and the resurrection is the whole plot. Those are the load-bearing walls of Christian theology.
Whether a T-Rex died before the Fall? That one's still in the comments section. Stay humble, keep reading, and don't let secondary questions fracture fellowship over something neither Paul nor Moses felt the need to resolve explicitly.