>Nowhere does the Bible say there was no animal death before
>Cain's murder. Romans 5 speaks only of HUMAN death. Accepting
>evolution only requires accepting pre-human ANIMAL death.
So it's your contention then that through millions of years of death and evolutionary change in primates that the first human arose possessing eternal life only to forefeit said eternal life after the events in the Garden of Eden?
That's more absurd than a literal seven day creation story. That's quite a bit more absurd than classical evolutionary theory as well. As I said, attempts at merging the two viewpoints result in the weakest of all philosophical and theological viewpoints.
If the Garden of Eden story is an allegory, what is man's need for salvation?
If the Garden of Eden story is an allegory, at what point do you start accepting the book as real history? After Cain killed Abel? After the Flood of Noah? After Abraham? After Moses? Only the New Testament? Only the four Gospels? Only those parts of the four Gospels which you agree with (like the Jesus seminar?)? Only "Thou shalt not judge" (like many liberals and atheists??
Perhaps that illustrates the problem for you.
Oddly enough, this really only seems to be a widespread problem among Christians. You don't see many Hindus running around discounting the Vedas or Muslims running around editing the Qu'ran. One wonders why.
I am arguing that the Bible very clearly describes a creation without death before sin. And that plants do not die in the Biblical sense, they wither, being that they are without blood. Plants were originally created to be food for all animals and man.