Feedback archiveFeedback 2018

Bodily functions and blue eyes in the pre-Fall world?

Published: 22 December 2018 (GMT+10)

Did Adam and Eve have normal bodily functions, like urination, defecation, and menstruation, before the Fall? Could people have developed blue eyes and lactose tolerance before the Fall, if they are ‘mutations’? Should our notions of beauty and disgust dictate what could’ve happened before the Fall? D.J. from Sweden writes:

You at CMI seem to think humans and animals had to defecate, urinate and menstruate before the Fall. I find this, at least as it’s working now, untenable. It simply is not “very good”, it’s disgusting. For instance, imagine having a puppy prefall, then it seems inevitable that it excretes in people’s houses. Also, women often find menstruation and pain in childbirth among the negative things about being a woman.

Menstruation is also negatively portrayed in the Bible.

You also seem to think men were not intended to have blue eyes, blond hair or to be lactose persistent. This further would imply we originate from an imperfect design. So many people, including me, enjoy dairy products. Saying people were not intended to have blue eyes or blond hair seems unacceptable to me, because it’s good. Of course, if these traits arose through intended mutations I have no problem.

Perhaps someone has some better solutions to these issues?

CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:

How should we think about what the pre-Fall world was like?

Bear in mind that thinking about the pre-Fall condition isn’t easy. We have no experience of what it was like, and we only have three chapters of Scripture that offer any information on what it was like. We clearly lack a lot of information. And I’m not even sure Adam and Eve would be very helpful in describing it, because the Bible gives the impression that the pre-Fall condition didn’t last very long (Why Bible history matters). The best we can do is to stick tightly to what the Bible tells us, and make the most reasonable speculations we can from that. Please bear that in mind as you read material on that topic on our website, and as you read what I have to say below.

Bodily functions and the pre-Fall world?

First, do we think defecation, urination, and menstruation had to happen before the Fall? No, it’s obvious that God could’ve arranged circumstances to make those things unnecessary. But did God have to make them unnecessary? That’s the real question. And to that we say no, God didn’t have to specially arrange the pre-Fall world to avoid the possibility of defecation, urination, and menstruation. Rather, we say that since they are normal bodily functions that are not explicitly ruled out from the pre-Fall world by Scripture, it’s far more likely than not that they did happen (or at least would’ve happened, given enough time) in the pre-Fall world.

But you say that they violate the “very good” condition of Genesis 1:31 because they’re disgusting. But is your personal disgust a good measure of what counted as “very good” in the Genesis 1:31? I don’t think so (Did Adam and Eve have to eat before the Fall?). If it was, then many animals people find disgusting (e.g. slugs) couldn’t have existed before the Fall. Rather, the pre-Fall world was “very good” in the sense of moral goodness and physical health and fecundity (Was God’s finished creation perfect?). After all, look at what the Fall introduced: evil, suffering, disease, death, uncertainty in food production (see also Was the Garden of Eden a ‘sanctuary’ from a hostile outside world?). The certainty of moral and physical health and fecundity was taken away, and replaced with uncertainty that ended ultimately in death. That of course doesn’t mean that the pre-Fall world was a generally disgusting place; far from it. But to say that there was nothing in the pre-Fall world that we might find disgusting goes well beyond the biblical scope of the Genesis 1:31 “very good” condition.

So, when we look at urination, defecation, and menstruation, what aspects of the biblically informed understanding of the pre-Fall “very good” condition do they violate? Nothing. They’re not evil. Any suffering, disease and death they might produce now wouldn’t have been an issue in the pre-Fall world. And they can even contribute to the ecological system, so they’re not necessarily a detriment to productivity.

Adam and Eve


But you raise a few specific issues about menstruation. First, you mention that most women experience some level of discomfort from menstruation. But not all women do, so why should we think they must have had discomfort pre-Fall?

Second, you mention that menstruation is portrayed negatively in the Bible. You would need to be more specific, though. Nakedness is also portrayed negatively in the Bible, but Genesis 2:25 makes that irrelevant to the pre-Fall condition. Adam and Eve were naked before the Fall without any shame, and this was a reflection of their innocence before the Fall. As for menstruation, the main way it’s portrayed negatively in the Bible is that it was ritually unclean in the Mosaic covenant. But why think that matters? Seminal emissions in ordinary sexual relations were also ritually unclean (Leviticus 15:18). Does this mean ordinary sex was prohibited or impossible before the Fall? Of course not! How could Adam and Eve have fulfilled their pre-Fall mandate to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28) if they couldn’t have sex? As such, ritual impurity by itself doesn’t make something contrary to the “very good” condition of Genesis 1:31. But ritual purity is the core way menstruation is portrayed ‘negatively’ in the Bible; any other negative portrayals of menstruation depend crucially on that. But if that’s irrelevant to Genesis 1:31, then the ‘negative’ portrayal of menstruation in the Bible doesn’t imply that it was absent from the pre-Fall world.

Nor is there any biblical evidence that menstruation was a part of the Curse. As Jonathan Sarfati writes in The Genesis Account (pp. 369–370):

In some circles, menstruation is referred to as ‘the curse’. There is no biblical evidence for this. But we can be sure that in a pre-Fall, “very good” creation, there would not have been any problems with pain, cramping, heavy bleeding, or endometriosis. Even today, most women’s cycles don’t interfere with their daily activities, and many women don’t have any menstrual pain.1

It’s possible that pre-Fall, women could have resorbed the endometrial lining completely as most non-primate mammals do. This is why overt menstruation is not observed in cats, dogs, sheep, cows etc. Even now, women resorb about two thirds of the lining. But the Bible doesn’t say. However, it’s logically deducible from the Bible that there would have been no pain before the Fall, menstrual or otherwise.2

What about childbirth pain? That was mentioned as part of the curse in Genesis 3:16. As such, either no pain in childbirth, or severely reduced pain in childbirth, would’ve been the norm in the pre-Fall world (see Childbirth pains and human consciousness, Pain in childbirth: result of the Fall or fear?, and Answering questions about the pre-Fall world).

DNA changes in the pre-Fall world

Do we think that humans weren’t intended to have blue eyes or persistent lactose tolerance? That doesn’t follow from saying that they arose through genetic changes. Not all genetic changes have to be bad (see Can mutations create new information?, and especially the section “What is a mutation?”). Even in the pre-Fall world, the human genome wouldn’t have been perfectly static (The four dimensional human genome defies naturalistic explanations). It needs a certain level of dynamism to it to perform its normal bodily tasks. In other words, genetic changes can be useful, even purposeful. Given that, it’s easy to envision a pre-Fall condition in which God allowed such changes to occur in the genetic code that produced persistent lactose tolerance or blue eyes, whether for purely aesthetic reasons or even useful reasons. Why not? Couldn’t God have providentially increased the beauty and productivity of His creation as we obeyed His mandate to “be fruitful and multiply”? For instance, consider Why reindeer eyes turn blue in winter. This is different from having permanently blue eyes, but it could provide some analogue for why God might allow blue eyes to arise in human populations even in a pre-Fall world; their eyes would have greater light sensitivity at higher latitudes, which would be helpful during winter.


There is so much about the pre-Fall world that we don’t know. As such, there is much we can only speculate about. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to expect that there is a high degree of physical continuity between the pre-Fall world and the fallen world. So, there’s no reason to suppose that the proper functioning of ordinary bodily functions was absent in the pre-Fall world. This would even include changes in DNA; the genome is designed to be dynamic. While DNA and bodily degeneration is bad, variety is the spice of life!

References and notes

  1. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists estimates that at least 85 percent of menstruating women have at least 1 PMS symptom as part of their monthly cycle. Most of these women have fairly mild symptoms that don’t need treatment. Others (about 3 to 8 percent) have a more severe form of PMS, called premenstrual dysphoric (dis-FOHR-ik) disorder (PMDD).” Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) fact sheet, Offce on Women’s Health, US Department of Health and Human Services, womenshealth.gov, accessed 26 November 2013.
  2. Experiencing pain is a good thing in today’s fallen world if your hand is getting too close to a fire and might otherwise get burnt. But it is clear that the anguish associated with debilitating pain would have been unknown pre-Fall. It’s likely that God’s sovereign upholding of His creation would have prevented harm coming to nephesh chayyāh that would produce the warning of horrific pain.

Helpful Resources

The Genesis Account
by Jonathan Sarfati
US $39.00
Hard Cover
From Creation to Salvation
by Lita Cosner
US $14.00
Soft Cover
Creation, Fall, Restoration
by Andrew S Kulikovsky
US $24.00
Soft Cover

Readers’ comments

David J.
Hopefully my last comment, in defense against Doyle who said my view, which I still prefer, that "very good" to mean in all ways is arbitrary. Since God is the creator, one should expect, unless well motivated, the world God creates to be flawless and nothing to criticize, especially when he calls it very good. And menstruation is still a flaw in my eyes and for many others, especially since it works for animals to resorb it. If disgusting things would be well hidden or so that they don't bother anyone, I'm ok with it, but as it works now it bothers me. That menstruation is normally associated with discomfort strengthens my idea that it does not originate from the very good condition. I also find Doyle's view reasonable even though I disagree.
Ron D.
May I correct Edmond C. regarding Adam & Eve's children. Adam was 130 when Seth (probably their third child) was born. [Gen 5 v3 and 4 v25]. Further comment; Cain and Abel were born before Seth. If they were 40 years old when they quarreled the expulsion of their parents from the Garden of Eden could have been up to 80 years after creation, not a mere 10 days or so.
David J.
Apparently, according to a science article (sciencedaily) on research by Dennis A. Savaiano, a specialist on lactose intolerance:
"His studies have found that by consuming smaller amounts of milk several times a day for three or four weeks, lactose-intolerant people can train their digestive systems to break down lactose."

Savaiano says: "The large intestines contain bacteria that help digest lactose. By altering the diet over time, bacteria more effectively digest lactose, making milk very well tolerated."

This solution seems acceptable to me, as long as he's right and it would mean moderate amounts of dairy products could have been theoretically consumed in the pre fall world condition. The lactose gene being almost completely deactivated, saving energy, could make sense since adults don't drink milk in relative quantities like babies and some adults don't want it.
Jeannette P.
Thank you for tackling this interesting and thought-provoking topic.

If dung beetles are a distinct created kind, and not changed their lifestyle since the Fall, they would certainly consider faeces "Very good", and continue to do a tremendous job of house-cleaning our world!

Cleanliness is obviously important when we perform certain bodily functions, but I think it is an insult to our wonderful Creator to suggest the Fall was responsible for the need to eliminate etc. In fact that attidude is a kind of Gnosticism.

When Jesus healed the man born blind (John 9) He spat on the ground - apparently to create eyes for him. In our culture that would be considered disgusting too. (imagine someone rubbing their spit on your face!)

At this season when we remember His coming, do we truly appreciate the fact that "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us"? Fully human, with all the "Very good" but "Disgusting" things that involves...
David J.
To clarify, by "corrupt seed" I meant the reason for original sin would be that we inherit the sinful nature, from both our parents, thus the seed must be corrupt (how else do we inherit it?). This could perhaps be why the origin of these sins is called "flesh", i.e. the flesh is sinful because it originates from the seed which is sinful. "The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity..." (Gal 5:19). If this "flesh" is or stems from our fallen bodies ("put to death the deeds of the body", Rom 8:13), it makes sense that God would ordain there not to be nakedness in the tabernacle, they were thus to cover the body (to "hide", symbolically, their sinfulness), and that's why Adam and Eve were clothed post fall.

I regret that I said I found your view on "good" was arbitrary, after I reread your answer, instead of taking it from what I remember you wrote. Yesterday I found the comment section was open, and wrote late when I was tired and I worried the comment section might be closed tomorrow, thus was done in haste.

Regarding lactose, it's also that I don't understand why God would create it so, since I expect optimality due to His character. It's not that it's needed, but I expected more diversity in food. If the lactose persistence arose through a "programmed" mutation I would be satisfied.

Merry Christmas!
Seth K.
Great article! Thank you! It answered many questions I've been pondering for some time. If answers can be given concerning the pre-fall world, it helps to better relate to what the new earth may be like.

Since you do not equate blue eyes with a negative mutation, or should I say, a mutation that would *only* happen post-fall, is it safe to say Jesus *could* have had blue eyes? I ask because Jesus is given blue eyes in the popular miniseries, Jesus of Nazareth 1977, and I figured that *if* Jesus had perfect genetic information, then he *must* have had brown eyes and mid-brown skin color. But if blue eyes and light brown skin tone could have been possible pre-fall, then it's also possible Jesus was accurately depicted with blue eyes and light brown skin(white) tone. Obviously, the Bible doesn't give much in the way of Jesus' physical appearance, so there's no point in being dogmatic. But it at least doesn't rule out the possibility of Jesus looking similar to his portrayal in movies like Jesus of Nazareth. Let me know if my logic is flawed in this regard. Thank you!
Shaun Doyle
Was it possible for Jesus to have blue eyes? If my speculation (and it is speculation; please don't take it as more than that) about the mutation for blue eyes works, then it's possible. But it's not likely. Most Jews likely had brown eyes, and Jesus was his mother's son (i.e. Jesus' zygote was likely formed (by divine miracle, of course) from on of Mary's eggs). Jesus most likely looks like an average Jewish man.
Terry D P.
One thing is certain: God clearly and unambiguously says in the Bible that life in the Garden of Eden, before Adam and Eve sinned, was much more idyllic and pleasant than it has been ever since.
Which begs the question:
What exactly is J.D. of Sweden rabbiting on about with pre-fall defecation and menstration?
Michael T.
Genesis 3:16a "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;".

- If conception was greatly multiplied, is it not possible the woman had reproductive control prior to the fall, and no menstruation?
Shaun Doyle
Unlikely, since it's unlikely that clause is saying that conceptions would increase. After all, Adam and Eve were commanded to multiply and fill the earth (Genesis 1:28). Clearly that was possible for them to do in the pre-Fall condition. Anyway, that clause likely sits in apposition to the next clause: "in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children". In other words, both clauses refer to the same reality: the woman's sorrow/pain whole birthing/childrearing process was greatly increased. Such parallelism is a common feature of Hebrew poetry, of which this passage is an example (in the context of the historical narrative of the Fall, of course; i.e. God's judgment oracle really happened, but His speech is in a poetical form).
David J.
I am the one who asked this question and I did not find my answer fully satisfactory. I find your "very good" to only be in a moral and suffer free sense, arbitrary. The most natural meaning would be very good in all ways, since no specifications are in genesis on its meaning, except for the obvious that satan has to exist there for God's purpose. Slugs could still exist, all slugs are not disgusting, some are beautiful.

Regarding menstruation being negatively portrayed in, I'd expect what's being unclean to be based on something which is in fact bad. So when you said seminal emission was unclean, that could be because the seed is corrupt (fallen DNA), which I intended to include in the original question but the message got too long. I don't know why certain animals were unclean, but would not think it's arbitrary (seems to be alot of carnivorous animals), maybe partly based on history from before Noah's days. I do not say the Bible rules out menstruation from the unclean passages (but perhaps strengthens the idea), however it does violate "very good" (and so does poop and pee), in my opinion.

I still find it unsatisfactory about lactose persistence if it just something that randomly turns on, as opposed to be designed to turn on in response to need. It should target those who use dairy products. This because God's design should be perfect.
Shaun Doyle
I didn't just say that the 'goodness' of the pre-Fall world involved a lack of moral evil and suffering. I also said it involved "physical health and fecundity". This this involves bodily functions working as they should, including our digestive system, and the female reproductive system. Nor is this arbitrary. I provided a biblically-based rationale for my understanding; we can measure what the good world looked like against the shape of the Curse on creation in Genesis 3. Your view of the pre-Fall 'goodness', however, is arbitrary. There's no basis for it in the biblical text, especially Genesis 1-3, and different things disgust different people (which was my point about slugs).

On menstruation being unclean because something is Genesis 1:31 'bad' about it, that's what I explicitly reject. Nakedness was bad for the priests in the tabernacle (Exodus 38:42), but wasn't a problem pre-Fall (Genesis 2:25). Unless you have biblical evidence that menstruation violated the 'very good' condition of the pre-Fall setting, there's no reason to regard it as bad, since it's part of a woman's normally functioning reproductive system.

On seminal emissions, notice how you have to add an extra premise that isn't found in the Bible to explain away the equivalence between it and menstruation? There's nothing about 'corrupt seed' in the sense of 'fallen DNA' in the Bible. Nor would that have made any sense to the ancient Israelites, who had no concept of DNA.

As to lactose persistence, why would we have needed it in a pre-Fall world? Was the vegetarian diet insufficient without milk? Even today, many people groups do just fine without consuming dairy products into adulthood. And as Jean L. points out, lactose intolerance is the default condition. Lactose persistence arose through mutation. I suggested God could've allowed lactose persistence to arise in the Genesis 1:31 'very good' condition, but there was no need for it.

At the end of the day though, the most important take-home point is this: "The best we can do is to stick tightly to what the Bible tells us, and make the most reasonable speculations we can from that." That's all I have tried to do. And again, you haven't shown that anything of what I've said violates that principle. So, while you don't find my answer fully satisfactory, I see no reason to change my views.
Norman P.
It's just occurred to me, there's another very wonderful aspect to all this. Last week, I organized a carol service at the bedside of a very sick relative. In choosing which to sing, the glory of the Incarnation of God in Christ came home to me afresh. Just savour these verses, for example, from Charles Wesley's wonderful 'Hark the Herald Angels Sing':
Come, Desire of nations, come,
Fix in us Thy humble home;
Rise, the woman’s conqu’ring Seed,
Bruise in us the serpent’s head.
Now display Thy saving pow’r,
Ruined nature now restore;
Now in mystic union join
Thine to ours, and ours to Thine.

Adam’s likeness, Lord, efface,
Stamp Thine image in its place:
Second Adam from above,
Reinstate us in Thy love.
Let us Thee, though lost, regain,
Thee, the Life, the inner man:
Oh, to all Thyself impart,
Formed in each believing heart.

I am reminded of Paul's words in 1 Cor 15: "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.'

How wonderful: that there's not only a restored creation (as when Jesus ministered to the sick and the broken-hearted on earth - including the woman with a longstanding 'hemorrhage'); but there's also a heavenly counterpart. 'So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. And it's a REAL BODY, too! Eg Jn 21:5
Edmond C.
I think when we talk about the perfection of the pre-fall world, we are talking about a perfect balance of God ordained natural processes. Waste from plant eating animals is actually good for the environment and therefore can easily fit into the pre-fall world. I believe that pre-fall Eve would most likely have still had cycles, but because they were designed to live forever, I believe that cycles may have been very spread apart. Presently a woman has a cycle about once a month, I don't think that would have been necessary for a woman pre-fall. I don't think there would have been the same level of discomfort either. One thing to consider is that Adam and Eve did not conceive a child before the fall, so we have to conclude the fall occurred right away, within days of creation, Adam and Eve did not have sex before the fall (unlikely, they were both naked and perfect), or Eve may not have reached her first cycle before the fall, which means perhaps her cycles were much longer periods of time. This also makes sense when you consider that Adam and Eve were 130 when they gave birth to Abel. The Bible records most of the pre-flood births at ages of near or over 100 for the men and presumably the women as well. It's very possible when you consider this that Adam and Eve may have been in the garden for several decades and perhaps even more than a century before the fall. To me this is a much better explanation of a fall within days of creation or Adam and Eve not having sex before the fall. God's command to be fruitful and multiply though would make it seem as if they were ready, but if they were not subject to death, 100 years really would not have been any worry and would have made sense in a paradise where Adam could get to know Eve before God gave them a first child.
Shaun Doyle
We think Adam and Eve had sex before the Fall, and thus most likely sinned before Eve's first cycle was over, since they were both fertile (Timing of the Fall). Of course, even perfectly fertile couples don't conceive every time the woman ovulates, so we can't be sure. But there's no reason to extend Eve's cycle length. For more on the timing of Cain and Abel, please see How old was Cain when he killed Abel?
Michael B.
Part of the problem is just our general (and mixed) understanding of our own word "good".
The ancient Hebrew word is "tov" whose most basic meaning is "functional" as in doing absolutely everything it was intended to do.
Contrariwise "ra", the word we translate as "evil" means "dysfunctional"... which would be not doing everything it was intended to do.
For myself, this understanding has greatly helped me in my own walk, not thinking my life in terms of "good and evil" in my modern mind set but as "am I living my life in the manner that God originally intended? In holiness and godly conduct... complete obedience to His Calling" or am I dysfunctional?
BTW... if I the word dysfunctional instead of evil when sharing the Gospel I've found that I get many more non-believers understanding what I'm saying in that they do understand the word dysfunctional.
Your Brother in Christ,
Doug L.
As far as elimination of bodily waste goes, if one eats then one must eliminate, pre-Fall or not. And Adam and Eve clearly ate. If they didn't eliminate by those two functions then pretty soon they'd wind up weighing a couple of tons. You can expel a small amount of water through respiration but no significant amount of solid mass. Also, did God change their anatomy and create kidneys, colons and other organs after Adam's sin!!! I don't think so.

What did they do for latrines? Who knows. I suppose droppings from all creatures were very quickly consumed and recycled into the environment by various insects and by bacterial action. Insects NOW can be filthy pests in our houses if left uncontrolled but that, I believe, is an artifact of the Fall. I suspect that God intended those creatures (such as cockroaches and ants) to be housekeepers in a perfect world, scurrying in to carry away crumbs, etc. So doubtless, they also had intended functions in a Garden of Eden setting.

As a point of information, note that Christ after his resurrection also ate! That should tell everyone a lot about our resurrection bodies and imply a lot about our pre-Fall bodies.
Dan M.
I can't think of a more efficient way to diversify life, (variation within kinds) on earth. It is the work of a infinite genius God to allow his genetic program to produce good mutations to vary colors and other body specifics like feathers to diversify the creation rather than create all versions of species of animal kinds static. For example, think of our excitement when seeing a particular variant of an animal species for the fist time. God, (in its original very good state) did not bring into existence a boring creation that much is for certain.
Blue eyes work just as well as brown or green eyes, do they not? It's about the design and function in a particular environment, right? Unless it is a bad, debilitating mutation, then it can be attributed to the fall and not a very good first design.
His creation amazes me. Even in its fallen state! I can't wait to ask about the specifics of the pre-fall world and the lives of the patriarchs!
Clifford R.
Ussher put the fall at day 10, realizing creation of everything was good and man very good, it stands for reason that man & woman were fully functional, adult and reproductive at creation.
I think Ussher’s date was modest, probably when flesh of my flesh ruled in Adam while the presence of God wasn’t near he became so enamored in his love for her that she easily manipulated his ability to reason well (the crux of the problem w any relationship between man & women where God is sidelined). Hormone secretion also adding to enticement one can begin to see “the fall” spelled all over the situation they found themselves in while God was resting from the six day work completed.
It’s far more speculative extending the fall to unknown limits and realizing very soon after creation helps put to rest so many suppositions & speculations.
Good reply Suan
Jean L.
At least in all cases studied thus far, lactose intolerance is the default condition in adults. There are several mutations in different people groups that can result in the enzyme lactase being produced past early childhood. With the original plant-based diet, there would be no dairy consumed to create a problem.
Paul R.
We do not know how much time elapsed between Adam's creation and the Fall. It may have been hours or days. If only a short time these questions do not arise. The first record of childbirth is post fall with the arrival of Cain. Pain in childbirth was a consequence of the Fall.
Erik O.
It's the first time I've seen a comment about this subject in Creationist writings. It's needed. Of course people wonder about this as about other things, but many hesitate to talk about it. I find the answer very good in focusing on what the Bible do tell us on the subject. Our bodies are, and seems also to have been, designed to function as they do today, basically, but as Shaun Doyle points out, in a better way than we experience today. We often connect bodily waste with pathogenic bacteria. But no microbes were pathogenic in the pre-fall perfect world. The diet would also have produced a different character of the waste. Thanks Shaun Doyle and CMI for your answer.
William M.
God could have made our bodies 100% efficient, with no waste. That seems very good to me.
Shaun Doyle
God could've done a lot of things that seem good to us. Still, we have to deal with what He actually did, and what He actually said in His word. That's the point of the article.
Wayne O.
I suspect the questions may not be answered accurately this side of eternity.

One passage to take into consideration is Deuteronomy 23:12-14.

In light of the knowledge that God walked in the garden on at least one occasion pre-Fall of man the question arises as to whether or where man defecated or urinated?
Shaun Doyle
Nor could a priest walk into the tabernacle with his nakedness exposed (Exodus 38:42), but that clearly wasn't a problem in the Garden of Eden before the Fall (Genesis 2:25). We can't make a one-to-one comparison between the pre-Fall world and the situation in Israel under and after Moses. I think there probably would've been designated places to 'go to the bathroom' even in the pre-Fall situation, but we don't know if it had anything to do with ritual purity.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.